0204 ss rev_ren 100606

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST REGION PERMIT FAMILY OF FORMS
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0204

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
established regional fishery management councils, including the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Pacific Council), to develop fishery management plans (FMPs) for fisheries in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These plans, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce, are
implemented by Federal regulations, which are enforced by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), in cooperation with State agencies to the
extent possible. FMPs are intended to regulate fishing for stocks to prevent overfishing and
achieve the optimum yield from the fisheries for the benefit of the U.S.
The Pacific Council has prepared a FMP for the coastal pelagic species fishery off the U.S. West
Coast and for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. Each of these FMPs
contains a requirement that commercial fishery participants obtain permits for the fishery. This
request deals with the information collection requirements for permits. The Southwest Region,
NMFS, administers the permit program. Both permits are valid for a two-year term.
There are three types of permits: basic fishery permits highly migratory species (HMS), limited
entry permits for selected fisheries (e.g, West Coast coastal pelagic fishery), and experimental
fishing permits (EFPs). Basic permits are used in all fisheries where there are no specific
limitations or eligibility criteria for entry to the fishery. Limited access/entry permits are used to
prevent overcapitalization or address other problems in the fishery. EFPs are used to allow
controlled and observed fishing with gear or techniques or within closed areas, which would
otherwise be prohibited. Such fishing may demonstrate new ways to fish economically without
adverse biological problems or with less take of protected resources such as sea turtles. In
addition, there are provisions for transfers among owners of certain limited entry permits such as
the coastal pelagic species limited entry permits and for appeals of actions on coastal pelagic
species limited entry permits.
General permit requirements are found in 50 CFR 660.13 (Subpart B) with the specific
requirements contained in relevant sections of 50 CFR 660 (Subparts C - F, and Subpart I) (see
attached associated regulations).
There are typically provisions in the permit process for appeals of permit denials. Appellants
may use whatever form they believe is appropriate in requesting NMFS to review their case.
Permits and the information obtained through permit applications are essential ingredients in the
management of these fisheries. They serve to identify actual or potential participants in the
various fisheries. These data are needed to help measure the impacts of management controls on
the participants in the fisheries. Permits are also effective tools in the enforcement of other
fishery regulations. The threat of permit sanctions that would exclude a vessel from the fishery
1

may be more effective than fines for violations of specific fishery regulations. Further,
transferable limited access/entry permits may have a resale value and may be an asset that the
government can seize in settlement of penalties for fishery violations.
Permits also provide an important link between the NMFS and fishermen via the permit
application process. They make it easier for NMFS staff to contact fishermen and advise them of
changes in the regulations or fishery conditions and give fishermen a direct point of contact in
case they have questions or problems they want to bring to the attention of NMFS or a fishery
management council.
Section 303 (b) (1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically authorizes the establishment of
permit requirements. Almost all international, federal, state, and local fishery management
authority uses permits as part of their management systems.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The information requested on the NMFS Southwest Region federal fisheries permit application
forms by the Southwest Region to determine whether the applicant meets the eligibility criteria
for a permit for the fishery the person wants to enter. The data may also be used by several
offices of NMFS, USCG, and state and territorial fishery-management, research, and
enforcement agencies. As requested, summaries of permit application information are provided
to the Western Pacific and Pacific Councils, member states, and interested parties to describe the
characteristics of the fishery and estimate the nature and magnitude of the impacts of fishery
regulations on different permit holders. Information on the vessel (as provided in documentation
or registration certificates) is used to ascertain actual or potential participants in different sectors
of each fishery and the amount of harvesting pressure they might exert on the fishery. This is
important in determining the potential effectiveness and impacts of different management
approaches and in assessing the capacity of the fleets in the fisheries.
The information collected is basic data on applicants, such as name of owner and vessel operator,
name of vessel and its official number, address, telephone number, and radio call sign. Required
copies of the vessel’s USCG documentation or state/territory registration certificates identify the
legal ownership of the vessel being permitted. This latter requirement is essential for imposing
permit sanctions, which are an effective fisheries enforcement tool. Since many vessels may be
owned by partnerships or corporations, identification of ownership on the application form
allows NMFS to sanction the company as well as the individual vessel operator for repeated
violations of federal regulations. By having addresses, the NMFS can mail fishery information to
vessel owners and operators; also permit renewal forms are sent to permit holders quickly and
easily. Telephone numbers (business, home, facsimile) are used to assist NMFS in processing the
application by allowing questions to be resolved more quickly than by correspondence.
Disclosure of the social security number of the applicant and vessel operator is mandatory in
accordance with the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 7701), which requires that agencies obtain
taxpayer identification numbers from person applying for Federal permits.
2

Vessel owner or his or her agent’s signature is required as legally binding actions, which ensure
eligibility to receive or transfer a permit under specific FMP regulations. False statements
without the signature of the applicant would be much harder to prosecute.
Appeals of permit denials must be accompanied by documentation from the appellant to try to
show why the permit should have been granted. This could include fishing logs, invoices from
fish sales, State landings records, auction house receipts, financial transaction records relative to
vessel ownership, or other records to demonstrate that the appellant had met the eligibility
criteria for the particular fishery.
EFPs are issued to applicants for fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited under a
FMP. A specific form for an EFP application is not required; however, an application for an EFP
must provide a narrative description of the proposed activity to fully document the intended
operations. This documentation allows NMFS, the Pacific Council and affected state/territorial
fishery agency to evaluate the consequences of the experimental fishing activity and weigh the
benefits and costs. EFPs allow innovation that may relieve excessive fishing effort or discover
new methods that may resolve existing technological barriers to better management of the
fishery and resource.
Implementing regulations of Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Northern
Anchovy Fishery, renamed the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan, require
limited entry permits be issued to all vessels fishing for coastal pelagic species, such as Pacific
mackerel, jack mackerel, Pacific sardine, etc., south of 39 degrees N. latitude. Permits are
obtained by filling out an application with information that allows NMFS to determine eligibility
and status of each vessel. These permits are transferable for one year following implementation
of the amendment. After one year, permits may be transferable to another vessel only if the
permitted vessel is lost, stolen, or no longer able to participate in a federally managed
commercial fishery. An application for transferability can only originate from the vessel owner.
The coastal pelagic species permit collection is necessary for NMFS to administer the limited
entry program for the fishery. Vessels authorized to fish in a restricted U.S. West Coast fishery
need to be distinguished from unauthorized vessels with regard to assessing economic impacts
and enforcement at sea.
It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to
support publicly disseminated information. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the
information gathered has utility. NOAA Fisheries will retain control over the information and
safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction, consistent with NOAA
standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See response #10 of this
Supporting Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The information
collection is designed to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. Prior
to dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures and a predissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.

3

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
The Southwest Region’s Web site at http://swr.ucsd.edu is used to inform the public about the
coastal pelagic species permit program and provides a means by which the application form for
the coastal pelagic species limited entry permits may be obtained. EFP applications are relatively
rare events and cannot be predicted in advance. There is no improved information technology
that would simplify the application process.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
One Federal program that provides some similar information is the vessel documentation
program of the U.S. Coast Guard. The permit process calls for submission of a copy of the
current certificate of Documentation for vessels to provide information about the vessels and
their ownership. The permit application form no longer contains a requirement to provide
duplicate information.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
All of the vessels in the Pacific coastal pelagic fishery are small business entities of similar size
and are affected comparably. All fishing operations involving vessels in the highly migratory
fisheries, except the large scale tuna purse seine vessels, can be categorized as small businesses.
However, the reporting burden of applying for a permit is slight relative to the overall cost of
fishing. No special measures are needed to accommodate different sized businesses. Only the
minimum data to meet the permit objectives are requested from the permit applications.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If permit data are not available or are collected less frequently, NMFS will have difficulty
monitoring the fishery, determining entry and exit patterns, and providing information needed to
ensure full impact analysis from the regulatory programs. NMFS Enforcement will not be
assured of being able to identify current permit holders for purposes of compliance monitoring
and enforcement of the regulations. There will be less frequent contact with fishermen and our
ability to contact permit holders to consult them prior to adopting new regulations and to advise
them of regulatory changes will diminish. Our ability to document transfers of marketable
permits under the current western Pacific limited access permit programs for pelagic longline
and crustacean fisheries will be compromised.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection is consistent with the OMB Guidelines.

4

8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments on the
information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received
in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those
comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice (copy attached) solicited public comment on this collection. None
was received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are involved in this program.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, information
submitted in accordance with regulatory requirements under the Act is confidential. This
includes confidential information submitted with a permit application. Personal and proprietary
information is not released to the public.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
For the west coast HMS fishery permits, it was estimated that after the initial first 2-year cycle
has been completed, 90 percent of all permit holders (1,204 of 1,337 vessels on initial collection)
will renew permits every 2 years with minimal changes in information, taking 6 minutes (0.1
hours) per year. Thus, 1,204 vessels would renew with a burden of 120.4 hours, or an annualized
burden of 60.2 hours (602 responses). In addition, there will be substitution vessels for the 10
percent (133 vessels) which depart the fishery, at a burden of 60 minutes for a new permit, with a
total burden estimated at 133 hours. The annualized burden for this sector is 66.5 hours per year
(67 responses). Thus, the total annualized burden is 127 hours (60.2 + 66.5). Total annualized
responses are 669.
For the west coast coastal pelagic fishery permits, there will be no new permits issued, only
renewals. It is estimated that there will be 65 respondents x 0.25 per hour equaling 16.25 hours.
The annualized burden for this sector would be 8.1 hours (33 responses). Transfers are
estimated at 7 respondents x 0.50 hr/response = 3.50 hours (annualized to 1.75 hours (4
responses). Appeals are estimated at 5 respondents x 2 hours/response = 10 hours (annualized to
5

5 hours; 3 responses). Thus, the total annualized burden is 15 (8.1 + 1.75 + 5). Total annualized
responses are 40.
For EFPs, it is estimated that there will be one new permit issued each year x 60 minutes to
complete. Thus, the total annualized burden hours would be 1 hour and 1 response per year.
Total respondents will be 1,270. Total annualized hours will be 143. Total annualized responses
will be 710.
The estimated total annual cost to respondents is estimated at $2,850 per year. This was derived
by multiplying the number of hours of burden each year times an hourly cost rate of $20, the
estimated total cost for administrative staff support in an office setting.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
There is no "start-up" capital cost for complying with these requirements. The annual cost to the
respondents for postage, faxes, copies, etc. related to this collection is estimated at $533.00.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The estimated annualized cost to the government is estimated at $6,710. This is based on the
approximate cost of a GS-7/8 Permits Technician in the Los Angeles Area for sending out permit
renewal notices, reviewing application, responding to inquiries, awarding the permit and
processing the data. The breakdown is as follows:
1.10 hrs x $19.23 x 1,270 respondents = $26,843
Total annualized burden = $6,710
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
There is an overall decrease in burden hours due to adjustments in the number of respondents,
based on estimations after the initial two year period of a new collection, and to the transfer of all
western Pacific fishery permits to the Pacific Islands Regional Office to be covered under PRA
collection 0648-0490, Pacific Islands Permit Family of Forms. The estimated number of appeals
for the coastal pelagic fishery permit also declined as a new estimate was calculated based on the
average number of appeals files during the last three years.
The total cost burden for recordkeeping also declined due to fewer respondents.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No publications based solely on permit data are planned at this time.

6

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
The expiration dates will be shown on the application forms.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
There are no exceptions.

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

7