0648-0773 Supporting Statement A

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) is requesting an extension of this standard collection of information.

The requested information will include different components of operating costs/expenditures, earnings, employment, ownership, vessel characteristics, effort/gear descriptors, and demographic information for the various types of fishing vessels operating in the 16 U.S. commercial fisheries or groups of fisheries listed below.

West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fishery
West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries
American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery
Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery
Hawaii Small Boat Fishery
American Samoa Small Boat Fishery
American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries
Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fisheries
USVI Small-Scale Fisheries
Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries
Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery
Golden Crab Fisheries in the U.S. South Atlantic Region
West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery
West Coast Swordfish Fishery
West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery
Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries

To make it easier for the public and other reviewers to focus on the responses for a specific fishery or set of fisheries and the associated information collection, we provide a separate set of 18 responses for each information collection. However, for responses that apply to the bundled information collection request as a whole, we present the full response for only the first information collection, indicate the response applies to all 16 collections and then only reference that response in the corresponding response for the other 15 collections, unless the response is very brief.

The responses for the 16 information collections are very similar to those in the Supporting Statement Part A, which OMB reviewed and approved 04/27/2022. However, NMFS updated the name of one collection to be consistent with Executive Order 14172, revised the sex/gender and race/ethnicity questions to be consistent with current OMB guidance, updated the data used to estimate the hourly wage rates, which are used in calculating annual wage burden costs, and updated the government cost estimates. In addition, due to uncertainty concerning the timing of funding to support each collection and exogenous shocks (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), which affect the feasibility and/or desirability of collecting data for a specific year, the schedule for each of the 16 information collections needs to be flexible. Therefore, NMFS no longer provides the exact year for each collection and the resulting reports it will support.

NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection

1.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. NMFS needs the economic data included in this information collection to be capable of more than cursory efforts to comply with or support the following laws, Executive Orders (EOs) and NOAA Fisheries strategies and policies, which require economic analyses^¹.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
EO 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
EO 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
EO 13840 (Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States)
NOAA Fisheries Guidelines for Economic Reviews of Regulatory Actions ²
NOAA Fisheries Priorities and Annual Guidance 2024³
NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Road Map ⁴
NOAA Fisheries National Bycatch Reduction Strategy ⁵
NOAA’s Catch Share Policy ⁶

There is explicit or implicit authority for the proposed information collections in each of those laws and EOs.

1.2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

This response applies to all 16 information collections.

How will the information be collected: An in-person, telephone or video call interview is the primary information collection method for 13 of the 16 information collections. A mail survey is the primary data collection method for the other three collections and it is an option for six information collections. Finally, e\responding on line is an option for three information collections. Table 1.2 presents the information collection method(s) by collection. Subsequent responses to collection specific questions in Parts A and B of the supporting statement provide explanations of why NMFS selected a particular information collection method or collection of methods for a specific collection.

Table 1.2 Information Collection Method(s) by Collection for Question 1.2.

Collection Name	Data Collection Methods
NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: in-person interview, telephone interview or mail
NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: in-person interview, telephone interview or mail
PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews
PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews
PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	Mailed survey with an online option
PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews
PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews
SEFSC: USVI F Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews
SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	In-person interviews with optional telephone interviews
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection	Mailed survey
SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection	Mail survey but option of in-person interviews if necessary
SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: a telephone or video call interview or mail
SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: a telephone or video call interview or mail
SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: mail, online survey, in-person interview
NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Respondents' options: mail, online, a telephone or video call interview

From whom will the information be collected: The information will be collected from owners/operators of active vessels, permit owners or other well-defined groups of fishermen or license/permit holders.

How will the information be used: NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) will use this information to monitor, explain and predict changes in the economic performance and impacts of 16 commercial fisheries. This will increase their ability to meet the requirements for economic analyses and to allow better-informed conservation and management decisions on the use of living marine resources and marine habitat in federally managed fisheries. The measures of economic performance include costs, earnings, and profitability (net revenue); productivity and economic efficiency; capacity; economic stability; the level and distribution of net economic benefits to society; and market power. The economic impacts include sector, community, or region-specific and national employment, sales, value-added, and income impacts. The efforts to monitor, explain and predict changes in economic performance and impacts are ongoing and contribute to the value of the information contained in regulatory analyses of current and proposed fishery conservation and management measures, stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) reports, as well as other technical and scientific reports that address changes in economic performance and impacts. As required by the MSA, the Scientific and Statistical Committee of each Council reviews the data and models used in the economic analyses NMFS or Council staff provide for the Council process. In addition, various advisory groups and the public review the results of such analyses. Appendix B contains references to the uses of the information to be collected.

What information will be collected: The following is a summary of the types of questions that will be included in the surveys and the need for each type of question. The questions asked for a specific fishery depend on a variety of factors including the availability of complementary information from other sources, fishery-specific fishery management issues, the history of the information collection program(s) for a fishery, and the historic or expected effects of a fuller suite of questions on response rates.

Question 1. Vessel Characteristics: Information on United States Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA and state identifiers is necessary to help identify specific vessels. While much of the information on physical characteristics such as hull type, tonnage, length, and engine power exists in other sources, these data are often outdated, missing or conflicting. Information on other vessel characteristics, such as engines, fuel capacity, electronics, and the difficulty in switching gears is typically not available from other sources. Vessel characteristics information is useful in assessing the ability and desire of these vessels to participate in a fishery and to make general decisions concerning harvesting plans given changes in regulations and environmental or market conditions.

Question 2. Ownership: Questions regarding ownership are necessary to provide linkages between seemingly independent entities. Often, individual vessels and post-harvesting facilities are treated as separate entities when in reality they are part of a larger company. Uncovering these linkages is useful to analysts in identifying small entities as defined by the RFA and in modeling the behavior of these vessels. In addition, these questions are useful in terms of demographic interest; however, evaluation of owner participation also plays a role in predicting whether marginal vessels will stay in business. For example, the owner of a vessel with zero or slightly negative net profits may decide to remain in the fishery if the owner is deriving a wage from personally operating a vessel. On the other hand, an owner who hires a skipper may be more likely to choose to exit the fishery under a similar circumstance. Finally, vessels with a wider species base, or vessels that are part of a larger company may be more capable of weathering a fishery downturn.

Question 3. Capital and Other Asset Costs: We designed this series of questions to provide information analysts can use to estimate market value and replacement costs of major existing assets, including limited entry permits and catch share privileges, and the economic life of these major assets. NMFS uses these values to calculate the economic opportunity costs of capital goods and other assets that it in turn uses to calculate net economic benefits to the nation of industry participation. NMFS also uses them for conducting financial analyses as required by the RFA.

Question 4. Fixed and Variable Costs: For a fishing vessel, fixed costs are expenses that generally do not vary with the level, type and location of fishing activities. They are fixed over the short-term but some of them may be eliminated if a vessel owner decides not to engage in any fishing activity for a period of time. Examples of fixed cost include payments for interest and principal, vessel and equipment maintenance, vessel moorage or storage or gear storage, overhead, insurance, licenses, and permits. Conversely, variable costs are expenses that vary with the level, type and location of fishing activities. Examples of variable costs include payments for crew, food, fuel, bait, and ice. Both fixed and variable costs are necessary to: (1) estimate the net value of participation in the fishery; (2) assess the expected changes in net benefits due to proposed management actions or changes in environmental or market conditions; (3) estimate the income, value added, sales, and employment impacts of a fishery or proposed management actions; and (4) assess, in combination with catch and revenue information, the relative importance and dependence of the vessel on harvesting versus other income producing activities of the vessel. The fixed costs must be allocated among the various activities of a vessel to estimate the net economic value of an activity. The variable costs can be used for allocating fixed costs between different activities, as well to model when expenses are incurred and when revenues are received. For some purposes, such as for estimating productivity or explaining and predicting changes in costs, we need information for both the quantities and price of an input purchased. Similarly, to explain or predict changes in payments to the captain and crew, we need information on the current crew share systems.

Question 5. Effort/Gear Descriptors: The analysts can use the responses to these questions for fishing vessels to describe and quantify fishing effort in terms of crew size and gear deployed. This information can be used in developing models: (1) to estimate efficient fleet size in support such activities as fleet reduction programs and (2) to monitor, explain and predict changes in fishing costs and employment.

Question 6. Catch and Revenue: Revenue information, in conjunction with cost information, is necessary to derive net economic value; and revenue information from each activity can be used to allocate fixed costs between different activities and as part of the assessment of relative dependence on the fishery. If it is not available from other sources, fish prices information is needed to help explain and predict changes in ex-vessel revenue. For fishing vessels delivering to fish handling facilities, questions about revenue are important to capture end-of-year settlements or in-kind payments not reflected in the trip level data (e.g., fish ticket, logbook and dealer report data). For fishing vessels delivering to motherships, these questions are particularly important because, with few exceptions, there are no trip level records for at-sea landings. Information on revenue from other fisheries is needed because of similar deficiencies in trip level data, and lack of access to confidential information for fisheries in some states. In addition, if the respondents calculate their net income based on their other answers and the result is out-of-line with their experience, they may stop to consider whether they have answered the preceding questions on costs and revenue correctly and entirely. Further, if respondents provide previously calculated net income without checking for consistency, or if analysts compare the reported values with trip level revenue information where available, analysts may derive a result different from the survey responses alerting them to some degree of incompleteness in either the survey or the responses to the questions.

Question 7. Opportunity Cost of Capital: The responses to these questions are used to calculate net economic benefits to the nation of industry participation, to determine alternative uses of capital under the existing regulatory environment, and to determine potential new uses of capital given changes in regulations and environmental or market conditions.

Question 8. Regional Impact: One assumption generally made in assessing the community or regional economic impacts of a fishing vessel is that all of its crew live in the coastal area of the vessel's homeport and spend most of their related earnings in that area. Similarly, current models assume most other expenses for the vessel occur in the port where fish are landed. However, given the ownership of multiple fishing vessels, vessels that operate out of multiple ports, and geographically mobile vessel crews, these simplifying assumptions may be erroneous. The additional information solicited in these questions is necessary to provide the ability to more accurately estimate the magnitude and geographic distribution of economic impacts.

Question 9. Labor and Demographics: NMFS uses this information to: (1) estimate the effects of fisheries and proposed fishery management actions on the fishing community; (2) determine alternative uses of capital and labor under the existing regulatory environment; (3) determine potential new uses of labor in light of regulatory change and changes in environmental or market conditions; and (4) determine general community employment. Income-related questions will allow a systematic assessment of the degree to which individuals are engaged in and dependent on fishing-related activities while questions on age, ethnicity, language and education will give social scientists a better grasp of issues related to socio-cultural background and specifically highlight potential issues, such as mobility, vulnerability and marginalization. Especially in small-scale fisheries, the fishing business and the household are often intricately entwined, making household demographic/labor questions critical to understanding the fishery.

Question 10. Other: There are also questions concerning the following: 1) business strategy (e.g., fishery entry and exit and choice of fishing methods), 2) factors that affect fishing success, 3) distribution and marketing, 4) future fishing conditions, 5) fisheries management priorities, 6) impacts of exogenous factors (e.g., COVID-19) on fishing activities, and 7) attitudes or preferences. We need the answers to these questions to understand the general business climate in which these vessels operate, to assess the bargaining and buying/selling strategies at various levels of the distribution chain and to understand any unusual factors that have substantially affected the economic performance and impacts of the fisheries. Understanding these factors helps to distinguish between changes associated with fisheries management and other factors, including synergistic or cumulative effects of the general economy; it greatly aids in predicting and interpreting changes in their output prices and input costs; and it is particularly important because each information collection is conducted only once every two to seven years.

Control and protection of the information: For all 10 types of information, NMFS will retain control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See the response to Question 1.10 for more information on confidentiality and privacy. NMFS designed the information collection to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Although the information collected is not expected to be disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management, technical or general informational publications. Should NMFS decide to disseminate the information, it will be subject to the quality control measures and pre-dissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.

Frequency: For all fisheries, except the American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands small boat-based fisheries (an econ add-on to a creel survey), NMFS will collect the information at most only once during the three-year collection period approved by OMB. NMFS will collect the information for two or three years at a time for all five West Coast fisheries and, with one exception, it will collect information for one year at a time for the other fisheries. The exception is the American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands small boat-based fisheries, for which NMFS will collect information several times each year from the same respondents.

Data sharing: NMFS will share summaries of the data and the results of its use with other organizations inside or outside the Department of Commerce or the government. NMFS will not share data from individual respondents unless it determines that there are adequate mechanisms and agreements to protect the confidentiality of the data from individual respondents.

Collection requirement changes over time: The overall collection requirements have not changed. .

1.3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For the West Coast limited entry groundfish fixed gear fishery, the data collection does not involve the use of automated, mechanical or other technological techniques. Previous efforts by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) have revealed that the telephone interviews and in-person interviews used in this collection are not well suited for electronic submission of responses. In prior efforts, the interviewers that are anticipated for this collection have encountered numerous difficulties with electronic devices, which interfere with quickly recording responses. Similar difficulties this time could extend the length of the interview, which would further burden the interviewees and result in incomplete surveys. However, we do plan to make the OMB approved survey instrument available online on the NWFSC website for outreach and information purposes. A report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available on the NWFSC website once the data collection and analysis are completed.

1.4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We reviewed the existing literature and consulted PFMC staff, members of the PFMC’s Groundfish Management Team, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife staff, and NMFS Western Regional Office staff who maintain the contact information for limited entry (LE) permit holders, regarding the availability of data for the survey population. We could not find any indication that our effort is duplicative of any work conducted since the last survey conducted by the NWFSC in 2023.

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

Most of the business entities in this information collection are small businesses. To increase efficiency and reduce the respondent’s burden, we send out a copy of the survey with a cover letter, which will inform the respondent about the types of information (financial records, etc.) needed to complete the survey. The respondent will then have the option to complete the survey over the phone, or in-person, whichever is easiest for them. Mail responses are unlikely but would be included in the sample. For those that choose to complete via in-person interview or phone, we intend to have a collection team of personnel who have been working with fishermen to complete these surveys since 2005, assisting with seven commercial fishery data collections. The personnel knowledge of how to handle individual situations will aid in reducing small business respondent burden.

1.6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. Not conducting these collections or conducting them less frequently would have the following adverse cascading effects. It would decrease the ability of NMFS and the Councils to effectively monitor, explain and predict changes in the economic performance and impacts of federally managed commercial fisheries. That would prevent more than cursory efforts to comply with or support a variety of laws, Executive Orders and NOAA Fisheries strategies and policies, which require economic analyses. That would limit their use of a well-informed, science-based approach to the conservation and management of living marine resources and marine habitat in federally managed fisheries. There are no technical or legal obstacles to reducing the information collection burden.

1.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. This information collection is voluntary. Therefore, it does not require respondents to: 1) report information to the agency; 2) prepare a written response; 3) submit any document; 4) retain any records; or 5) submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information. NMFS has demonstrated that it has instituted procedures to protect information confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. This information collection is in connection with a statistical survey that is designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study. This information collection uses statistical data classifications reviewed and approved by OMB. This information collection includes a pledge of confidentiality supported by disclosure and data security policies, which are consistent with the pledge and which do not unnecessarily impede sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use.

For all but the West Coast limited entry groundfish fixed gear fishery, NOAA collects information regarding an individual’s race. NMFS can use race to identify vulnerable communities that could be impacted by regulatory alternatives and issues related to socio-cultural background, particularly in commercial fisheries with diverse backgrounds. Hence, race may be useful when analyzing economic impact on communities due to conservation and management measures as required under National Standard 8 of the MSA [MSA Section 301(a)(8))]. Information collections involving a question on race follow the OMB Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.

1.8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden

The first two paragraphs of this response apply to all 16 fisheries. A Federal Register Notice published on January 24, 2025 (Vol. 90, No. 15) solicited public comments. The one individual who provided comments in response to the FRN provided the following five comments in support of the proposed revisions and extension of this information collection.

For each of the 16 fisheries, the success of a similar survey several years ago, as well as consultation with fishermen and others familiar with the fishery, indicate that there should be no issues regarding the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and reporting format, or the requested data elements.

1.9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

1.10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. The survey forms will contain the following language:

We appreciate the confidential nature of the data being collected by this survey. NMFS will handle individual survey data as confidential business information and a form of protected personal information and will maintain the confidentiality of the information consistent with legal authorities available to it, including but not limited to the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552a) and the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1905). NMFS will protect individual survey data from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law and it has instituted procedures to provide that protection.

COMMERCE/NOAA Privacy Act Systems of Records 6 and 19, Fishermen’s Statistical Data and Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries, respectively, cover the information collected for these fisheries.

There are approved Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for each of the surveys in this collection and the applicable PIA will be cited in the set of responses for that collection. The NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4600, Northwest Fisheries Science Center Network (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4600-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved_Delegated.pdf).

1.11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. One potentially sensitive question included in several of these information collections is household income. Household income can be an important indicator of household economic resiliency and can be an important factor to consider when evaluating regulatory alternatives. For example, all else being equal, a regulation that disproportionately affects low-income households may be less preferred than one that more widely distributes economic impacts. In addition, combining respondents’ household income information with home address data can be used to construct an indicator on community economic resilience, which may be useful when analyzing economic impact on communities as required under National Standard 8 of the MSA [MSA Section 301(a)(8))]. The steps to be taken to increase the response rates for this question include: 1) providing a similar explanation of the use of that information to potential respondents 2) collecting this and other demographic information directly from each individual -- not via the individual's employer, and 3) ensuring potential respondents that such information will be treated as confidential.

The other potentially sensitive question included in several of these information collections is race. NMFS can use race to identify vulnerable communities that could be impacted by regulatory alternatives and issues related to socio-cultural background, particularly in commercial fisheries with diverse backgrounds. Hence, race may be useful when analyzing economic impact on communities due to conservation and management measures as required under National Standard 8 of the MSA [MSA Section 301(a)(8))]. Information collections involving a question on race follow the OMB Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.

For the West Coast limited entry groundfish fixed gear fishery, we do not have a question pertaining to race.

1.12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

Response for all 16 Information Collections

The information in Table 1.12 is for all 16 fisheries. For the hourly wage rate for respondents, we used $37.33, which is the average of the US national hourly mean wage rates for 1) Ship and Boat Captains and Operators ($45.42 occ_code 53-5020) and 2) First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers ($29.23, occ_code 45-1011). These wage rates are for May 2023, the latest period for which data are available. We used the average for those two occupation codes for three reasons. First, there is not an occupation code specifically for the captains of fishing vessels. Second, the equivalent of an hourly wage rate varies among fisheries and captains. Third, we think the average of the two hourly mean wage rates is a reasonable proxy for the captains of commercial fishing vessels. We note any exceptions to the use of that hourly wage rate in the response for individual fisheries.

The estimate of the burden per response is based on consultation with fishermen and others familiar with this fishery. We provided opportunities for comments on that estimate in similar previously conducted surveys and in the 60-day Federal Register Notice for this information collection and received none. Unless noted otherwise, we do not expect the hour burden on respondents for a given fishery to vary widely. With one exception^⁷, NMFS will not conduct theses information collections annually. Depending on the fishery, the plan is to conduct them every 3 to 8 years. However, because any number of things, including changing fishery conditions and management concerns, can affect the appropriate frequency of a survey for a specific fishery, NMFS is requesting approval to conduct each survey as frequently as every 3 years. To allow for this flexibility in determining the frequency of each of 15 surveys, which are not ongoing each year, we calculated the annual burdens and costs of each of those information collections as if we planned to conduct it every 3 years. This means that the actual burdens and costs will be less than the estimates if we do not take advantage of the option to conduct them every 3 years. This statement applies to the burden and cost estimates in Tables 1.12 -1.15.

Response for This Information Collection

As discussed in Question 1.1 of Supporting Statement B, the NWFSC has conducted five previous economic cost earnings surveys of the limited entry fixed gear fleet. Based on these prior efforts, we expect a 55% response rate for this survey. With a survey population of 130 vessels, this implies 72 survey respondents for this information collection or 24 per year over the three years because the plan is to conduct the survey only once over the three-year period. The vast majority of respondents in the prior collection efforts run in the one-hour range and we estimate that, prior to the interview, two hours are needed for the respondent to compile financial records. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 216 hours or 72 hours per year. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated 3-year total and average annual wage burden costs are $8,063 and $2,688, respectively.

Table 1.12 Estimates of the Number of Respondents and Burden.

This table represents the burden for the full 3-year period of this collection. The totals have been annualized at the end of this table. The annualized numbers were used for the table at Q15 and the annualized totals are consistent between tables 12 and 15.

Information Collection	Type of Respondent (e.g., Occupational Title)	Total # of Respondents (a)	Total # of Responses/ Respondent (b)	Total # of Responses (c)=(a)x(b)	Burden Hrs/ Response (d)	Total Burden Hrs (e)=(c)x(d)	Hourly Wage Rate (for Type of Respondent) (f)	Total Wage Burden Costs (g)=(e)x(f)
NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	72	1	72	3	216.0	$37.33	$8,063
NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	453	1	453	3	1359.0	$37.33	$50,731
PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	8	1	8	1	8	$26.73	$214
PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	126	1	126	1	126	$33.98	$4,281
PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	352	1	352	0.75	264	$33.98	$8,971
PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	50	1	50	0.75	37.5	$26.73	$1,002
PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection (an add-on to each of three creel surveys)	Commercial Fishing Captains	155	8.0	1,236	0.17	206.0	$26.73	$5,506
PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	215	1	215	0.75	161.3	$26.73	$4,310
SEFSC: USVI Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	253	1	253	1	253.0	$37.33	$9,444
SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	1,230	1	1,230	1.00	1230.0	$37.33	$45,916
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection (main survey)	Commercial Fishing Captains	465	1	465	0.5	232.5	$37.33	$8,679
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection (non-response survey)	Commercial Fishing Captains	32	1	32	0.08	2.7	$37.33	$100
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection (both surveys)	Commercial Fishing Captains	497	1	497	0.47	235.2	$37.33	$8,779
SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	6	1	6	0.5	3.0	$37.33	$112

SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	91	1	91	3.0	273.0	$37.33	$10,191
SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	49	1	49	0.5	24.5	$37.33	$915
SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	100	1	100	1.1	108	$37.33	$4,032
NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	Commercial Fishing Captains	749	1	749	0.75	562	$37.33	$20,970
3-YEAR TOTALS		4,406		5,487		5,066		$183,438
ANNULA TOTALS		1,469		1,829		1,689		$61,146

* Codes Used: Ship and Boat Captains and Operators ($45.42 Occupational Code 53-5020) and First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers ($29.23, Occupational Code 45-1011). These wage rates are for May 2023, the latest period for which data are available. We used the average for those two occupation codes.

1.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

This response applies to all 16 information collections. There are no capital/start-up or ongoing operation/maintenance costs associated with this information collection. Respondents will use envelopes with prepaid postage for any information collected by mail.

1.14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The following paragraph applies to all 16 information collections. NMFS employees at each of five Science Centers will have federal oversight, data collection, analysis, report writing, and administrative responsibilities for these information collections. We estimated the costs of meeting those responsibilities at each Science Center based on the following: 1) the pay grade of each NMFS employee with those responsibilities; 2) an estimate of the percentage of each employee’s time needed to meet those responsibilities and 3) an estimate of the loaded salary for each employee. We generated the loaded salary estimates using a Center-specific activity planning and budget system. We estimated the costs of the contracts to administer the surveys based on the costs of similar current or recent contracts. Table 1.14.1 provides a summary of those costs for all 16 information collections and the costs for the NMFS Office of Science and Technology for a NMFS employee who provided oversight and for the contractor who assisted in preparing this information collection request (ICR). The estimated total cost incurred by the federal government by implementing these information collections is $2,701,174, which averages $900,391 per year over the three-year authorization period for this bundled package of information collections. The response for each collection provides a detailed breakdown of those costs for that information collection.

Table 1.14.1 Summary of Federal Government Cost Estimates for All 16 Information Collections.

Information Collection	3-Year Totals	Annual Totals
NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection	$120,297	$40,099
NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection	$123,768	$41,256
PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	$142,230	$47,410
PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	$142,230	$47,410
PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	$79,279	$26,426
PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	$152,553	$50,851
PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection (an add-on to each of three creel surveys)	$50,277	$16,759
PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	$143,926	$47,975
SEFSC: USVI Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	$98,160	$32,720
SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	$149,440	$49,813
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection	$168,560	$56,187
SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection	$161,600	$53,867
SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection	$78,548	$26,183
SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection	$78,548	$26,183
SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection	$85,879	$28,626
NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	$915,881	$305,294
Office of Science and Technology, Economic and Social Analysis Division	$10,000	$3,333
GRAND TOTALS	$2,701,174	$900,391

Table 1.14.2, provides the detailed breakdown of those costs for this information collection.

Table 1.14.2 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-3	$173,548	2%		$3,471
Data collection/analysis	ZP-3	$173,548	12%		$20,826
Contractor Cost					$96,000
3-YEAR TOTAL					$120,297
ANNUAL TOTAL					$40,099

1.15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

The annualized numbers for each information collection were used for the table at Q15 and the annualized totals are consistent between tables 12 and 15.

Table 1.15 Estimates for Question 1.15.

Information Collection	Respondents/Year		Responses/Year		Burden Hours/Year		Reason for change or adjustment
Information Collection	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision	Current Renewal / Revision	Previous Renewal / Revision	Reason for change or adjustment
NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection	24	30	24	30	72	90	Decreased population
NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection	151	150	151	150	453	450	Increased population
PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	3	5	3	5	3	5	Decreased population
PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection	42	42	42	42	42	42	No Change
PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	117	167	117	167	88	125	Decreased population
PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	17	17	17	17	13	13	No Change
PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection (an add-on to each of three creel surveys)	52	200	412	480	69	80	Decreased population
PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection	72	66	72	66	54	50	Increased population
SEFSC: USVI Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	84	54	84	54	84	14	No Change
SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	410	410	410	410	410	410	No Change
SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection	166	166	166	166	78	78	No Change
SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection	2	2	2	2	1	1	No Change
SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection	30	30	30	30	91	91	No Change
SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection	16	16	16	16	8	8	No Change
SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection	33	20	33	20	36	20	No Change
NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection	250	280	250	280	187	280	Decreased population and response time
Total for Collection	1,469	1,655	1,829	1,935	1,689	1,756
Difference	-187		-106		-67

1.16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we anticipate the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support publicly disseminated information. NMFS designed the information collection to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Information in tabulation form will be disseminated to the public in a NOAA Technical Memoranda similar to Lian (2010, 2012a). 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. When writing final reports and publishing the findings of this research, tabulations of individual responses will occur at a high enough level of aggregation so that data for no single individual can be identified.

In addition to the summary of these data in a Technical Memoranda, the data gathered will be used to address a wide range of issues important to the West Coast Regional Office, PFMC, and WA, OR, and CA state fish and wildlife agencies. The Input-Output Model for Pacific Coast Fisheries (IO-PAC) (Leonard and Watson, 2011), will utilize these data. It is used by the PFMC to estimate the economic impacts of fisheries biannually for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and annually for the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report for ocean salmon fisheries. In addition, the PFMC uses the IO-PAC model to assess numerous other prospective management changes that are expected to impact commercial fishing effort. It has been applied in several peer-reviewed studies (Kaplan and Leonard 2012; Seung et al. 2014; Leonard and Steiner 2017; Richerson et al. 2018; Hodgson et al. 2018). Before the IO-PAC model is used in the fishery management process, it (together with the data collected described herein), will be reviewed by the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the PFMC.

Due to uncertainty concerning the timing of funding to support each collection and exogenous shocks (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), which affect the feasibility and/or desirability of collecting data for a specific year, the schedules for this collection and the other 14 collections, which are not ongoing each year, need to be flexible. Therefore, we do not provide the exact year for each collection and the resulting reports it will support. The timeline for this data collection is as follows.

Data collection period: Sept. - Nov. 202X.
Technical Memoranda creation: Begin Feb. 202X+1.
Incorporation of data into IO-PAC: Completed April 202X+1.

1.17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

This response applies to all 16 information collections. Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

This response applies to all 16 information collections. NMFS certifies compliance with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).

NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection

2.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

2.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

2.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

See response 1.3 above, it applies to this information collection too.

2.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We reviewed the existing literature, spoke with PFMC staff, members of the PFMC’s Groundfish Management Team, and staff from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. We could not find any indication that our effort is duplicative of any work conducted since the last survey conducted by NWFSC in 2014.

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

Response 1.5 applies to this information collection too.

2.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

2.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

2.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Response 1.8 applies to this information collection too.

2.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

2.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The NWFSC: West Coast Open Access Groundfish, Non-tribal Salmon, Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4600, Northwest Fisheries Science Center Network (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4600-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved_Delegated.pdf).

2.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections. For the West Coast open access groundfish, non-tribal salmon, crab, and shrimp Fisheries, we do not have a question pertaining to race.

2.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

See Table 1.12 for burden hour estimates for each of the 16 information collections and response 1.12 for the source of the average hourly wage rate we used to estimate total annual wage burden costs for this fishery.

As discussed in Question 2.1 of Supporting Statement B, the NWFSC has conducted four previous surveys of the open access fleet in this collection. Based on prior efforts, we anticipate an overall response rate of 45%. The population consists of 1,935 commercial fishing vessels. Of these, we intend to sample 1,006 vessels. This implies 453 total respondents or 151 per year over three years because we plan to conduct the survey only once over a three-year period. The vast majority of respondents in the prior collection efforts run in the one-hour range and we estimate that, prior to the interview, two hours are needed for the respondent to compile financial records. Therefore, the estimated respondent burden is 453 hours per year or 1,359 hours for the 3-year period. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated 3-year total and average annual wage burden costs are $50,731 and $16,910, respectively.

2.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

2.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 2.14.2 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-3	$173,548	4%		$6,942
Data collection/analysis	ZP-3	$173,548	12%		$20,826
Contractor Cost					$96,000
3-YEAR TOTAL					$123,768
ANNUAL TOTAL					$41,256

2.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

2.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The first part of response to Question 1.16 applies to this information collection too. The timeline for this data collection is as follows.

Data collection period: May – July 202X.
Technical Memoranda creation: Begin Sept. 202X.
Incorporation of data into IO-PAC: Complete Nov. 202X.

2.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

3. PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection

3.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

3.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

3.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, we will conduct in-person interviews. As noted in the response to Question 1.3, in-person interviews are not well suited for electronic submission of responses. However, we do plan to make the OMB approved survey instrument available online on the Pacific Island Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) website for outreach and information purposes. A report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available on the PIFSC website once the data collection and analysis are completed.

3.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2

We contacted the American Samoa Division of Marine and Wildlife Resources and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to inquire about any upcoming data collection efforts; none of them has planned data collection initiatives dealing with fishing expenses, fishing income, and other socioeconomic aspects of the American Samoa longline fishery in the coming years.

A literature review was conducted to find studies that collect boat-based cost-earnings data in the for the American Samoa longline fleet and the literature on this topic are all outdated (see Appendix B for past studies). Although PIFSC started implementing a longitudinal survey to collect fishing trip cost data on the American Samoa longline fishery in 2006 in collaboration with the NOAA Observer Program (Pan, 2018) it is restricted to a few basic fishing cost items at the trip level (OMB Control No: 0648-0593). This proposed information collection of cost-earnings data will allow us to evaluate fishers’ profitability and document fixed costs, labor costs, and levels of investment. Since the last cost-earnings study of the American Samoa longline fishery was conducted in 2017, we propose updating our knowledge of economic conditions of small boat fisheries in these areas in 2026 (based on 2025 operations) by renewing the previously approved cost-earnings survey of American Samoa longline fishery.

3.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

We will use several methods to minimize burden. Participation in the survey is voluntary, and interviews will be conducted at times and places that are convenient for fishermen. This will minimize any potential disruption to fishermen’s fishing practices. The interviewer is trained to request permission to do a survey. If a fisherman refuses to participate in the interview or if the interviewer senses a fisherman does not want to provide data, the interviewer will terminate the interview immediately and thank the fisherman for his/her time.

3.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

3.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

3.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

Prior to preparing the survey instrument OMB approved in 2022, we consulted with the Pelagic Fisheries Ecosystem Scientist Mark Fitchett at the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) and Chief Fisheries Biologist Domingo Ochavillo at the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. Mark Fitchett responded by email on May 2, 2020 and Domingo Ochavillo responded by email on May 12, 2020. Table 3.8 records their specific responses.

Table 3.8 Specific consultant responses concerning the American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery survey

	Responses from Mark Fitchett	Responses from Domingo Ochavillo
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	Yes, I think the data for the survey is readily available.	Yes. Most of the questions can be answered right the way. Some questions like vessel purchased date need to look into the records or their documents.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	I think the frequency of the surveys is sufficient – however, I would suggest amending frequency in response to any regime changes in the fishery – like when gear changes occur over a rapid period of time or if there is an economic event that impacts the islands. Right now the fishery is experiencing a reduction in effort, catches, and political obstacles	I think so. It is adequate for every five or six years
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	Yes.	Yes. OK.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 60 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	Yes. Some may take a long time to respond due to poor record keeping, but 60 minutes is ample time.	I think so.
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported?	The status quo is sufficient.	Need to keep in mind of the “Less than three” confidential rule, only report in summary (at least sum or average of three vessels or above).

To address the comment to amend frequency of the surveys in response to any regime changes in the fishery, we have requested approval to conduct the survey as frequently as once every 3 years if necessary. In addition, we will consider conducting a separate socioeconomic study about the fishery if some significant changes in the fishery occur and urgent economic analysis becomes necessary.

3.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

3.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

3.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

3.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. Based on feedback from past respondents and others familiar with this fishery, we expect that on average it will take a respondent one hour to complete it. As discussed in Question 3.1 of Supporting Statement B, we expect to receive 8 completed surveys. Because wage rate data are not available for American Samoa and only limited data are available for Guam, we used the Guam average hourly wage for Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations and Motorboat Operators, which was $26.73, as the wage rates in the U.S. Territories in the Pacific Islands Region. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 8 hours or 2.7 hours per year. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $26.73 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated wage burden cost is $214 for the 3-year period or $71 per year (see Table 1.12).

3.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

3.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 3.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP4	$244,459	50%		$122,230
Contractor Cost					$20,000
3-YEAR TOTAL					$142,230
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL					$47,410

3.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

3.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we expect to implement the data collection in the first half of 2026 (January to June). We expect to complete the data analysis by the end of 2027. We will publish the results as a NOAA technical report in the third quarter of 2028 and it will be available on the PIFSC website.

3.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection

4.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

4.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

4.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, we will conduct in-person interviews, which are not well suited for electronic submission of responses. However, we do plan to make the OMB approved survey instrument available online on the PIFSC website for outreach and information purposes. A report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available on the PIFSC website once the data collection and analysis are completed.

4.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted the State of Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to inquire about any upcoming data collection efforts; none of them has planned data collection initiatives dealing with fishing expenses, fishing income, and other socioeconomic aspects of the Hawaii longline fishery in the coming years.

A literature review was conducted to find studies that collect boat-based cost-earnings data in the for the Hawaii longline fleet and the literature on this topic are all outdated (see Appendix B for past studies). Although PIFSC started implementing a longitudinal survey to collect fishing trip cost data on the Hawaii longline fishery in 2005 in collaboration with the NOAA Observer Program (Pan, 2018) it is restricted to a few basic fishing cost items at the trip level (OMB Control No: 0648-0593). This proposed information collection of cost-earnings data will allow us to evaluate fishers’ profitability and document fixed costs, labor costs, and levels of investment. Since the last cost-earnings study of the Hawaii longline fishery was conducted in 2023, we propose updating our knowledge of economic conditions of small boat fisheries in these areas in 2028 (based on 2027 operations) by renewing the previously approved cost-earnings survey of Hawaii longline fishery.

4.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

We will use several methods to minimize burden. Participation in the survey is voluntary and interviews will be conducted at times and places that are convenient for fishermen. This will minimize any potential disruption to fishermen’s fishing practices. Because a portion of Hawaii longline vessels owners are Vietnamese and Korean, the PIFSC will hire Vietnamese and Korean translators to conduct interviews, to minimize the language barrier and burden on non-English speaking fishermen. Interviewers are trained to request permission to do a survey. If a fisherman refuses to participate in the interview or if the interviewer senses a fisherman does not want to provide data, the interviewer will terminate the interview immediately and thank the fisherman for his/her time.

4.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

4.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

4.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

Prior to preparing the survey instrument OMB approved in 2022, we consulted with the Hawaii Longline Association Executive Director Eric Kingma, and the Vietnamese Interpreter Chelsea Tran who conducted interviews for the last Hawaii longline survey. Eric Kingma was interviewed by NMFS Supervisory Economist Justin Hospital on May 1, 2020, and Chelsea Tran responded by email on April 24, 2020. Table 4.8 records their specific responses.

Table 4.8 Specific consultant responses concerning the Hawaii Longline Fishery survey.

	Responses from Eric Kingma	Responses from Chelsea Tran
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	YES. This survey has been implemented a number of times over the years and the questions are relatively consistent. We have met with NMFS staff to improve question design.	Yes, with some explanations. If the interviewee is the owner, he/she is more likely able to answer economic related questions.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	YES. Probably should collect this data every 5 years, that seems like a reasonable period to capture any major changes. It has probably been too long right now, 3 years maybe be too often.	It is somewhat “thin” (as far as what I learned from the last surveys, there were so many changes in the industry which might impact on general dynamic of longline industry in Hawaii).
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	YES. I think the past survey forms have been clear on how to answer the questions. They have also collected data in-person in the past which allows for clarifications.	As long as language use should not be too “academic”. Interpreter/supervisor had to give examples for better explanation.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 60 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	YES. That’s probably reasonable, maybe a bit of a conservative estimate. Guidance to the fishermen in advance of the survey, to help them know what questions are being asked, can allow them to do some pre-work, gather their paperwork and would probably allow them to answer the questions quicker.	At the beginning of the cost-earning survey, it took me roughly an hour or even more to get done with one survey. But when I got myself familiar with the questions, it was about 40 to 50 mins per interview. I've been working with several projects for Hawaii longline fishery, I feel like if the questionnaire is not too long, people are more willing to talk. But it depends, sometimes if I "catch" people at the right time, they are willing to talk as long as I want.
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported?	I think you are asking the right questions and I think people are generally honest about their responses. We find the reports to be helpful.	From what I remember from that study, the terminology used was not so "friendly", the part that took time in that survey was to explain what does it means by this or that. People are easy to be confused with technical terms. I feel like the more simple language is used, the faster the survey will be.

4.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

4.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

4.11 Describe Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

4.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

NMFS plans to conduct a census for 150 vessel owners and operators once during the next three years. It expects that the response rate will be 84% and that on average it will take a respondent one hour to complete the survey. Those expectations are based on the average response rate from the past four similar surveys and feedback from past respondents and others familiar with this fishery. Wage rate data for commercial fishing vessel captains are not available for Hawaii. Therefore, we used $33.98, which is the Hawaii average hourly wages for First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers and Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels, to approximate the hourly wage rate for respondents. With a $33.98 average hourly wage for respondents, the estimated wage burden cost is $4,281 for the 3-year period or $1,427 per year (see Table 1.12).

4.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

4.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 4.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP4	$244,459	50%		$122,230
Contractor Cost					$20,000
3-YEAR TOTAL					$142,230
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL					$47,410

4.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

4.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we expect to implement the data collection in the second half of 2028 until the end of 2028. We expect to complete the data analysis by the end of 22029. We will publish the results as a NOAA technical report in the third quarter of 2030 and it will be available on the PIFSC website.

4.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection

5.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

5.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

5.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, we will conduct the survey using mail and Internet. Because email addresses are available for almost all of the target population (see response to Part B, Questions 5.1) and small boat fishermen, in general, are technology savvy as they are required to submit their monthly catch reports electronically to the Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, we will have an option for the respondents to answer the survey online, using a unique login name for survey access. If fishermen choose not to fill out the survey online, we will provide the hard copy of the survey via mail and they can return the survey by using the pre-paid return envelope. We do plan to make the OMB approved survey instrument available online on the PIFSC website for outreach and information purposes. A report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available on the PIFSC website once the data collection and analysis are completed.

5.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We have contacted the local fishery agency, Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources, to inquire about their upcoming data collection efforts and they are not planning any data collection initiatives dealing with fishing expenses, fishing income, and other socioeconomic aspects of Hawaii boat-based fisheries in the upcoming years. In addition, there are no other divisions in the PIFSC that have done or plan to collect cost-earnings data of Hawaii small boat fishery. Because the last cost-earning data collection was done in 2021 (for 2020 operations), with the results summarized in Chan (2023), we propose updating our knowledge of economic conditions of the Hawaii small boat fishery in 202X (based on 202X-1 operation) by renewing the previously approved cost-earnings survey of this fishery.

5.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

We will use several methods to minimize burden. We will conduct the survey through mail and online methodology and participation in the survey is voluntary. If a fisherman does not want to participate, he/she can simply disregard the survey.

5.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

5.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines,

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

5.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

We consulted with the Pelagic Fisheries Ecosystem Scientist Mark Fitchett at the WPRFMC, and James Barlow, who is a small boat fisherman in Hawaii who responded to the last Hawaii small boat economic survey. Mark Fitchett responded by email on May 1, 2020 and Jamie Barlow responded by email on April 24, 2020. Table 5.8 records their specific responses.

Table 5.8 Specific consultant responses concerning the Hawaii Small Boat Fishery survey.

	Responses from Mark Fitchett	Responses from James Barlow
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	Yes, I think the data for the survey is readily available	I believe that I had to estimate the best I could given that I did not have my records in front of me. But in general I did my best to answer them.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	I think the frequency of the surveys is sufficient – however, I would suggest amending frequency in response to any regime changes in the fishery – like when gear changes occur over a rapid period of time or if there is an economic event that impacts the islands.	I think doing the survey would be best if it was done every 5 years. That way we had a solid frequency and also could capture trends of the changing fishery. If we go more than 7 years we miss seeing those micro scale changes
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	Yes. It is pretty explicit.	I don’t completely recall all the questions from the 2014 survey, but I believe the survey was clear. However, asking fisherman to estimate trip expenses and yearly expenses is often really difficult to accurately do if they don’t keep good records. So a lot of guess work is possible.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 45 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	I think that it is doable is much less than 45 minutes. Some individuals may take more time if they have records to consult with.	I think it took me about 35-40 min, and that seemed reasonable.
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported?	I think the way that data is disclosed and recorded is sufficient.	I think all the questions were fine, being mindful to not be too invasive in their personal finances is important; and I think the survey did a good job of skirting around that.

Because we agree with the comment that it would be best if this survey were done every 5 years and that it should be done at least every 7 years, we plan to conduct this survey at least every 7 years but have requested approval to conduct it every 3 years when appropriate.

5.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

5.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

5.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

5.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

5.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

5.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 5.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$244,459	1.92%		$4,701
Contractor Cost (administer survey)					$40,000
PIFSC Grantee support (survey development, data processing and quality control, report writing, and brochure development)					$34,578
3-YEAR TOTAL					$79,279
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL					$26,426

5.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

5.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we expect to implement the data collection in the second half of 202X until the end of 202X. A brochure summarizing the results will be developed for outreach and timely dissemination of survey results to the fishing community and fishery managers in mid-202X+1. We expect to complete the data analysis by the end of 202X+1. We will publish the results as a NOAA technical report in the third quarter of 202X+2 and it will be available on the PIFSC website.

5.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection

6.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

6.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

6.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

6.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted the local fishery agency, American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR), to inquire about their upcoming data collection efforts and they are not planning any data collection initiatives dealing with fishing expenses, fishing income, and other socioeconomic aspects of boat-based fishery in the upcoming years.

Although the PIFSC started a longitudinal survey to collect fishing trip cost data in American Samoa in 2009, it is restricted to a few basic fishing cost items like fuel cost, ice cost, cost of bait and chum, and cost of fishing gear lost (OMB Control No: 0648-0773). This proposed information collection of cost-earnings data in the American Samoa will allow us to evaluate fishers’ net revenues/losses and provide an indicator of the economic health of the fishery. Because small boat fishing in the American Samoa includes a large subsistence component, the information collected will also allow us to evaluate how the subsistence value of fishing offsets any potential losses from commercial fishing operations. Because the last data collection was done in 2021, for 2020 operations (Dombrow et al., 2023), we propose updating our knowledge of economic conditions of the small boat fishery in American Samoa in 2028 (based on 2027 operations) by renewing the previously approved cost-earnings survey of that fishery.

6.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

We will use several methods to minimize burden. Participation in the survey is voluntary and interviews will be conducted at times and places convenient for fishermen. This will minimize any potential disruption to fishermen’s fishing practices. The PIFSC will contract with a local fisheries staff or outside contractor with local community connections and Samoan language proficiency to conduct interviews, to minimize the language barrier and burden on non-English speaking fishermen. The interviewer is trained to request permission to do a survey. If a fisherman refuses to participate in the interview or if the interviewer senses a fisherman does not want to provide data, the interviewer will terminate the interview immediately and thank the fisherman for his/her time.

6.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

6.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

6.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

We consulted with the Island Fisheries Ecosystem Scientist Marlowe Sabater at the WPRFMC, and the boat-based creel survey manager Tepora Toliniu Lavata’i. Marlowe Sabater responded by email on May 1, 2020 and Tepora responded by email on May 14, 2020. Table 6.8 records their specific responses. We are confident that these observations still hold true.

Table 6.8 Specific consultant responses concerning the American Samoa Small Boat Fishery survey.

	Responses from Marlowe Sabater	Responses from Tepora Toliniu Lavata’i
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	Yes. I believe the fishermen are comfortable enough to provide accurate economic information. With enough outreach and direct interaction, fishermen are willing to provide that information.	Some but not all the information is readily available when these surveys are conducted.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	For American Samoa, the frequency is probably adequate given how small the territory is with its economic situation mostly dependent on grants and aid. However, it is difficult to make a valued judgement given we have not tried doing it at a finer temporal scale.	I think the survey should be conducted every 3 or 5 years instead. A lot can happen in 7 years. At this point, you could be interviewing fairly new fishermen/women and you’ve lost a portion of the participants that have been fishing longer.
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	Yes. Since the data collection involved a knowledgeable interviewer, one can explain the question and elaborate on some unclear responses. For American Samoa though, it would be good to have a Samoan translation since they are mostly traditional compared to other areas.	It would be dependent on how the surveyors conduct the survey.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 45 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	Yes. Samoans relied on oral history to carry out their culture and tradition over several centuries. 45 minutes is sufficient and that it just a talk story session from their POV.	I think you would need up to an hour per participant to complete the survey. There is a lot of information expected to recall on fishing activities throughout the year, especially the financial portion of the survey.
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported?	The survey is capturing the pertinent information needed for a thorough analysis.	The survey gives a general idea of the fishing activities and the investment by fishermen and women in the small boat fishery. There isn’t much in the survey that reflects the importance of the small boat fishery to the fishermen/women by determining the value of what is lost when he/she is not fishing and why. The cultural aspect should be reflected throughout the survey as well.

To address the comment that the estimated interviewing time per respondent would be up to an hour, we will make sure the interviewers will have proper training to get familiar with the questionnaire before conducting the interviews, so that the interviewing process will go faster.

6.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

6.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: American Samoa Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

6.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

6.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

6.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

6.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 6.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP4	$244,459	3%		$7,334
Federal Oversight	ZP3	$173,976	3%		$5,219
Contractor Cost:					$75,000
Survey Contract Award					$75,000
PIFSC Grantee support (survey development, data processing and quality control, report writing, and brochure development)					$65,000
3 YEAR TOTAL					$152,553
ANNUAL TOTAL					$50,851

6.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

6.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we expect to implement the data collection in the first half of 2028. We expect to complete the data analysis by mid-2029. We will publish the results as a NOAA technical report in the first quarter of 20230 and it will be available on the PIFSC website.

6.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection (an add-on to each of three creel surveys)

7.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

7.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

7.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, the proposed data collection of fishing expenses data will be conducted through a voluntary, in-person intercept interview methodology, the same method that is used by the boat-based interview of the creel survey. The data are collected in conjunction with the catch and effort data that are already being collected in the Boat-based Creel Survey in the three island areas. The Boat-based Creel Survey includes two sub-surveys (more details at https://inport.nmfs.noaa.gov/inport/item/5612): 1) a Boat-based Participation Count to collect participation data around the island, and 2) a Boat-based Access Point Survey. The Boat-based Access Point Survey collects two types of data during a randomly selected survey date at the selected port, including a Boat-based Boat Log that logs all the boats going out and coming back and a Boat-based Interview that intercepts fishermen after their fishing trip about the catch and effort information, the species composition, the percentage of catch that is sold. The data collected are then expanded to estimate total landings by gear type for these three areas. The boat-based interview (Access Point Survey) is voluntary and in-person. Our trip-level economic survey is an add-on to the Boat-based Interview Form for the Access Point Survey. Given the long history of the creel survey program, the collection of the trip expenses data is also voluntary and in-person. The data collection does not involve any use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information technology. The economic data collection is an add-on to the boat-based in-person interviews and the data are recorded manually on the paper survey. As the fishing expenses data is for that particular fishing trip, it is effective (better economic scale) to obtain the fishing expenses at the same time with the boat-based in-person interview. Interviewers will not use laptops or other computers to directly enter the answers being provided because the interview location is usually near the water.

We do plan to make copies of the OMB approved survey instrument available online for outreach and information purposes.

7.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted the local agencies that support the Boat-based Creel Survey programs in American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI to inquire about their upcoming data collection efforts; none of them planned any new data collection initiatives dealing with trip-level fishing expenses of boat-based fisheries in the upcoming years. The Boat-based Creel Survey programs are organized by the local agencies in partnership with the WPacFIN, which is housed within the PIFSC. The participating agencies include the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR), the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), and the CNMI government Department of Lands and Natural Resources’ Division of Fish & Wildlife (DFW).

The periodical cost-earnings survey on the same population is scheduled in 202X based on 202X-1 operation. The cost-earnings study is intended to have a snapshot on the vessel level economic performance for the small boat fisheries, instead to track the dynamic trend of key economic indicators.

Compared with the one-time cost-earnings study described above, the trip-level continuous data collection program is unique because it is 1) an on-going, long-term and trip-based data collection project, 2) focused only on a few major trip expense items, 3) concurrent with the data collected from the creel survey, 4) cost saving since it is done by adding on an existing continuous data collection program. If we were to start a new trip-level continuous economic survey program independently from the creel survey, the cost to administrate two separate surveys is much higher than the proposed survey/project (see response in Question 7.14 for cost). In addition to the cost saving, additional economics of scale can be achieved when collecting trip cost data in conjunction with the creel survey as this allows the linkage of trip cost data with trip efforts and trip revenues data collected in the creel survey and therefore enhances the use of information and economic analyses as mentioned in Question 7.2.

7.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Fishermen censuses suggest that most commercial fishing operations are owner or family operated small businesses. We will take several steps to minimize the burden to these small businesses. First, following the same sampling method as the Boat-based Interview portion of the creel survey, interviews are conducted only on the randomly selected sample dates when fishermen finish their fishing trip. Second, the participation in the survey is voluntary. Interviewers are trained to request permission to do a survey. If a fisherman refuses to do the survey or if the interviewers sense a fisherman does not want to provide data, the interviewers will terminate the interview immediately and thank the fisherman for his/her time. Third, only five major trip expense items and one question about engine type are asked, with the actual time to complete the questions be between 5 to 10 minutes.

7.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

7.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines,

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

7.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

We consulted with the three creel survey data managers in each of the island areas, to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, on the data elements to be recorded and on the accuracy of the burden estimates. All managers gave very positive responses to the current on-going program.

For CNMI, the fishery data specialist Jude Lizama was contacted by email and he replied on March 5, 2020. For American Samoa, the boat-based creel survey manager Tepora Toliniu Lavata’i was contacted by email and she replied on April 3, 2020. For Guam, the offshore biologist Thomas Flores, Jr. was contacted by email and he replied on March 30, 2020. The table below records their specific responses.

	Jude Lizama (CNMI)	Tepora Toliniu Lavata’i (American Samoa)	Thomas Flores (Guam)
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	Yes, fishermen were able to answer all economic information requested.	Yes, economic information is readily available when we conduct our program surveys.	Yes, the fishermen are able to answer the economic information requested.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	Yes, collection frequency is adequate since they are almost always collected during boat-based creel surveys.	Yes, the information provided by fishermen is adequate.	When I work a creel survey, the frequency of collection is low because most fishermen I interview are in a hurry once our creel questions are asked.
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	Yes, fishermen understood what they were being asked.	We have trained data collectors that ask fishermen the questions on the survey. The fishermen clearly understand the meaning of these questions. Further explanation is provided if fishermen do not understand.	Yes.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 10 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	Collecting all data (e.g. catch, economic, and FAD) takes approximately 10 minutes depending on the amount of catch. The time it takes to collect economic data takes less than two minutes since straightforward questions are being asked. I think these are reasonable.	The time allocated for economic information for every fishing trip is enough to gather all the information needed.	Ten minutes is not reasonable. 1-2 minutes (are sufficient).
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded?	I believe they sufficiently fulfill the objectives of economic data collection since they are brief and clear enough for fishermen to provide and for staff to record and enter.	I think the information gathered paints a holistic picture of the fishing trips and how much the fishermen invest in every trip.	The fishermen expenditure data we collect is just descriptive of what they spend to go on a fishing trip. Because the data is for NOAA, I’m assuming the data elements are OK since this is what NOAA requested for.

To address the comment that the estimated interviewing time per respondent (ten minutes) is “not reasonable”, we contacted Thomas Flores about this and he clarified that usually the interviews took much less than 10 minutes because the survey only has a few trip cost items, some interviews took only 1-2 minutes to complete the questions while a few cases took longer, depending on the fishermen.

7.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

7.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

7.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

7.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

Of the 16 information collections addressed in this information collection request, this is the only one for which respondents participate in each of the three years and multiple times per year. . As discussed in Question 7.1 of Supporting Statement B, we estimate the annual number of respondents, number of responses per respondent, and total responses in each area, based on the average number of responses to the economic surveys in Guam (2013-2023), CNMI (2011-2023), and American Samoa (2011-2023). The number of respondents in each area is estimated based on the average number of unique boats interviewed in economic surveys in each island areas. The number of responses per participant is derived from the average number of interviews conducted at different trips during different times of the year. Table 7.1 in Supporting Statement B shows the average number of respondents (boats) and the average number of responses (trips) to the economic surveys in the three island areas. We anticipate the same 155 fishermen will respond each year and complete 412 economic surveys per year for a 3-year total of 1,263. At and 10 minutes per survey, the estimated 3-year total and annual burden hours are 206 and almost 69, respectively. Using a $26.73 average hourly wage^¹⁰, the corresponding wage burden costs to respondents for the collection are $5,506 and $1,835 (see Table 1.12).

7.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

7.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 7.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$244,459	1.92%		$4,701
PIFSC Grantee support (survey development, data processing and quality control, report writing, and brochure development)					$45,576
3 YEAR TOTAL					$50,277
ANNUAL TOTAL					$16,759

7.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

7.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, the information collection is an add-on to an ongoing creel survey that collects trip effort and catch data. We will publish a summary of the collected data on the PIFSC website to show the trends of fishing expenses. On an annual basis, we will include these economic data in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) reports for the WPRFMC. We plan to publish a NOAA technical report summarizing the longitudinal results in 2024 and it will be available on the PIFSC website.

7.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection

8.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

8.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

8.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, the proposed data collection does not involve the use of any of the above information technology techniques. The data collection will be conducted through a voluntary, in-person survey methodology because no existing contact information or permitting systems are available for most of the active fishermen and in-person surveys in the past have received high response rates and support from the fishing community.

We do plan to make a copy of the cost-earnings survey instrument for Mariana Archipelago small boat fishery available for outreach and information purposes.

8.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted local fishery agencies: Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), and CNMI government Department of Lands and Natural Resources’ Division of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) to inquire about their upcoming data collection efforts; none of them have planned data collection initiatives dealing with fishing expenses, fishing income, and other socioeconomic aspects of boat-based fisheries in the upcoming years.

A literature review was conducted to find studies that collect boat-based cost-earnings data in the Marianas and literatures on this topic are all outdated (see Appendix B for past studies). Although PIFSC started implementing a longitudinal survey to collect fishing trip cost data in Guam and the CNMI in 2011 and 2009, respectively, it is restricted to a few basic fishing cost items like fuel cost, ice cost, cost of bait and chum, and cost of fishing gear lost (OMB Control No: 0648-0773). This proposed information collection of cost-earnings data in the Marianas will allow us to evaluate fishers’ net revenues/losses and provide an indicator of the economic health of the fisheries. Because small boat fishing in the Marianas also includes a large subsistence component, the information collected will also allow us to evaluate how the subsistence value of fishing offset any potential losses from commercial fishing operations. Since the last cost-earnings study of the Marianas small boat fishery was conducted in 2018/2019, we propose updating our knowledge of economic conditions of small boat fisheries in these areas in 202X (based on 202X-1 operation) by renewing the previously approved cost-earnings survey of Mariana Archipelago small boat fishery.

8.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Small boat fishing in Guam and the CNMI include owner or family-operated small businesses. To minimize burden, the survey will be conducted through in-person surveys at community meetings where fishermen will be in attendance, and for those who are not able to attend the community meetings, interviews will be conducted at times and places that are convenient to fishers. This will minimize any potential disruption to fishers’ fishing practices. Participation in the survey is voluntary. If a fisher does not want to participate, he/she can simply decide not to participate in the in-person interview. In addition, we intend to follow the survey strategy that was successfully implemented and received high response rates in the Marianas during the Marianas Archipelago small boat cost-earnings survey conducted in 2011 (Hospital and Beavers, 2012, 2014) and 2018/2019 (Dombrow et al., 2024). A contractor with good connections with the local fishing communities will administer in-person surveys and considerable groundwork will be done within the community prior to the survey implementation to get a good understanding of fishery participation levels. The survey instrument for this study will be a slightly shorter version (fewer questions) than the one that was used in the cost-earnings study conducted in 2011 (Hospital and Beavers, 2012, 2014) to minimize burden. The drop in the number of questions is due to outdated socioeconomic issues, e.g. questions related to Marianas Trench Marine National Monument and impacts to fishing trips due to military exercises, and questions that were not essential to the socioeconomic aspects of the fisheries, e.g. number of hours in a fishing trip, seasonality for pelagic fish, bottomfish, and reef fish.

8.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

8.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

8.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

We consulted with two persons who have experience with the previous survey implementation in Marianas, to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, on the data elements to be recorded and on the accuracy of the burden estimates. These include Clayward Tam from the Pacific Islands Fisheries Group, an organization that assisted with the data collection in 2011 and 2018/2019, and Felix Reyes who is the WPRFMC Guam Island Coordinator that helped to implement the survey in 2018/2019. Clayward Tam was interviewed by phone by Justin Hospital on March 20, 2020 and Felix Reyes responded by email on April 9, 2020. The table below records their specific responses.

	Responses from Clayward Tam	Responses from Felix Reyes
Q1. Do you think the economic data in the survey are readily available?	We [Pacific Islands Fisheries Group] assisted in collecting the data for the Marianas economic fishing survey in 2011 and 2018. The community received advanced notice of the survey and the type of information that would be asked, so most were able to complete the surveys rather easily. I don’t think we can get this information from anywhere else.	Yes. When I did the surveys for Guam the interest by fishermen to participate was high and only had a couple of declines but that's due to the fishermen being busy prepping to go or just returned and want to go home.
Q2. For the frequency of collection, do you think it is adequate?	We did the surveys in 2011 and 2018 it seems like a reasonable time frame between surveys. A lot had changed over that time. I suppose if you did the survey again in 5 or so years that would make sense.	Yes. But I recommend 3-5 years.
Q3. Do you think the fishermen had clear instructions to answer the survey?	We didn’t encounter any problems with the surveys. There was advance notice on the type of questions being asked and why. Also the results from the 2011 survey were shared so most people knew what to expect in 2018, and early summaries of the 2018 survey have been shared with the community. We used community members with fishing experience to do in-person interviews so I think it went well.	Yes. Nobody had any problems with the questions.
Q4. The estimated interviewing time per respondent is 45 minutes. Do you think it is reasonable? If not, what do you think is the actual interviewing time per respondent?	I think most of the interviews took less time – maybe 30 minutes or so, but 45 minutes is a reasonable estimate to work through the survey for some people who may take more time.	No. 45 minutes is too long (overestimate). I suggest 15-30 minutes. I found it much easier if I were to ask the questions and fill out the survey form. It makes the process go faster.
Q5. What do you think on the data elements to be recorded?	The information in the survey is very important to understand the fisheries and the fishing community. The surveys collected important information on fishing behavior, the costs of fishing, levels of fishing investment, and social and cultural importance of fisheries. We don’t have this information from any other source from what I know. In fact, I don’t think we have any other fishing data for the islands of Rota and Tinian. Economic questions are important for understanding how the fisheries are doing, but in these island communities the social and cultural questions are especially important because fishing is different than the mainland.	Yes. The information that can be derived from the survey is important for fisheries management, but also for the local community.

To address the comment that the estimated interviewing time per respondent to be 45 minutes is too long, we will make sure the interviewers will have proper training to get familiar with the questionnaire before conducting the interviews, so that the interviewing process will go faster.

8.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

8.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The PIFSC: Mariana Archipelago Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4960, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

8.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

8.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

8.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

8.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The response in 1.14 describes the method used to estimate the federal cost for each of the 16 information collections and includes a summary for all of those information collections. Table 8.14 provides the detailed breakdown of those costs for this information collection. NMFS will conduct the survey once in the next three years; therefore, with a total survey cost of $139,641, the annual cost is $46,547.

Table 8.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP4	$189,335	3%		$5,680
Federal Oversight	ZP3	$86,277	3%		$2,588
Contractor Cost: Survey Contract Award					$75,339
PIFSC Grantee analyst support (50% time for 12 months)					$56,034
3 YEAR TOTAL					$139,641
ANNUAL TOTAL					$46,547

8.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

8.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Our awarded contract package (September 2024) targets survey implementation to begin in early 2025, likely early February. Final contract deliverables for survey implementation and data management plans are due by 12/31/2024. We expect approximately 4-6 months of data collection with a draft technical report that describes survey implementation and basic summary statistics due by 8/30/2025. A PIFSC grantee will conduct additional data cleaning and analysis to support the development of two technical reports from the data collection (one for Guam and one for the CNMI) and we expect these to be publicly available in late 2026.

8.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SEFSC: United State Virgin Islands (USVI) U Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection

9.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

9.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

9.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

This data collection will use mainly in-person interviews (with telephone interviews as backup). This decision is based on several factors, including in-person interviews being more versatile and less burdensome than mail surveys and the limited internet access in parts of the U.S. Caribbean. Additionally, in-person interviews allow the interviewer to help clarify questions, if necessary.

We do not anticipate using laptops or other electronic devices to record the answers as this can interfere with quickly entering data. Typing verbatim could extend the length of the interview, which would further burden the interviewees and possibly result in incomplete surveys.

The data collected will not be available to the public over the internet given their confidential nature. However, a report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available online once the data collection and analysis are completed.

9.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) and the U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to inform them about our intention to collect socio-economic data and to inquire about other on-going or prospective data collections in the area. These agencies noted that they were neither planning nor aware of any current or planned data collections that targeted commercial fishermen.

9.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Most commercial fishing operations in the U.S. Caribbean are owner or family-operated small businesses. To minimize the burden on the predominantly small, owner or family-operated commercial fishing businesses in the U.S. Caribbean, we have implemented several strategies:

Streamlined data collection: The survey instrument has been carefully designed to gather only essential data for current and future management needs, avoiding unnecessary questions.
Bilingual approach: Surveys will be available in both English and Spanish, reducing language barriers and ensuring accessibility for non-English speaking fishermen.
Voluntary participation: Fishermen have the option to decline participation in the in-person interviews, respecting their right to choose.
Flexible scheduling: Interviews will be conducted at times and locations convenient for the fishermen, minimizing disruption to their fishing activities and daily routines.

These measures seek to balance the need for comprehensive data collection with respect for the fishermen's time and business operations, ensuring a more efficient and less burdensome process for all participants.

9.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

9.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines,

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

9.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

There is common agreement among stakeholders and staff at the Caribbean Fishery Management Council and the NMFS Regional Office that updating the economic data for this fishery is important for the ongoing management process.

9.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

9.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SEFSC: USVI F Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4400, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4400-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved.pdf).

9.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

9.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. As discussed in Question 9.1 of Supporting Statement B, we expect to receive 253 completed surveys. For this fishery, the 1-hour burden per response includes the time for the interviewer reading the instructions, reading the questions, receiving and writing the answers to complete the survey instrument. This estimate is based on the type of questions asked, length of the survey instrument, and contractor’s experience conducting a similar survey. The interviews themselves do not vary much in length, though introductions and pre- and post-“small talk” can vary substantially depending on each respondent and interview situation. This results in a 3-year total burden and an average annual burden of 253 hours and 84 hours, respectively. Using the $37.33 hourly wage rate, the corresponding wage burden costs are $9,444 and $3,148 (see Table 1.12).

9.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

9.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 9.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$232,000	3%		$6,960
Data collection/analysis	ZP-4	$232,000	7%		$16,240
Administrative	ZP-4	$232,000	3%		$6,960
Contractor Cost					$60,000
Travel					$8,000
3 YEAR TOTAL					$98,160
ANNUAL TOTAL					$32,720

9.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

9.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery and funding permitting, we anticipate completing the data collection in the U.S. Virgin Islands by the end of 2025. We expect to complete the analysis of the data in 2026. We plan to publish a technical report describing the salient results of this study. The report should be available online by January 2027. As the focus of this data collection is basic descriptive economic information, we will use no particularly complex analytical techniques.

9.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection

10.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

10.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections. In addition, this collection includes a set of questions adapted from Marshall and Marshall (2007)^¹². Using a Likert scale, this set of questions is intended to capture the ability of the participant to be prepared for and cope with change in the fishery.

10.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, the socio-economic data needed will be primarily collected using in-person interviews (or telephone interviews in cases where it is easier for respondents). We do not anticipate using online questionnaires because of the limited access to the internet in some parts of the U.S. Caribbean. In addition, in-person interviews are preferable because many of the answers do not lend themselves to simple ‘yes/no’ answers and because of the presence of open-ended questions, which are burdensome to complete in written form (inadvertently leading to higher non-response rates). Moreover, in-person interviews allow the interviewer to explore the logic and/or reasoning behind the ranking of ‘Likert scale’ answers.

The contractor does not anticipate using laptops or other electronic devices to record the answers since some of the questions are open ended. Typing verbatim could extend the length of the interview, which would further burden the interviewees and possibly result in incomplete surveys.

The data collected will not be available to the public over the internet given its confidential nature. However, a report summarizing the salient, aggregated results will be available online once the data collection and analysis are completed.

10.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We contacted the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) and Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) to inform them about our intention to collect socio-economic data and to inquire about other on-going or prospective data collections in the area. These agencies noted that they were neither planning nor aware of any current or planned data collections that targeted commercial fishermen.

10.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

To minimize the burden on the predominantly small, owner or family-operated commercial fishing businesses in the U.S. Caribbean, we have implemented several strategies:

Streamlined data collection: The survey instrument has been carefully designed to gather only essential data for current and future management needs, avoiding unnecessary questions.
Bilingual approach: Surveys will be available in both English and Spanish, reducing language barriers and ensuring accessibility for non-English speaking fishermen.
Voluntary participation: Fishermen have the option to decline participation in the in-person interviews, respecting their right to choose.
Flexible scheduling: Interviews will be conducted at times and locations convenient for the fishermen, minimizing disruption to their fishing activities and daily routines.

These measures aim to balance the need for comprehensive data collection with respect for the fishermen's time and business operations, ensuring a more efficient and less burdensome process for all participants.

10.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

10.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines,

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

10.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

10.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

10.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SEFSC: Puerto Rico Small-Scale Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4400, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4400-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved.pdf).

10.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

10.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. The estimated one-hour response burden encompasses the entire interview process, including the interviewer's preparation, question delivery, respondent's answer time, and survey completion. This estimate is based on the survey's content, length, and the contractor's previous experience conducting similar surveys. While the core interview duration is relatively consistent, the time spent on introductions and casual conversation before and after can vary significantly depending on the respondent and interview context. As discussed in Question 10.1 of Supporting Statement B, we expect 1,230 total respondents or 410 per year over the three-year period. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 1,230 hours or 410 hours per year. Using the $37.33 hourly wage rate, the corresponding wage burden costs are $45,916 and $15,305 (see Table 1.12).

10.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

10.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 10.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$232,000	4%		$9,280
Data collection/analysis	ZP-4	$232,000	10%		$23,200
Administrative	ZP-4	$232,000	3%		$6,960
Contractor Cost					$100,000
Travel					$10,000
3 YEAR TOTAL					$149,440
ANNUAL TOTAL					$49,813

10.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

10.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery and funding permitting, we anticipate completing the data collection in Puerto Rico by the end of 2025. We expect to complete the analysis of the data in 2026. We plan to publish a technical report describing the salient results of this study. The report should be available online by January 2027. As the focus of this data collection is basic descriptive economic information, we will use no particularly complex analytical techniques.

10.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection

11.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

11.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

11.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, we will conduct the data collection as a self-administered mail survey. Given our experiences with surveys of this population, a very low impact (burden) approach, such as a short mail survey, is necessary to obtain fishermen’s cooperation. For a fishery with potential respondents spread across a large area encompassing five large states, a mail survey is more cost-effective than one based on in-person interviews.

We will contact all vessel owners by mail. They are asked to return the completed survey instrument to us in an enclosed, pre-paid envelope. If we receive no response, we will send up to two further survey packages. If telephone numbers are available, we will also contact non-responders by phone and urge them to return the survey. We will not collect information during the phone call (we will send a further survey instrument by mail, fax, or email – if requested).

There will be no other means, electronic or otherwise, to submit data or information for the purposes of this study. NMFS or a contractor will enter the survey responses into an electronic Oracle database. The analytical results of studies based on these data will be disseminated in internal and public fishery management reports and peer-reviewed publications. Some of these will be available over the internet.

11.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

This is the only systematic and region-wide economic data collection in the Gulf of America inshore shrimp fisheries. Hence, there is no duplication of economic information. We have consulted experts on these fisheries in academia and state agencies.

The data collection is complementary to the Annual Economic Survey of Federal Gulf and South Atlantic Shrimp Permit Holders (OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0591). Vessels holding a federal shrimp permit are excluded from this Inshore Shrimp survey to avoid any redundant response.

11.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The data collection is intended to provide insight into the activities and financial performance of commercial fishermen who harvested shrimp from state or inshore Gulf of America waters. The vast majority (92% in 2012) owned and operated their own vessels. The average vessel is less than 40 feet long and more than three-quarters have fiberglass or wood hulls. As such, the inshore shrimp fishery consists of small-scale vessels and hence small businesses.

We will collect only the minimum data to meet the current and future needs of NMFS management and permitting programs. The information requested should be available to the respondent in the course of normal business operations. Keeping additional records is not needed and hence the burden is low. To simplify the process further, the survey collects aggregate annual data and will be timed to coincide with tax season.

11.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

11.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

11.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

There is common agreement among stakeholders and staff at the Gulf and S. Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and the NMFS Regional Office that updating the economic data for this fishery is important for the ongoing management process

11.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

11.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SEFSC: Gulf of America Inshore Shrimp Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4400, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4400-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved.pdf).

11.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

11.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

See Table 1.12 for burden hour estimates for each of the 16 information collections and Response 1.12 for the source of the average hourly wage rate we used to estimate total annual wage burden costs for this fishery.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. For the main survey for this fishery, the 30 minute per response burden includes the time for the respondent to read the cover letter and instructions, read and review the questions, and complete the survey instrument. We base this estimate on the type of questions asked, the length of the survey instrument, and our experience conducting this survey before. As discussed in Question 11.1 of Supporting Statement B, we plan to randomly sample 1,500 fishermen in the survey year. With a 31% response rate, we expect to have 465 respondents in total or 155 per year and 232.5 total burden hours or 77.5 hours per year for the main survey. In addition to the main survey, we will conduct a small non-response survey to calibrate our results. With a sample of 104, an expected response rate of 31%, and a burden of five minutes per response, that small survey is expected to result in about 32 respondents and 2.7 burden hours in total or approximately 11 respondents and 1 burden hour per year. Therefore, for the two parts of this information collection combined, the total burden hours for the 3-year period and the burden hours per year are approximately 235 and 78, respectively. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated wage burden cost is $8,779 for the 3-year period or $2,926 per year (see Table 1.12).

11.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

11.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 11.14 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$232,000	5%		$11,600
Administrative	ZP-4	$232,000	3%		$6,960
Contractor Cost					$150,000
3 YEAR TOTAL					$168,560
ANNUAL TOTAL					$56,187

11.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

11.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery and funding permitting, we anticipate completing the mail survey during the first half of 202X, when respondents have complete 202X-1 annual financial data in hand (at tax time). We expect to complete the analysis of the data during the second half of 202+1. We will publish summary statistics of these data in standardized tables in a NMFS economic report. The report should be available online by end of the March 202X+2. As the focus of this data collection is basic descriptive economic information, we will use no particularly complex analytical techniques. The analytical results of studies based on these data are planned to be disseminated in internal and public fishery management reports, and peer-reviewed publications. Some of these will be available over the internet.

11.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection

12.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

12.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

12.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For this fishery, the proposed data collection will utilize both voluntary, self-administered mail surveys and follow-up in-person interviews (if necessary). There are only eleven golden crab permits in existence, and they are currently owned by six individuals in conjunction with their spouses or their corporations. No more than five licenses have been active in any of the past five years. Because the population of active permit owners is extremely small, it is essential to make a complete census of the golden crab participants. Self-administered mail surveys will be the initial instrument, but telephone or in-person interviews will be used if necessary to complete the data collection or to clarify answers.

Initially, we will contact all potential respondents via an introductory letter to inform them about the upcoming data collection. Subsequently, permit owners will be provided with the self-administered survey instrument, and asked to return it completed using an enclosed postage pre-paid envelope. If no response is received, we will contact the permit owners by phone and urge them to return the completed survey, followed by a site visit if necessary. All data will be entered into a desktop computer.

The data collected will not be available to the public over the internet given its confidential nature. However, analytical results of studies based on these data will be disseminated in internal and public fishery management reports and peer-reviewed publications. Some of these studies will be available online.

12.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We have investigated to find whether there are any federal or state efforts to collect similar socio-economic information from the golden crab fishery. The state of Florida is not planning any such survey, and at a recent meeting of the North American Association of Fisheries Economists (NAAFE), informal talks discovered no other efforts directed towards this fishery. Dr. Crosson has attended meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) Golden Crab Advisory Panel, and none of the fishermen there were aware of any efforts by academic or state researchers to collect economic data for this fishery.

12.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Many commercial fishing operations are owner- or family-operated small businesses, including all six (6) members of this fishery. We have taken several steps to minimize the burden to these small businesses. First, we designed the survey instrument so that only the minimum data requirements for present and future management needs are collected. This will minimize any potential disruption to permit owners’ fishing practices. Second, permit owners who receive the self-administered survey will be provided with postage-paid return envelopes. Third, a periodic (once every three years) data collection cycle will reduce the burden on respondents.

12.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

12.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

12.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

There is common agreement among stakeholders and staff at the S. Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the NMFS Regional Office that updating the economic data for this fishery is important for the ongoing management process.

12.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

12.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SEFSC: U.S. South Atlantic Region Golden Crab Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4400, Southeast Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/NOAA4400-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved.pdf).

12.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

12.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

For this fishery, we estimate that the number of respondents will be six and the time per response is about one-half hour, for a total burden of three hours. The one half-hour per response burden includes the time for reading the instructions, reviewing the questions, and completing (and mailing, if necessary) the survey instrument. Because we will conduct the survey just once during the OMB PRA three-year approval period for this information collection, we expect the 3-year total and annual burden hours to be 3 and 1, respectively. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated wage burden cost is $112 for the 3-year period or $37.33 per year (see Table 1.12).

12.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

12.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 12.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$232,000	3%		$6,960
Administrative	ZP-4	$232,000	2%		$4,640
Contractor Cost					$150,000
3 YEAR TOTAL					$161,600
ANNUAL TOTAL					$53,867

12.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

12.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

We will use the data collected for this fishery to assess the economics of the golden crab fishery. Descriptive and analytical reports will include summaries of data. These reports will not release or reveal confidential information. Depending on the availability of funds, we anticipate that reports will be available January 202X. These reports will likely be available in pdf format on the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s web site.

12.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection

13.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

13.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

13.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

Each potential respondent will have the option to submit the information by an in-person interview, a telephone or video call interview or by mail. Based on the success of many similar surveys the NWFSC and Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) have conducted without the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of information technology, we do not plan to use such techniques. We are concerned that adopting a more technically advanced approach for a fishery with a small number of vessels would not be cost effective and could adversely affect the response rates of potential respondents who are comfortable with the collection methods we plan for this information collection.

13.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

We reviewed the existing literature, spoke with PFMC staff, members of the PFMC’s Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team, Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and staff of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the NMFS Western Regional Office who maintains the contact information for coastal pelagic species (CPS) permit holders. We could not find any indication that our effort is duplicative of any work conducted since the last survey conducted by the SWFSC, which was fielded between 2007 and 2009.

13.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Most of the business entities in this information collection are small businesses. To increase efficiency and reduce the respondent’s burden, we will send out two mailings. First, we will mail an advance letter, which will inform the respondent about the survey and provide them an opportunity to schedule a telephone or video call interview. Second, we will mail a package consisting of: 1) a cover letter; 2) a copy of the survey, which will inform the respondent about the types of information (e.g., financial records) needed to complete the survey; and 3) an envelope with prepaid postage, in case a respondent prefers to submit information by mail. Therefore, the respondent will have the option to submit the requested information by mail or a telephone or video call interview, whichever is easiest for them. For those that choose to submit the information via a telephone or video call interview, we intend to have a collection team with experience working with the West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery on economic data collections. The personnel knowledge of how to handle individual situations will aid in reducing small business respondent burden.

13.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

13.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

13.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

13.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

13.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SWFSC: West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4930, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/NOAA4930-PIA%20FY24%20SAOP_Approved.pdf).

13.11 Describe Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

13.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

As discussed in Question 13.1 of Supporting Statement B, the SWFSC CPS survey is in part based on past survey efforts of the NWFSC. Based on the results of the NWFSC’s cost and earning survey effort, the SWFSC expects a 55% response rate for federal CPS limited entry and live-bait vessels, and a 44% response rate for CPS open access vessels. With a total survey population of 190 vessels, this implies 91 total survey responses or 30.3 per year because we plan to conduct the survey only once over the 3-year period. For the vast majority of respondents in the prior collection efforts, the time required to submit the information was about one-hour and we estimate that, prior to the interview, two hours are needed for the respondent to compile financial records. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 273 hours or 91 hours per year. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated 3-year total and average annual wage burden costs are $10,191 and $3,397, respectively.

13.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

13.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

NMFS will conduct the survey once in the next three years; therefore, with a total survey cost of $78,548, the annual cost is $26,183.

Table 13.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$248,240	10%		$24,824
Contractor Cost					$53,655
Travel					$6,800
3-YEAR TOTAL				78548	$78,548
ANNUUAL TOTAL					$26,183

13.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

13.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For this fishery, we will report the survey results in a SWFSC administrative or technical report and publish the report on the NMFS web site. The report will include descriptive statistics (such as mean and standard deviation) of the various cost and earnings categories.

NMFS will use the survey results to support: 1) studies prepared for the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) and NMFS management; 2) discussions at professional conference and public meetings; and 3) the development of technical guides and papers. All reporting of survey results will conform to data confidentiality requirements. Qualified researchers with confidentiality agreements will have access to raw data for performing future analyses.

For the West Coast Coastal Pelagic Finfish and Market Squid Fishery, we anticipate using no complex analytical techniques. The SWFSC collected data for 2014 and 2019 in July – September 2021. A Technical Memoranda will be submitted for internal review by December 2021 and the data will be incorporated into IO-PAC by February 2022. The next survey effort will collect data for 202X in February to May 202X+1. The Technical Memoranda will be submitted for internal review by September 202X+1 and the data will be incorporated into IO-PAC by December 202X+1

13.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection

14.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

14.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

14.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

See response 13.3 above, it applies to this information collection too.

14.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

The last cost earnings survey of the West Coast Drift Gillnet and Harpoon fleet was conducted in 2010 and was administered by Hanan & Associates, Inc. We are not aware of any other surveys currently or planned to collect cost and earnings data at the vessel level in this fishery. Vessel information, which is available from other sources, is included for identification or validation purposes.

PacFIN compiles a database of individual vessel landings records submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. PacFIN records represent mandatory landings records (fish tickets) submitted by species measured by weight and ex vessel revenues; however, no cost data are collected.

14.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

The potential respondent universe for this survey is the owners or operators of all active West Coast vessels primarily targeting swordfish and tuna in 2018-19 and 2019-20 along with pilots and processors that serve the industry. To minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities, the sample frames for the West Coast Albacore Fishery and West Coast Swordfish Fishery will exclude vessels with greater than fifty percent dependence on a non-highly migratory species fishery. To further reduce the burden, we provide intended respondents the broadest possible range of options to complete a survey. They will have the choice to provide the survey information by a telephone or video call interview or by mail. For mail returns, we may make follow-up phone calls to clarify responses or obtain missing information. We will also minimize the burden to vessel owners by providing each vessel owner with a copy of the survey prior to his/her telephone or video call interview so he/she can have relevant records available for the interview. This will decrease the need for a second interview.

14.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

14.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

14.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

14.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

14.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SWFSC: West Coast Swordfish Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4930, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/NOAA4930-PIA%20FY24%20SAOP_Approved.pdf).

14.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

14.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. For this fishery, the public reporting burden for this voluntary collection of information is estimated to range from 15 minutes for past fishery participants to 60 minutes for current participants and average about 30 minutes per respondent (see Supporting Statement B, Table 14.1). This includes the time required to read the introductory statement, gather business information necessary to complete the survey, and set up and complete the telephone or video call with the contractor, or complete and mail the survey. As discussed in Part B, Question 14.1, we expect to receive 49 completed surveys. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 24.5 hours or 8.17 hours per year. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated wage burden cost is $915 for the 3-year period or $305 per year (see Table 1.12).

14.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

14.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

NMFS will conduct the survey once in the next three years; therefore, with a total survey cost of $78,548, the annual cost is $26,183.

Table 14.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$248,240	10%		$24,824
Contractor Cost					$53,655
Travel					$6,800
3-YEAR TOTAL				78548	$78,548
ANNUUAL TOTAL					$26,183

14.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

14.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The first part of response 13.16 applies to this information collection too.

For the West Coast Swordfish Fishery Survey, we anticipate using no complex analytical techniques. This information collection was conducted in the spring of 2021 and a report documenting the results of this information collection will be published by early 2022. The next survey effort will collect data for 202X in February to May 202X+1. The Technical Memoranda will be submitted for internal review by September 202X+1 and published by early 202X+2.

14.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection

15.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

15.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

15.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

Each potential respondent will have the option to submit the information by an in-person interview, by mail or online.

15.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

The questions for the West Coast Albacore Fishery information collection are generally for fishing cost items that are not available from other sources, such as landings reports, logbooks or permit files. Vessel information, which is available from other sources, is included for identification or validation purposes.

15.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

To minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities, we provide intended respondents the broadest possible range of options to complete a survey. They will have the choice to provide the survey information by mail, via secure online survey, or in-person meeting. For mail returns, we may make follow-up phone calls to clarify responses or obtain missing information. We will also minimize the burden to vessel owners by providing each vessel owner with a copy of the survey prior to his/her in-person interview so he/she can have relevant records available for the interview.

15.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

15.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

15.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this fishery too.

15.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

We plan to provide a gift to the respondents in the form of a gift cards to a marine supply store through random drawing for all respondents (3 total gift cards at $200.00 per gift card). Since this survey has not been conducted for over twenty years, we want to encourage participation. In addition, the fishery representatives that provided feedback in the development of this survey believe the incentive is appropriate, useful and would encourage participation from a wide variety of fishery participants within and outside fishing organizations, greatly enhancing the quantity and value of the information collected.

15.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4930, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/NOAA4930-PIA%20FY24%20SAOP_Approved.pdf).

15.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

15.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

See Table 1.12 for burden hour estimates for all 16 information collections and response 1.12 for the source of the average hourly wage rate we used to estimate total annual wage burden costs for this fishery.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. For the West Coast Albacore Fishery, much of the information is readily available from respondents’ tax filings or financial records, suggesting that one minute per question may overestimate the response time. However, additional time may be required to access financial records and locate the requested information. We will pose 65 questions; therefore, 65 minutes per survey response burden is based on an estimate of roughly one minute per survey question. As discussed in Part B, Question 15.1, we expect to receive 100 completed surveys. Therefore, the estimated 3-year total respondent burden is 108 hours or 36 hours per year. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the estimated wage burden cost is $4,032 for the 3-year period or $1,344 per year (see Table 1.12).

15.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

15.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

NMFS will conduct the survey once in the next three years; therefore, with a total survey cost of $79,148, the annual cost is $26,383.

Table 15.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Federal Oversight	ZP-4	$248,240	10%		$24,824
Contractor Cost					$53,655
Travel					$6,800
Other Costs: Gift Cards (3 @ $200 each					$600
3-YEAR TOTAL					$85,879
ANNUUAL TOTAL					$26,383

15.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection.

Information Collection	Labor Costs		Miscellaneous Costs		Reason for change or adjustment
Information Collection	Current	Previous	Current	Previous	Reason for change or adjustment
SWFSC: West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery Economic Data Collection	$959.24	$679.00	0	0	Same as above

15.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniq444ues that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

For the West Coast North Pacific Albacore Fishery, we anticipate using no complex analytical techniques. We expect to conduct the North Pacific Albacore information collection prior to the 2025 fishing season (i.e. spring of 2025) and complete a report summarizing the results by fall of 2025.

Our awarded contract package began September 2024 with a target survey implementation date of 04/15/2025.
Survey instrument and PRA package are due by 1/30/2025.
Implement survey by 4/15/2025 with approximately 6-8 weeks of data collection through 06/15/2025.
Draft technical report that describes survey implementation and basic summary statistics due by 7/30/2025.
Final contract deliverables: final report for public distribution is expected by 9/29/2025.
Database transfer to NMFS 9/29/25.

15.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection

16.1 Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

See response 1.1 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

16.2 Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

See response 1.2 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

16.3 Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

For the Greater Atlantic Region, the data collection effort will provide an option to respond online. However, the dissemination of survey materials will be done via both email and mail. In the 2011, 2012, and 2015 iterations of this survey, >80% of the responses were returned by mail. That number fell to 40% for the 2022 survey. Two new options for response were added to the 2022 survey: the option to complete the survey via phone or video conferencing technology.

The eligible vessel owners in the sample will receive a survey packet via mail, which will contain a password and a secured link to a web version of the cost survey. Potential participants will be given the option of completing the survey online, returning the survey in hard copy via U.S. mail, or completing the survey via telephone or video conference with a trained staff member. The non-respondents will be encouraged to complete the survey by an initial reminder postcard.

A toll-free telephone number will be established to provide potential respondents with a way to ask general questions about the survey (e.g., purpose, need, confidentiality) or ask specific questions about the different options to participate. Information about the toll-free number will be included in the survey packet. Respondents will also have the option to submit questions or comments by email to an account staffed by a trained social scientist.

Collected data will be entered manually in a database. Data entered online will be saved in real time. Data obtained by a trained social scientist with a data access agreement via phone or video conference will be entered into the database by that social scientist. There will be no other means, electronic or otherwise, to submit data or information for the purposes of this study.

16.4 Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

For the Greater Atlantic Region, the majority of the information collected in the survey, aside from most trip costs, is not available elsewhere. Trip costs, such as fuel, bait, and ice, are collected by the at-sea observer program in the Greater Atlantic Region, but are included in this survey given feedback from commercial fishing industry members. Additionally, observer coverage is very limited in some of the region’s fisheries (e.g. lobster). This survey also asks for information on some trip-related costs that are not collected by observers (e.g., communication and catch handling costs).

To avoid duplication, the survey working group explored eliminating trip cost questions through conversing with industry members in 2019 and 2020. In these conversations, fishing industry members provided strong feedback in favor of including these costs in the survey, as they represent large expenses to fishermen and demonstrate the survey’s completeness in accounting for fishing business costs. This response was very much in line with feedback received from extensive pre-testing of the 2011 cost survey instrument, leading to a conscious decision to include these trip costs in the 2011, 2012 and 2015 surveys. The survey working group decided that the benefit of creating a survey instrument that is well received by industry far outweighs the cost of duplicating a small number of questions from the observer program.

16.5 If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

For the Greater Atlantic Region, the estimated response burden for the survey is 45 minutes. A great deal of effort was put into minimizing the number of survey questions relative to the 2015 data collection. Each survey question has a planned end use to ensure that no extraneous information is collected. The development of gear-based surveys is an important component to eliminating certain questions that do not apply to all fishing fleets. Furthermore, the elimination of questions pertaining to certain business-level costs reduces burden to small businesses. These costs can be estimated from vessel-level cost information, and can be redundant for single-vessel owners, which will represent >75% of our survey sample. In addition, the survey no longer asks the vessel owner to distinguish between routine repair and maintenance costs for their vessel versus upgrade and improvement costs. We have found that drawing this distinction has been challenging for vessel owners. We spoke to economists in other NMFS regions and found that their surveys typically do not maintain this distinction.

By having more robust cost information included in analyses, and communicating this information in a clear and timely manner, this cost data collection provides fishery managers with information needed to make more informed decisions about how fishing businesses may be impacted by regulations. In theory, this should benefit small business entities; however, no definitive statement can be made.

16.6 Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

See response 1.6 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

16.7 Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

NMFS will conduct this collection in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines. See response 1.7 above for more details.

16.8 If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

The first two paragraphs of response 1.8 above apply to this information collection too.

This survey is the only source of information for costs incurred by vessel owners in the Greater Atlantic Region for NMFS, outside of trip cost information (fuel, oil, ice, etc.) collected by at-sea observers. Staff at both the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have expressed the desire for greater cost information.

16.9 Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

There are no plans to provide any payments or gifts to respondents.

16.10 Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

NEFSC: Greater Atlantic Region Commercial Fisheries Economic Data Collection is captured in NOAA4200, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/NOAA4200-PIA-FY24_SAOP_Approved.pdf).

16.11 Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

See response 1.11 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

16.12 Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

We will conduct this information once during the next three years. For the Greater Atlantic Region, the estimated response burden per respondent is 45 minutes. Much of the information queried should be available from the respondent’s tax filings or financial records, meaning some individuals may be able to fill out the survey in less than the estimated burden time. However, some individuals may not have this information readily available, in which case, completing the survey may exceed the estimated burden time. We expect 749 responses over the 3-year period or 250 responses per year. The total and annual burden hours would equal 562 and 187, respectively. Given the equivalent of an average hourly wage of $37.33 for commercial fishing vessel captains, the corresponding wage burden costs are $20,970 and $6,990 (see Table 1.12).

16.13 Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

See response 1.13 above, it applies to all 16 information collections.

16.14 Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Table 16.14 Cost to the Federal Government.

Cost Descriptions	Grade/ Step	Loaded Salary /Cost	% of Effort	Fringe (if Applicable)	Total Cost to Government
Data collection/analysis	ZP-3	$187,942	255%		$479,251
Administrative					$2,709
Survey Progammer					$95,321
Research Tech					$167,790
Research Associate					$66,843
Manager/Methodologist					$39,480
Telephone solicitor					$36,214
Postage/ Printing/ Mailing					$28,272
3-YEAR TOTAL					$915,881
ANNUUAL TOTAL					$305,294

16.15 Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

See Table 1.15 for information for this collection too.

16.16 For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

The first part of response 13.16 applies to this information collection too.

For the Greater Atlantic Region, the collection of information is planned to commence in early 2027. The planned period to send all surveys into the field is 3 months. Following the collection of information, auditing of data and follow-up calls on responses that raise questions will occur for a few months following the last round of surveys sent into the field. Cleaned data will then be added to an existing Oracle table containing common variables from previous survey iterations (2011, 2012, 2015, and 2022). For all users of the survey data (including identified staff at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office and the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils), NDAs will be required to access the raw survey data.

The NEFSC/Social Science Branch Cost Data Visualization Tool will provide an outlet for stakeholders and the general public to view cost summaries. Regional fleet profit profiles will also be updated with the additional year of data. No complex analytical techniques will be required.

16.17 If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

Each form will display the OMB control number and expiration date.

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

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

APPENDIX A: Economic Data Requirements for Federally Managed Commercial Fisheries

Introduction

NMFS uses economic data and the models and analyses they support to monitor, explain and predict changes in the economic performance and impacts of federally managed fisheries. The legal and policy requirements for economic data and analyses are intended to promote better informed conservation and management decisions on the use of living marine resources and marine habitat in federally managed fisheries by improving the ability of NMFS and the Councils to monitor, explain and predict those changes.

In this appendix, we address the following 13 laws, Executive Orders (EOs) and NOAA Fisheries strategy and policy statements with requirements for economic data, models and analyses.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
EO 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
EO 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
EO 13840 (Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States)
NOAA Fisheries Guidelines for Economic Reviews of Regulatory Actions
NOAA Fisheries Priorities and Annual Guidance 2024
NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Road Map
NOAA Fisheries National Bycatch Reduction Strategy
NOAA’s Catch Share Policy

We use the terms “needed” and “required”, with respect to economic data, to refer to data that would support more than a highly superficial effort to comply with or support those laws, EOs and statements.

MSA

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management (MSA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq., establishes a national program for conservation and management of fishery resources with federal jurisdiction over such resources within the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801(a)(6), 1811(a). For purposes of the MSA, the EEZ extends from the seaward boundary of each coastal State generally out to 200 nautical miles. Id. § 1802(11). Key purposes of the MSA are to “take immediate action to conserve and manage the fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States. . .” and “promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles. . . .” Id. §§ 1801(b)(1), (3). NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries^¹³), acting under authority delegated from the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for managing fisheries pursuant to the MSA. Regulation of fisheries is accomplished through fishery management plans, amendments to those plans (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “FMPs”), and implementing regulations. To assist in fishery management, the MSA established eight regional fishery councils, who prepare and submit to NMFS FMPs for fisheries within their respective geographic areas that require conservation and management. See id. § 1852(a), (h)(1). NMFS reviews and takes actions on FMPs pursuant to a process set forth in the MSA at 16 U.S.C. §1854(a). In addition, NMFS promulgates regulations to implement FMPs pursuant to a process in § 1854(b).

A number of provisions in the MSA integrate economic considerations into the decision-making process. Robust economic data analysis can foster better informed decisions by improving the ability of the Councils and NMFS to monitor, explain and/or predict the effect of a management decision through an improved understanding of the economic characteristics of the individuals likely to be impacted. For example, some of those provisions mention fishing communities or require the consideration of economic impacts of fishery management measures, including the impacts on fishing communities. This appendix describes those MSA provisions in the following order: (1) national standards for federally managed fisheries; (2) required and discretionary provisions for fishery management plans (FMPs); (3) region-specific provisions; and (4) information collection.

1.1 National Standards for Federally Managed Fisheries

The MSA sets out ten national standards for federally managed fisheries, and requires NMFS to establish advisory guidelines on them. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1851(a), (b). FMPs and implementing regulations are required to be consistent with the national standards. Id. § 1851(a). Although economic data and the analyses that use these data are relevant to all ten national standards, those data and analyses are particularly relevant to the following six National standards.

The national standards do not explicitly provide the authority to collect economic data. However, NMFS continuously strives to improve the available scientific information, including economic information, to meet its mission to provide vital services for the nation, all backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach to management and to improve its ability to determine if the national standards are being met or will be met by a proposed conservation and management measure. See section 4, below, describing MSA information collection provisions.

National Standard 1 requires that “conservation and management measures”^¹⁴ prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1). OY refers to an amount of fish which provides the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account protection of marine ecosystems; and is prescribed on the basis of maximum sustainable yield “as reduced by any relevant social, economic, or ecological factor…” Id. § 1802(33).

National Standard 2 requires conservation and management measures to be based upon the best scientific information available (BSIA). 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(2) . One criterion for BSIA in the National Standard 2 guidelines is inclusiveness. Under that criterion, the guidelines provide that “[r]elevant local and traditional knowledge (e.g., fishermen’s empirical knowledge about the behavior and distribution of fish stocks) should be obtained, where appropriate, and considered when evaluating the BSIA.” 50 C.F.R. § 600.315(a)(6)(ii)(C). The guidelines further recognize that historical information “should be evaluated for [their] relevance to inform the current situation.” Id. § 600.315(a)(6)(v)(B). Historical data (e.g., abundance, environmental, catch statistics, market and trade trends) provide time-series information on changes in fish populations, fishery participation, and fishing effort that may inform current management decisions. Id. Moreover, the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report is to include, inter alia, “the economic condition of…fishing communities…” Id. § 600.315(d). While NMFS may consider and incorporate relevant traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) as BSIA where warranted, National Standard 2 does not itself authorize data collection or study. See e.g., id. § 600.315(d)(2)-(3) (providing that SAFE report should contain “the following scientific information when it exists,” explain information gaps, and highlight needs for future scientific work).

National Standard 4 requires that conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states and that allocations be fair and equitable, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and carried out to avoid excessive shares. 16 U.S.C. §1851(a)(4). The National Standard 4 guidelines provide guidance on these requirements. 50 C.F.R. § 600.325. With regard to allocations, the guidelines provide, among other things: “Where relevant, judicial guidance and government policy concerning the rights of treaty Indians and aboriginal Americans must be considered in determining whether an allocation is fair and equitable.” Id. § 600.325(c)(3)(i)(B). The guidelines also note factors relevant to the FMP’s objectives that should be considered when designing an allocation scheme, such as “economic and social consequences of the scheme, food production, . . . dependence on the fishery by present participants and coastal communities, ...opportunity for new participants to enter the fishery…” 50 C.F.R. § 600.325(c)(3)(iv). NMFS also has a Fisheries Allocation Review Policy (NMFS Procedure 01-119-01, July 27, 2016), that encourages the use of adaptive management to help ensure that fisheries allocations are periodically evaluated. That policy uses the following terms: “economic impacts,” “the social, economic, and ecological performance of the fishery,” and “economic, social and ecological aspects of the fishery.” Although demographic data are used in assessing economic impacts, the economic performance or aspects of the fishery, the use of demographic data is explicit in the following statement.

An allocation review is a structured review of current allocations based on adaptive management (i.e., evaluating successful attainment of management objectives) to determine if further action is required. The purpose is to determine if current management objectives are being achieved through the existing allocation, with the caveat that management objectives are up to date and address the relevant operational, economic, social and ecological aspects of the fishery, including … new and expected changes in such things as climate, demography, technology, etc.

National Standard 8 requires conservation and management measures, consistent with MSA conservation requirements, to take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic data that are based upon the best scientific information available in order to provide for the sustained participation of such communities; and to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(8). When addressing these requirements, the National Standard 8 (NS8) guidelines provide that both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of fishery resources should be considered. 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(c)(4). “Fishing community” is defined under the MSA as a “community which is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, and crew and United States fish processors that are based in such community.” 16 U.S.C. § 1802(17); 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(b)(3). The NS8 guidelines further explain: “A fishing community is a social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location and share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries-dependent services and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops)." 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(b)(3). The guidelines identify the fishery impact statement (see 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(9) text below) as an “appropriate vehicle” for the analysis of this standard, and allow for the use of qualitative and quantitative information. 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(c)(2). National Standard 8 does not itself authorize data collection or study, but the guidelines encourage, “[i]n cases where data are severely limited, effort should be directed to identifying and gathering needed data.” Id.

While National Standard 9 is focused on minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable, 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9), the National Standard 9 guidelines include, in addition to ecological factors, consideration of these economic factors: changes in fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing costs; changes in fishing practices and behavior of fishermen; changes in the economic, social, or cultural value of fishing activities and nonconsumptive uses of fishery resources; changes in the distribution of benefits and costs; and social effects. 50 C.F.R. § 600.350(d)(3)(i)(E-F, H-J).

National Standard 10 (promoting safety of human life at sea), 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(10), does not explicitly mention economic factors. However, economic data may help inform consideration of the feasibility and effects of potential mitigation measures, including examples described in the National Standard 10 guidelines: tailoring gear requirements to provide for smaller or lighter gear for smaller vessels; setting seasons to avoid hazardous weather; providing for seasonal or trip flexibility to account for bad weather (weather days); limiting the number of participants in the fishery; spreading effort over time and area to avoid potential gear and/or vessel conflicts; and implementing measures that reduce the race for fish and resulting incentives to take additional risks with respect to vessel safety. 50 C.F.R. § 600.355(e)(1, 2, 4, 6-8).

1.2 Required and Discretionary Elements in FMPs

In addition to the national standards, the MSA contains required elements for FMPs and permissible, discretionary elements. Economic data and the analyses that use these data are relevant to the below-described FMP provisions.

1.2.1 Required FMP Provisions

Section 303(a) of the MSA requires that FMPs shall:

“contain a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their location, the cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potential revenues from the fishery, any recreational interests in the fishery, and the nature and extent of foreign fishing and Indian treaty fishing rights, if any…” (16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(2))
“specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, charter fishing, and fish processing in the fishery, including, but not limited to, … areas in which fishing was engaged in,...economic information necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter….” (Id. § 1853(a)(5)).
“include a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment … which shall assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects, if any, including the cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for—

(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment;

(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants; and

(C) the safety of human life at sea, including whether and to what extent such measures may affect the safety of participants in the fishery…” (Id. § 1853(a)(9)).

“include a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which participate in the fishery, including its economic impact, and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the managed fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors…” (Id. § 1853(a)(13)).
“to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate, taking into consideration the economic impact of the harvest restrictions or recovery benefits on the fishery participants in each sector, any harvest restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery…” (Id. § 1853(a)(14)).

In addition, section 304(e) of the MSA requires that, for overfished fisheries, FMPs and regulations must “allocate both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among sectors of the fishery.” Id. § 1854(e)(4)(B).

1.2.2 Discretionary FMP Provisions

The following management measures are not required in FMPs, but if included therein, must be consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 303(b)(6) of the MSA provides that an FMP may establish a limited access system (LAS)^¹⁵ for the fishery in order to achieve optimum yield. When establishing a LAS, the Council and NMFS must take into account present participation in the fishery; historical fishing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; the economics of the fishery; the capability of fishing vessels used in the fishery to engage in other fisheries; the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery and any affected fishing communities; the fair and equitable distribution of access privileges in the fishery; and any other relevant considerations. 16 U.S.C. § 1853(b)(6).
For fisheries managed under a LAS, section 303A authorizes the approval of limited access privilege programs (LAPPs). See id. § 1853a. LAPPs are required, among other things, to “promote…fishing safety; fishery conservation and management; and social and economic benefits,” and prevent accumulation of excessive shares of privileges. Id. § 1853a(c)(1)(C).
- In developing a LAPP, a Council or NMFS shall:
  - Establish procedures to ensure fair and equitable initial allocations, including consideration of “current and historical harvests; employment in the harvesting and processing sectors; investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery; and the current and historical participation of fishing communities.” Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(A)(i)-(iv).
  - Consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery, especially through the (i) development of policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries, including regional or port-specific landing or delivery requirements; and (ii) procedures to address concerns over excessive geographic or other consolidation in the harvesting or processing sectors of the fishery. Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(B).
  - Include measures to assist, when necessary and appropriate, entry-level and small vessel owner-operators, captains, crew, and fishing communities through set-asides of harvesting allocations, including providing privileges, which may include set-asides or allocations of harvesting privileges, or economic assistance in the purchase of limited access privileges. Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(C).
  - Authorize limited access privileges to harvest fish to be held, acquired, used by, or issued under the system to persons who substantially participate in the fishery, including in a specific sector of such fishery. Id. § 1853a(c)(5)(E).
- A fishing community^¹⁶ may be eligible to participate in a LAPP if it meets eligibility requirements, which include:
  - Meeting criteria developed by the relevant Council that are approved by NMFS. See id. § 1853a(c)(3)(A)(i)(II). In developing participation criteria for eligible communities, the Council shall consider, among other things, traditional fishing or processing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery; economic barriers to access to fishery; the existence and severity of projected economic and social impacts associated with implementation of LAPPs on harvesters, captains, crew, processors, and other businesses substantially dependent upon the fishery in the region or subregion; and the potential for improving economic conditions in remote coastal communities lacking resources to participate in harvesting or processing activities in the fishery. See id. § 1853a(c)(3)(B)(i)-(iv), (vi).
  - Submitting to NMFS for approval a community sustainability plan that demonstrates how the plan will address the social and economic development needs of coastal communities, including those that have not historically had the resources to participate in the fishery. See id. § 1853a(c)(3)(A)(i)(IV).

LAPPs fall under the umbrella of “catch shares.” This term does not appear in the MSA, but is a general term that refers to fishery management strategies that allocate a specific portion of the total allowable fishery catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities. In its 2017 Catch Share Policy (NMFS Policy 01-121, January 14, 2017), NMFS explicitly encouraged Councils to “consider endorsing the obligatory submission of data, including social and economic data, in return for the use of the public’s fishery resources.” Catch Share Policy at 18 (emphasis in original). NMFS explained that, “[i]mproved economic data are also key for better conservation and management for fisheries under any management regime. These data are essential to computing and tracking allocations, and conducting analyses of the relative economic values and impacts of different fishery sectors.”^¹⁷

1.3. Region-Specific Provisions

Economic data and the analyses they support are relevant to the following two region-specific provisions.

Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program: The goals of this program are providing eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries, supporting economic development, alleviating poverty and providing economic and social benefits for residents, and achieving sustainable and diversified local economies. 16 U.S.C. § 1855(i)(1).
Western Pacific Community Development Program: For any fishery under the authority of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the MSA authorizes the establishment of a community development program in order to provide access to such fisheries for western Pacific communities that participate in the program. Id. § 1855(i)(2). The eligibility criteria include, among other things, that a community consist of residents who are descended from the aboriginal people indigenous to the area who conducted commercial or subsistence fishing using traditional fishing practices in the waters of the Western Pacific region. Id. § 1855(i)(2)(B)(iii).

1.4. Information Collection

This section highlights some of the MSA’s provisions related to information collection. Under MSA section 303(a), FMPs are required to “specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, charter fishing, and fish processing in the fishery, including, but not limited to, … areas in which fishing was engaged in,...economic information necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter….” 16 U.S.C. § 1853(a)(5) (required provision). MSA section 303(b) provides that FMPs may require fish processors who first receive fish to submit data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery. Id. § 1853(b)(7) (discretionary provision).

FMPs may require permits in a fishery, id. § 1853(b)(1), and also require observers on board fishing vessels for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery, id. § 1853(b)(8).

In addition, FMPs may “prescribe such other measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery,” id. § 1853(b)(14).

MSA section 402(a) provides that a Council may request that NMFS implement an information collection program, if the Council determines that “additional information would be beneficial for developing, implementing, or revising a fishery management plan or for determining whether a fishery is in need of management.” Id. § 1881a(a)(1). If NMFS determines the need is justified, the agency will promulgate regulations for the program. NMFS may also implement an information collection or observer program, on its own initiative. Id. § 1881a(a)(2).

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

When prescribing conservation regulations, under the MMPA, NMFS must take into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans (16 U.S.C. § 1387(f)). We need basic economic data to do that.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The ESA includes requirements for economic data and analysis. For example, under §4(b)(2), NMFS must consider the economic and other effects of critical habitat designation. Similarly, under §4(f), which governs recovery plans for listed species, NMFS must develop “estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the [recovery] plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.” We need basic economic data for the commercial fisheries to meet those requirements effectively.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments, and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to governmental activities or policies. NMFS is to do this with "a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning and in decision-making …." [NEPA Sec. 102(2)(A)] and, further, to “identify and develop methods and procedures, ….., which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations” [NEPA Sec. 102(2)(B)]. In addition, NOAA’s NEPA implementation guidelines require that the environmental impact statement (required under NEPA Sec. 102(2)(C)(i)) include biological, ecological, economic, and social consequences. NMFS needs economic data and the models they support to conduct the required analyses and to predict the behavioral response of fishermen and others that affect the biological, ecological, economic, and social consequences.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

If the agency does not have a factual basis for a determination that there are not a substantial number of directly regulated small entities or that no significant adverse impact on directly regulated small entities will occur, it must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA). The IRFA: (1) describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities [Sec. 603(a)] and (2) identifies the directly regulated small entities and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities [Sec. 603(c)]. Each FRFA is required to describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes [Sec. 604(a)(5)]. In addition, several Sections of the RFA require Federal agencies to analyze the effects of regulations to determine whether an action will have or has had "a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Cost, revenue and ownership information for the specific activity in question (e.g., commercial fishing), as well as some level of general information on the full range of income producing activities in which firms are engaged are necessary to effectively conduct the RFA analyses. The RFA also requires that agencies consider all affiliations, worldwide, of regulated entities such as ownership affiliations and cooperative affiliations.

EO 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review”

EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) requires analysis of the impacts of regulations implementing fishery conservation and management actions. Specifically, it includes the following requirements.

In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Costs and benefits shall be understood to include both quantifiable measures (to the fullest extent that these can be usefully estimated) and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify, but nevertheless essential to consider. Further, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach [Sec. 1(a)].

Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation" [Sec. 1(b)(7)].

In an effort to meet the requirements of EO 12866, NMFS or a Council prepares a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for each proposed regulatory action. The economic data, models and analyses used in an RIR in part determine its success in meeting those requirements and contributing to having a well-informed regulatory decision.

EO 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”

EO 13771 (82 FR 9339, January 30, 2017) is intended to manage the costs of government regulation on private industry. It requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” In addition, it states that “the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations … and provide the agency’s best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation” (see Sec 3). NMFS needs economic data, models and analyses to meet these requirements.

EO 13840 “Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States”

Two of the seven stated policies of EO 13840 (83 FR 29431; June 22, 2018) require economic data, models and analyses. Those two policies are as follows:

(d) facilitate the economic growth of coastal communities and promote ocean industries, which employ millions of Americans, advance ocean science and technology, feed the American people, transport American goods, expand recreational opportunities, and enhance America’s energy security;

(e) ensure that Federal regulations and management decisions do not prevent productive and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters;

NOAA Fisheries Guidelines for Economic Reviews of Regulatory Actions^¹⁸

NMFS issued the guidelines, in part, to assist in understanding and meeting the analytical requirements of EO 12866 and the RFA for regulatory actions it plans to promulgate. EO 12866 and the RFA are two of the most direct mandates for the preparation of economic analyses and, therefore, for economic data.

Largely, the EO 12866 and RFA include similar requirement for economic analyses. The guidelines include the following two principal differences.

The RFAA must address the impacts of a proposed rule only on small entities subject to the regulation (i.e., small entities to which the rule will directly apply) and not on all small entities that are affected by the regulation (i.e., small entities to which the rule will indirectly apply).

Impacts under EO 12866 need not be identified at the vessel or firm level in the RIR, whereas, these levels remains the focus of the RFAA.

The guidelines note the analyses are intended to identify the economic effects of the preferred action and alternative actions, in contrast to taking “no action”, where “The types of effects to consider include the following:

Changes in net benefits within a benefit-cost framework;
Changes in the distribution of benefits and costs among groups of individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other entities (including small communities and governmental entities);
Changes in income and employment;
Cumulative impacts of regulations; and
Changes in other social concerns.

More specifically, the guidelines include the following examples of the information that an RIR for commercial fishery management actions should provide:

Expected levels or changes in participation (number of fishing vessels) and activity (number of fishing trips, days at sea, etc.);
Expected levels or changes in harvests (commercial, recreational, and subsistence) and their distribution by sector;
Expected changes in commercial ex-vessel prices;
Expected changes in harvesting costs (fixed and variable costs, including capital and labor costs);
Expected levels and costs of processing.
Expected changes in benefits or costs incurred by specific user groups, including effects on small entities;
Expected effects on employment;
Expected effects on profits, competitive position, productivity or efficiency of individual fishermen, user groups, or fishing communities;
Expected effects on the reporting burden.
Expected impacts on consumer surplus;
Expected management and implementation costs attributable to the action, including enforcement costs;
Expected effects on non-use values; and
Expected effects on fishing capacity.

The guidelines state, “The proper comparison is with the action to without the action, rather than to before and after the action, since certain changes may occur even without action and should not be attributed to the regulation.“ Economic data, including cost and earnings data, and the models and analyses they support are required for more than a very superficial attempt to analyze those types of effects and to provide those types of information for the proper comparison. This conclusion applies to both quantitative and qualitative analyses intended to meet the requirements of EO 12866 and the RFA.

NOAA Fisheries Priorities and Annual Guidance 2024

As demonstrated in the following discussion of Strategic Goal 1 and the first two strategies for that goal, economic data and the analyses they support are required to successfully implement NOAA Fisheries Priorities and Annual Guidance 2025.

Strategic Goal 1: Adaptively manage fisheries for sustainability and economic competitiveness.

Strategy 1.1 Manage stocks for optimum yield and build climate and economic resilience in U.S. fishing and seafood sectors

NOAA Fisheries requires economic data and analysis to determine OY and to identify the expected effects of alternative conservation and management actions on economic resilience in U.S. fishing and seafood sectors. For example, the determination of optimum yield (OY) requires economic data because the MSA defines OY partly in terms of the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation.

Strategy 1.2 Advance climate science and ecosystem-based fishery management (EBFM) to increase the sustainability of marine fisheries

As noted below in the separate discussions of the NOAA Fisheries EBFM Road Map, EBFM, which integrates ecosystem considerations into fishery management, requires economic data. That is explicit in the recognized need to “Improve the integration of socio-economic science to support EBFM.”

EBFM Road Map

The NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Road Map includes many statements that demonstrate the importance of economic data, models and analyses for successfully implementing EBFM. The following are four examples of those statements.

NOAA Fisheries defines EBFM as “a systematic approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery-related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals.”

A national review of the data collection programs is needed across a wide range of disciplines, including but beyond the typical abundance and basic biological and catch data. For instance, needs that warrant inventory to identify gaps include … broader economic data …

NOAA Fisheries supports the consideration of and efforts to take into account various trade-offs when considering the independent and the cumulative effects of natural and human pressures on the ecosystem, including: Analyze trade-offs to optimize total benefits from all fisheries within each ecosystem or jurisdiction. This will be done by taking into account statutory mandates (e.g., MSA, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), ESA, National Aquaculture Act, etc.), regional socio-economic considerations ….

Evaluating cumulative impacts of proposed management actions for LMRs, their ecosystems, and associated coastal communities, as well as identifying alternative actions that achieve societal goals will further inform EBFM decisions. Cumulative and synergistic impacts are difficult to identify on a species-by-species basis, and systemic analyses will help to identify any such impacts.

National Bycatch Reduction Strategy

The National Bycatch Reduction Strategy includes various statements that demonstrate the importance of economic data, models and analyses for reducing bycatch and discard mortality effectively and efficiently. They include the following two selected research and develop actions.

Improve understanding of the economic and other social factors contributing to bycatch, and identify regulatory and market incentives that might increase utilization of economic discards.

Assess how technology is developed and adopted in fisheries and how technological advances can affect bycatch reduction, including improvements in post-release mortality.

They also include the following two selected conserve and manage actions.

Analyze the effectiveness of incentive-based approaches to environmental management, (e.g., catch shares, risk pools, cooperatives, dynamic area management), and consider their application to bycatch reduction programs.

Improve understanding of the socio-economic, and other environmental trade-offs of bycatch reduction to better inform stakeholders and to support management decisions and postregulation analyses.

NOAA’s Catch Share Policy

NOAA’s Catch Share Policy contains many guidance, requirements and commitment statements that NOAA Fisheries cannot meet more than superficially without basic economic data and the models and analyses they support. Here are three examples.

Councils and NOAA must establish relevant performance measures. Performance metrics for some of the typical fishery goals may include … what were the impacts on fishing communities, participation and entry into the fishery; what happened to prices, revenues and profits.

Performance measures need to be linked back to the initial objectives in a FMP. Many current FMPs have general and sometimes vague objectives. Objectives for biological, economic and social outcomes should be readily measurable, such as … improving socio-economic conditions for fishery participants and/or fishery-dependent communities.

Catch shares can result in fishery improvements in many areas but the metrics chosen to monitor performance should not be limited by the current availability of data. It is important to ensure in the catch share design stage that share holders will supply relevant data to monitor program performance in return for their allocation. This includes obtaining more specific biological and economic performance data from the participants, all in accordance with applicable law governing maintenance of business trade secrets and confidentiality of data.

APPENDIX B: References to the Use of Data Collected in NMFS Voluntary Cost and Earnings Information Collections for Commercial Fisheries by Fisheries Science Center^¹⁹

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Ardini G, Murphy T, Werner S, Bailey M. 2022. An overview of the Social Sciences Branch (SSB) Commercial Fishing Business cost Survey in the Northeast: Protocol and Results for Survey Years 2011, 2012, and 2015. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Tech Memo 278. 146 p.

Conley E, Werner S, Ardini G, Cutler M, Clay P. 2025. High Costs and Low Trust: Insights from Qualitative Commercial Fishing Cost Data in the Northeast U.S. Forthcoming Manuscript. Das, Chhandita, 2016. Fisheries annual fixed cost data collection and estimation methodology: An application in the Northeast, U.S. Marine Policy 71:184-195.

Das, C. 2013a. An overview of the annual cost survey protocol and results in the northeast (2007 to 2009). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE-226. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4635 or http://doi.org/10.7289/V59021QG.

Das, C. 2013b. Northeast Trip Cost Data - Overview, Estimation, and Predictions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-227. Available online at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4636 or http://doi.org/10.7289/V5571905.

Demarest, Chad. 2015. Preliminary Evaluation of the Impact of Groundfish Sector-Funded At Sea Monitoring on Groundfish Fishery Profits, Presentation to the New England Fisheries Management Council, June 15, 2015,

Walden, J.B., 2013 Economic Health of the Northeast (U.S.) Multispecies Trawl Fleet 1996–2010. Fisheries Research, 2013 (139):198-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.10.002

Zou, C. 2019. Economic Profile of Lobster Fishery in Northeast U.S. Unpublished Manuscript. Analysis of fixed costs data to inform economic impacts of lobster fishery gear restrictions to protect Atlantic right whales.

Performance review for the limited access general category scallop IFQ fishery (2010-2015), completed in 2017.

Amendment 19 and Framework 27 to the Scallop FMP. Estimation of fixed costs for the limited access general category scallop fleet.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Lian, C. 2010. West Coast limited entry groundfish trawl cost earnings survey protocols and results for 2004. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-107, 35 p.

Lian, C.E. 2012a. West Coast limited entry groundfish cost earnings survey: Protocol and results for 2008. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-121, 62 p.

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/4425_01232013_114027_LESurvey2008TM121WebFinal~Std.pdf

Lian, C.E. 2012b. West Coast open access groundfish and salmon troller survey: Protocol and results for 2005 and 2006. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-116, 52 p.

https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/1842_03292012_154938_TrollerSurveyTM116WebFinal.pdf

Lian, C.E. 2010. West Coast limited entry groundfish trawl cost earnings survey protocols and results for 2004. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-107, 35 p.

https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3765

Hodgson E., I. Kaplan, K. Marshal, J. Leonard, T. Essington, S. Busch, E. Fulton, C. Harvey, A. Hermann, and P. McElhany. (2018). Spatially variable ocean acidification and its consequences in the California Current: interactions between oceanography, food webs, and fishing communities. Ecological Modeling 385.

Richerson K., J. Leonard, D. Holland. (2018). Predicting the economic impacts of the 2017 West Coast salmon troll ocean fishery closure. Marine Policy 95: 142-152.

Seung, C. K., Waters, E. C. and Leonard, J. L. (2014), Assessing multiregional economic impacts of Alaska fisheries: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Review Urban & Regional Devel, 26: 155-175.

Kaplan, I. Leonard, J. (2012). From Krill to Convenience Stores: Forecasting the Economic and Ecological Effects of Fisheries Management on the US West Coast. Marine Policy 36: 947–954.

Leonard, J., and E. Steiner (2017). Initial Economic Impacts of the U.S. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Individual Fishing Quota Program. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 37, 4.

Leonard, J., and P. Watson. (2011). Description of the input-output model for Pacific Coast fisheries. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-111, 64 p.

In addition to their use in the references listed above, the cost and earnings data collected in surveys conducted by the NWFSC have been used in a variety of PFMC documents, including EISs, RIRs, RFAs, and Salmon SAFE (Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation) reports.

2.1 I-O Model Review Comments

The initial SSC review of IO-PAC is under Agenda Item G.9.b Supplemental SSC Report, November 2009 Scientific and Statistical Committee Report on Part 2-Management Recommendations For 2011-2012 Fisheries

https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/bb_2009_11_G9b_SUP_SSC_1109.pdf

The SSC report includes the following statements.

In early October 2009 the IO-PAC model was reviewed by a panel of independent experts. The panelists included one Committee of Independent Experts (CIE) reviewer (Dr. Alan Hodges of the University of Florida) and two other reviewers (Dr. Scott Steinback of the NMFS/NEFSC and Dr. James Kirkley of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science). Among other things, the panel was asked to evaluate whether the model represented best available science for assessing regional economic impacts of changes in commercial harvest of Pacific groundfish.

Each of the three reviewers provided a separate review of the IO-PAC model. Their conclusions and recommendations reflect considerable consensus regarding the utility of the model and recommendations for improvement. Their overall conclusion regarding IO-PAC is best summarized by Dr. Hodges as follows:

In general, it was found that the regional modeling approach followed by the NWFSC represents the state of the art and best professional practice in regional economic impact analysis. The modeling and supporting data are strongest for analysis of impacts of changes in groundfish harvests. The model was well documented, such that its technical merit could be fully appraised.

The SSC concurs with the external reviewers’ overall assessment of IO-PAC as well as their specific recommendations for improvement.

The second SSC review is in Statement of the SSC Economics and Groundfish Subcommittees’ Reviews Conducted In 2012-13 of Data and Models to Be Used in the Socioeconomic Analysis for the 2015-16 Groundfish Biennial Specifications Process.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/SSC_GFSUB_ECONSUB_STATEMENT_JUN2013BB.pdf

The following statements concerning the IO-PAC Model are in ATTACHMENT 4, Statement of the SSC Economics and Groundfish Subcommittees IO-PAC Model and the Economic Data Collection Program.

The IO-PAC model is used in the groundfish specifications (Spex) process to evaluate the regional economic impacts of management alternatives. In October 2009, the NWFSC sponsored a CIE review of an earlier version of IO-PAC, which the SSC also reviewed in November 2009. Subsequent changes to the model have been substantial enough to warrant a new review at this time.

A number of changes to IO-PAC have occurred since the SSC’s last review. These changes include addition of a recreational component, data updates, addition of more commercial fisheries (at-sea groundfish, crab, salmon, and shrimp) and a processing sector, major changes in model construction, and some changes in model assumptions. The SSC-E/GF supports these changes as improvements to the model and endorses use of the model for management.

SSC-E/GF review focused on the accuracy of specific assumptions in IO-PAC, the sensitivity of model results to those assumptions, and which assumptions are likely to have the greatest influence on model outputs.

IO-PAC can be used to estimate income and employment impacts at port group, State and coastwide levels. Impacts estimated for each port group within a state do not add up to state-level impacts, nor do state-level impacts add up to coastwide impacts. This is a logical function of how IO-PAC (as well as other regional impact models) are structured. This should be clearly explained whenever IO-PAC results are provided.

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center

Chan HL, Pan M. 2017. Economic and social characteristics of the Hawaii small boat fishery 2014. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-63, 97 p. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14653

Chan, HL. 2023. Economic and social characteristics of the Hawaii small boat fishery 2021. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-138, 177p.

https://doi.org/10.25923/2s7e-7m45

Chan HL. 2024. Economic Contributions of Small Boat Fisheries in Guam and the CNMI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-160, 29 p. https://doi.org/10.25923/nsxb-my70

Chan, HL. 2023. Economic Contributions of U.S. Commercial Fisheries in American Samoa. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-151, 35 p. https://doi.org/10.25923/x904-a830

Chan HL, Pan M. 2019. Tracking economic performance indicators for small boat fisheries in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-79, 76p.

https://doi.org/10.25923/8etp-x479

Chan HL, Pan M. 2019. Vessel level annual cost-earnings study of the Hawaii offshore handline fishery and the Hawaii small boat commercial fishery, 2014. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-80, 50 p.

https://doi.org/10.25923/zffy-5a13

Dombrow, C., Rollins E., Ayers, A.L., & Hospital J. 2024. Economic and social characteristics of Guam’s small boat fisheries, 2018. Department of Commerce. NOAA Administrative Report. NMFS-PIFSC-H-25-01. https://doi.org/10.25923/0c8s-tc37

Dombrow C, Hospital J. 2023. Economic and Social Characteristics of the American Samoa Small Boat Fishery 2021. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Administrative Report, H-23-05, 92 p. https://doi.org/10.25923/hqca-xs29.

Hospital J. 2023. Assessment of potential costs associated with future monument expansion area fishing trips Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Internal Report, IR-23-05, 13p.

Hospital J, Beavers C. 2014. Catch shares and the main Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fishery: Linking fishery conditions and fisher perceptions. Marine Policy 44: 9-17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.006

Hospital J, Beavers C. 2012. Economic and social characteristics of bottomfish fishing in the main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-12-01, 43 p. + Appendix. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4218

Hospital J, Beavers C. 2012. Economic and social characteristics of Guam's small boat fisheries. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-12-06, 59 p. + Appendices. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4420

Hospital J, Beavers C. 2014. Economic and social characteristics of small boat fishing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-14-02, 58 p. + Appendices. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4773

Kalberg KO, Pan M. 2016. 2012 economic cost earnings of pelagic longline fishing in Hawaii. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-56, 60p.

https://doi.org/10.7289/v5/tm-pifsc-56

Pan M. 2019. Cost-earnings study and economic performance analysis of the American Samoa longline pelagic fishery—2016 operation and recent trends. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-PIFSC85, 35 p. https://doi.org/10.25923/jemx-6804

Pan M., Arita S., Bigelow K. 2017. Cost-earnings study of the American Samoa longline fishery based on vessel operations in 2009 and recent trend of economic performance. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Administrative Report, H-17-01, 43p.

https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/AR-PIFSC-H-17-01

Pan M. 2014. Economic characteristics and management challenges of the Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries: Will a catch share program help? Marine Policy 44: 1826.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.008.

Pan M. 2014. Economic performance and status of American Samoa longline fishery. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Internal Report, IR-14-020, 6 p.

Pan M. 2015. Economic performance and status of American Samoa longline fishery, 2014. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Internal Report, IR-15-015, 9 p

Pan M, Chan HL and Kalberg K. 2012. Tracking the changes of economic performance indicators for the main U.S. commercial fisheries in the Pacific islands region. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Internal Report IR-12-039, 18 p.

Pan M. 2019. Tracking Changes on Fishery Economic Performance. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIFSC Special Publication, SP-19-004, 6p. https://doi.org/10.25923/zv14-9m26

Pan M. 2018. Tracking Changes on Fishery Economic Performance - Continuous economic data collection programs for the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries 2005-2016. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-73, 48p.

https://doi.org/10.25923/hqhf-d906

Suan A , Leong KM, Oleson KLL. 2021. Automated content analysis of the Hawai’i small boat fishery survey reveals nuanced, evolving conflicts. Ecology and Society 26(4):9.

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12708-260409

Since 2018 economic data (cost, price, revenue, and net revenue) from ongoing economic data collections for regional longline fisheries and small boat fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Islands Territories are included in all the annual WPFMC Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports (Socioeconomics Sections). http://www.wpcouncil.org/annual-reports/

Brochures (2 pagers) that summarize key findings from data collections have been produced and distributed to industry and the fishing community for the following data collections: 2010 Hawaii Bottomfish Cost-Earnings Survey, Hawaii Small Boat Cost-Earnings Surveys (2014, 2021), Marianas Small Boat Cost-Earnings Survey (2011, 2018), American Samoa Small Boat Cost-Earnings Survey (2021), Hawaii Longline Cost-Earnings Survey (2012, 2023), Ongoing Economic Data Collection Programs for Regional Longline Fisheries (2018).

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Yandle, T. and S. Crosson. 2015. Whatever happened to the wreckfish fishery? An evaluation of the oldest finfish ITQ program in the United States. Marine Resource Economics 30(2): 193-217. http://envs.emory.edu/home/documents/Faculty/yandle-docs/Whatever%20happened%20to%20the%20wreckfish%20fishery.pdf

Yandle, T. and S. Crosson. 2015. 20122013 Fishing Year Economics of the Wreckfish Fishery: This sheet presents information from an economic survey of permitted boats harvesting wreckfish in the area under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and compares it to the findings from a similar study for the 1992-1993 fishing year to depict changes in economic conditions for that fishery.

Review of the Wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota Program of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, August 2019:

https://safmc.net/download/FinalWreckfishITQReview.pdf

This report notes that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to review the Wreckfish ITQ program every five to seven years. The Council initially reviewed the program in 2009. This review is the first subsequent review. This review examines how the Wreckfish ITQ program has changed between the baseline time period (2009/2010 – 2011/2012 fishing years) and the review time period (2012/2013 – 2016/2017 fishing years) with respect to various social, economic, biological, and administrative factors, and offers conclusions and recommended changes to the program based on the findings.

The SAMFC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council) currently uses information from the last economic survey of the fleet in its Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan to manage the fishery.

4.1 Additional SEFSC, GMFMC and SAFMC references to the use of similar economic data

Kojis, B., N. Quinn, and J. Agar 2017. Census of licensed fishermen of the U.S. Virgin Islands (2016). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-715, 160 p. doi:10.7289/V5/TM-SEFSC-715

Liese, C., M. Travis, D. Pina, and J. Waters. 2009. The Annual Economic Survey of Federal Gulf Shrimp Permit Holders: Report on the Design Implementation, and Descriptive Results for 2006.-Miami, FL. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-584, 91 p.

Liese, C., M. Travis, and J. Waters. 2009. An Annual Economic Survey of Federal Gulf Shrimp Permit Holders: Implementation and Descriptive Results for 2007.-Miami, FL. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-590, 97 p.

Liese, C. and M. Travis. 2010. The Annual Economic Survey of Federal Gulf Shrimp Permit Holders: Implementation and Descriptive Results for 2008.-Miami, FL. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-601, 99 p.

Liese, C. 2011. 2009 Economics of the federal Gulf shrimp fishery annual report. NOAA

Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami, Florida.

Liese, C. 2015. 2010 Economics of the federal Gulf shrimp fishery annual report. NOAA

Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami, Florida.

Liese, C. 2015. 2011 Economics of the federal Gulf shrimp fishery annual report. NOAA

Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami, Florida.

Liese, C. 2014. Economics of the Federal Gulf Shrimp Fishery - 2012.-Miami, FL. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-668, 26 p.

Liese, C. 2016. 2013 Economics of the federal Gulf shrimp fishery annual report. NOAA

Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, Florida.

Liese, C. 2018. Economics of the Federal Gulf Shrimp Fishery - 2015. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-722, 26 p.

Overstreet, E., L. Perruso, and C. Liese. 2018. Economics of the U.S. South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery - 2016. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-730. 104 p.

Overstreet, E. and C. Liese. 2018. Economics of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery - 2015.-Miami, FL. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-724. 78 p. doi: 10.25923/e6hw-2435

GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2018. “Grouper Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program: Five-Year Review.” 156 pp + app. http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/1Grouper-Tilefish-IFQ-Review.pdf

GMFMC. 2019. Final Shrimp Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for

The Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Waters

This report includes key economic and financial characteristics of federally-permitted Gulf shrimp vessels, which are based on a series of annual reports on the economics of the federal Gulf shrimp fishery for the years 2006 through 2014 (Liese 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2016, 2018; Liese and Travis 2010; Liese et al. 2009a, 2009b). These reports present the results of the Annual Economic Survey of Federal Gulf Shrimp Permit Holders. The first survey, which was administered in 2007, collected data for the 2006 fishing year.

Richardson, E. J. 1994. “Wreckfish Economic and Resource Information Collection with Analysis for Management.” A report pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA37FF0047–01.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1990. Amendment 3 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1991a. Amendment 5 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1991b. Amendment 4 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark Cir., Suite 306, Charleston, S.C. 29407-4699.

SAFMC 2009. Draft Wreckfish Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Program Review. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 210, North Charleston, South Carolina 29405.

SAFMC 2011. Comprehensive Annual Catch Limit (ACL) Amendment for the South Atlantic Region. Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic, Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region, Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, and Amendment 25 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 210, North Charleston, South Carolina 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2012. Amendment 20A to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405. 128 pp. plus appendices.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2015a. Regulatory Amendment 22 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Regulatory Impact Review. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2015b. Amendment 35 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final

Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2016a. Amendment 36 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final

Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2016b. Regulatory Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Regulatory Impact Review. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2017a. Amendment 41 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2017b. Amendment 37 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Fishery Impact Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Ste 201, Charleston, S.C. 29405.

Southwest Fisheries Science Center

Smith, James, Desiree Tommasi, Jonathan Sweeney, Stephanie Brodie, Heather Welch, Elliott Hazen, Barbara Muhling, Stephen Stohs, and Michael Jacox. 2019. 'Lost opportunity: quantifying the dynamic economic impact of time-area fishery closures' accepted publication in Journal of Applied Ecology.

Stohs, Stephen M., Doyle Hanan, Zachary Hanan, Jordan Schafer. 2014. 2008-2010 swordfish fishery cost-and-earnings survey report. (Working paper).

Stohs, Stephen M. 2014. Comparative analysis of profitability of alternative swordfish fishing methods (June 2014 HMSMT Report under Pacific Fishery Management Council Agenda Item E.2.b, working paper).

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2014/06/e-highly-migratory-species-management-june-2014.pdf/

Stohs, Stephen M. 2015. Bootstrap analysis of swordfish fishery (June 2015 HMSMT Report under Pacific Fishery Management Council Agenda Item E.3, working paper). https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2015/06/agenda-item-e-3-a-hmsmt-report.pdf/

National References

NMFS. 2011. A Users Guide to the National and Coastal State I/O Model.

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/commercial_seafood_impacts_2007-2009.pdf.

Anderson, L.G. and M.C. Holliday (eds.) 2007. The Design and Use of Limited Access Privilege Programs. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-86.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/design-and-use-limited-access-privilege-programs

Birkenbach A., David J. Kaczan, Martin D. Smith, Greg Ardini, Dan Holland, Min-Yang Lee, Doug Lipton, and Michael Travis. 2019. Revenue Margins in a Cap-and-Trade System: Evidence from U.S. Fisheries. In press.

Brinson, A.A. and E.M Thunberg. 2016. Performance of federally managed catch share fisheries in the United States. Fisheries Research, 179, pp. 213-225. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/catch-shares/documents/Catch_Shares_Report_FINAL.pdf

NMFS. 2017a. Guidance for Conducting Review of Catch Share Programs. Fisheries Management Catch Share Procedural Directive 01-121-01. 18 pp.

NMFS. 2017b. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2015. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-170, 247 pp.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-economics-united-states-report-2015 .

Thunberg, E., J. Agar, S. Crosson, B. Garber-Yonts, A. Harley, A. Kitts, T. Lee, C. Lian, C. Liese, M. Pan, L. Perruso, G. Silva, D. Squires, E. Steiner, and S. Stohs. 2015. A Snapshot of NOAA Fisheries Data Collection of Commercial Fishery Costs. U.S. Dept of Commer., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-154, 331 p.

1 Appendix A discusses their requirements for economic data and analyses.

2 https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/01-111-05.pdf

3 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3//2024-11/NOAA-Fisheries-Annual-Priorities-2024-locked-508-compliant.pdf

4 https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2020-09/01-120-01.pdf

5 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international/bycatch/national-bycatch-reduction-strategy

6 https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/01-121.pdf

7 The exception is the economic add-on to a trip level creel survey for the American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands small boat-based fisheries.

8 See Response 4.12 for the derivation of this estimate.

9 See Response 3.12 for the derivation of this estimate.

10Hourly wage data are not available for the CNMI and American Samoa; therefore, see Response 3.12 for the derivation of this estimate.

11Hourly wage data are not available for the Mariana Archipelago; therefore, see Response 3.12 for the derivation of this estimate.

12 Marshall, N.A. and P.A. Marshall. 2007. ‘‘Conceptualising and Operationalising Social Resilience within Commercial Fisheries in Northern Australia.’’ Ecology and Society 12. Retrieved May 23 2007: (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art1).

13 Known informally as NOAA Fisheries, the official name of the agency in legislation and regulations is the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

14 MSA defines “conservation and management” as “all of the rules, regulations, conditions, methods, and other measures (A) which are required to rebuild, restore, or maintain, and which are useful in rebuilding, restoring, or maintaining, any fishery resource and the marine environment; and (B) which are designed to assure that— (i) a supply of food and other products may be taken, and that recreational benefits may be obtained, on a continuing basis; (ii) irreversible or long-term adverse effects on fishery resources and the marine environment are avoided; and (iii) there will be a multiplicity of options available with respect to future uses of these resources.” 16 U.S.C. § 1802(5).

15 Limited access system (LAS) means “a system that limits participation in a fishery to those satisfying certain eligibility criteria or requirements contained in a fishery management plan or associated regulation.” 16 U.S.C. § 1802(27).

16 See National Standard 8 explanation above for text of “fishing community” definition from 16 U.S.C. § 1802(17). Voluntary “regional fishery associations” may also be eligible to participate in LAPPs if they meet eligibility criteria, including criteria developed by the relevant Council that are approved by NMFS. See id. § 1853a(c)(4).

17 Catch Share Policy at 18. The MSA also provides that “[e]ach Council shall establish…a scientific and statistical committee [SSC] to assist it in the development, collection, evaluation, and peer review of such statistical, biological, economic, social, and other scientific information as is relevant to such Council's development and amendment of any fishery management plan.” Id. § 1852(g)(1)(A). Each SSC “shall provide its Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including … reports on… social and economic impacts of management measures…” Id. § 1852(g)(1)(B).

18 See “Guidelines for Economic Reviews of National Marine Fisheries Service Regulatory Actions” (NMFS, 2007)

19 The Alaska Fisheries Science Center is not included because none of its cost and earnings surveys for commercial fisheries is voluntary.

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2025-05-19

0648-0773 Supporting Statement A

0648-0773 Supporting Statement A.docx

Economic Surveys of Specific US Commercial Fisheries

OMB: 0648-0773

Table of Contents

NWFSC: West Coast Limited Entry Groundfish Fixed Gear Fisheries Economic Data Collection

3. PIFSC: American Samoa Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection

PIFSC: Hawaii Pelagic Longline Fishery Economic Data Collection

PIFSC: Hawaii Small Boat Fishery Economic Data Collection

PIFSC: American Samoa, Guam, and The Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands Small Boat-Based Fisheries Economic Data Collection (an add-on to each of three creel surveys)

APPENDIX B: References to the Use of Data Collected in NMFS Voluntary Cost and Earnings Information Collections for Commercial Fisheries by Fisheries Science Center19

APPENDIX B: References to the Use of Data Collected in NMFS Voluntary Cost and Earnings Information Collections for Commercial Fisheries by Fisheries Science Center^¹⁹