0471 ss rev 071807

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PERMITS, EXEMPTED
FISHING PERMITS, AND LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0471

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
This submission requests approval to update forms for information collection for the Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) (sharks, tunas, swordfish and billfish) Exempted Fishing Permits
(EFPs), including Scientific Research Permits (SRPs), Display Permits, and Letters of
Acknowledgement (LOAs) to include a new shark research permit. The success of fisheries
management programs depends on ensuring that allowable harvests are not exceeded. The
requirements in this collection derive their authority from two separate acts, and the differences
in those acts are responsible for the variations in the requirements applying to different species as
discussed below.
The 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.) (Magnuson-Stevens Act) governs domestic fisheries and is the sole authority for
management of fishing activities for Atlantic sharks (for which there is no international
management). The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) regulates U.S. fishing activities of
tunas, swordfish and billfish. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) may authorize fishing activities outside the established regulations. NMFS
needs the ability to monitor exempted fishing activities to ensure compliance with authorized
harvest levels in a timely and accurate manner, as this is crucial to enforcement. ATCA at 16
U.S.C. 971 requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations adopted
by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The authority
to issue these regulations has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Section 971 d.(c)(3)
of ATCA provides the statutory authority to require the collection of information necessary to
implement the recommendations of ICCAT. An additional purpose of this collection of
information is to comply with the U.S. obligations under the ATCA.
Under both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, non-scientific activities, including collection
for education or display, may be authorized under EFPs. Exempted Fishing Permits are
necessary to allow research conducted from a commercial or recreational fishing vessel that
would otherwise be prohibited by existing regulations. A display permit is issued for the
collection of HMS for the purpose of public display. A new shark research permit, which is
being addressed under the proposed rule Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 0648-AU89, is also
being issued under the exempted fishing permit program. Shark research permits will be issued
each year to a few, selected applicants who have submitted an application in response to a call
for proposals outlining NMFS’ shark research objectives for a given year. Research within the
shark research fishery is intended to facilitate the conduct of scientific research for the purpose
of limited testing of fishing gear and methods; for the acquisition of data from some portion of
the historical Atlantic shark fishery; and/or for investigating means of reducing bycatch,
economic discards, or regulatory discards.
1

Technically, scientific research is exempted from regulation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
so NMFS does not issue EFPs for bona fide research activities (i.e., research conducted from a
research vessel and not a commercial or recreational fishing vessel) involving species regulated
under Magnuson-Stevens Act Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). To avoid enforcement issues,
however, NMFS does request copies of scientific research plans. In such cases, NMFS issues a
LOA to researchers to indicate concurrence by NMFS that the proposed activity meets the
definition of research and is therefore exempt from regulation.
ATCA, on the other hand, confers regulatory authority over scientific research so that the
Secretary can report all sources of mortality for species regulated by ICCAT. In cases where
tunas, swordfish, and billfishes are being collected, NMFS will issue an EFP if the
research/collection occurs in conjunction with regulated commercial or recreational fishing
activity or a SRP if the collection of regulated species occurs as part of a research cruise (e.g.,
NMFS or university research vessel).
Finally, a 2002 recommendation of the ICCAT (Recommendation 02-21) states that at the time
of a chartering arrangement, the chartering and flag Contracting Parties shall provide specific
information concerning the charter to the ICCAT Executive Secretary, including vessel details,
target species, duration, and consent of the flag Contracting Party or Cooperating nonContracting Party, Entity or Fishing Entity. In order to comply with this recommendation,
NMFS requires that vessel owners apply for and obtain a NMFS chartering permit before fishing
under a chartering arrangement with a foreign entity. A chartering permit would exempt the
vessel from domestic regulations as needed. The chartering permit application is covered under
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No.: 0648-0495.
To regulate these fishing activities, NMFS needs information to determine the justification of
granting an EFP, display, LOA, or SRP. The application requirements for an EFP, display,
LOA, or SRP are detailed at 50 CFR 600.745(b)(2). Although the HMS program authority for
requiring this information is found at 50 CFR 635.32(c), and NMFS is requesting clearance for
the requirements as defined in those regulations, for consistency the application requirements are
the same as for non-HMS permits covered by 600.745(b). Copies of these regulations are
attached.
Since each exempted activity would address unique questions, the details of reporting
requirements cannot be completely identified in advance. The specific requirements of this
collection generally would include the following prior to the activity beginning:
- if participating in the shark research fishery, how the applicant plans on meeting the research
objectives set forth by the Agency
- purpose for the exempted fishing permit,
- advance notification of the fishing or research vessel to be used,
- a list of authorized samplers,
- the number and size classes of fish to be caught or retained,
- anticipated interactions with endangered or protected species,
- the anticipated locations to be fished,
- commencement dates and duration of the activities,
- the fishing methods to be employed, and
- notification of departure to collect animals for public display.
2

Post-activity reports would include (for all permits except the shark research permit):
- catch/collection (interim) reports and “no-catch” reporting,
- tagging animals collected for public display, and
- year-end (annual) reports of results.
These specific reporting requirements will be identified in each EFP and failure to comply would
result in a revocation of the authorization and/or issuance of a notice of violation. NMFS needs
to know the amount and species of fish caught, where they are caught, and the catch disposition
in order to effectively manage a fishery, and the other information is needed for enforcement
purposes.
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.
For SRPs and/or LOAs, NMFS Regions, Fishery Science Centers, and NMFS and Coast Guard
enforcement use information obtained from submitted research plans and subsequent reports in
monitoring such activities to ensure they are bona fide scientific research activities. NMFS
reviews each scientific research plan submitted to establish that the sponsoring organization and
personnel involved are recognized scientific investigators and that the specific project
contemplated appears to be scientific research and not commercial or recreational fishing. In
addition, that the vessel or vessels to be used are, or will be, used exclusively for research for the
duration of the scientific research cruise. NMFS uses any reports or articles voluntarily submitted
to document catch taken in scientific research for inclusion in the total catch, confirm the
activities conducted were scientific research, and consider the appropriateness of acknowledging
future requests.
For exempted fishing activities, NMFS Regions, Fishery Science Centers, and NMFS and Coast
Guard enforcement use EFP and shark research permit requests and their reports to evaluate
proposals for issuance of permits, ensure activities are carried out as described in the permit, and
document the catch by exempted fishing for inclusion in the total catch. NMFS evaluates EFP
requests and shark research permit requests to determine their usefulness to the overall goals of
the HMS fishery management plans; determines their impact on the fishery stocks, endangered
species, and marine mammals; and evaluates them comparatively with other applicants for the
same fishery. Management and enforcement use the information to identify the entities and
vessels involved and ensure the applicant carries out activities within the restraints of the permit;
the shark research permit also allows commercial fishermen to retain sandbar sharks.
Management and enforcement use the reports from EFPs, SRPs, Display Permits, and LOAs to
document catch for inclusion in the total catch, confirm the activities conducted were in
accordance with the permit, and consider the permittee for future permits. Shark research
permittees do not have to submit interim or annual reports. These permittees are subject to 100
percent observer coverage, and scientific observer reports describing all fishing activities (i.e.,
landings, discards, interactions with protected resources) will be used by managers and
enforcement to monitor catch. Fishermen with a shark research permit, however, must report
their commercial catch in the appropriate logbook for quota monitoring of other species.
For exempting educational activities, NMFS evaluates the authorization request for these
activities to determine whether they are complete, confirms their educational value, and
3

determines their consistency with the goals, objectives, and requirements of the HMS fishery
management plans. Management and enforcement use the information to identify the entities
and vessels involved and ensure the applicant carries out activities within the restraints of the
permit. Management and enforcement use reports to document catch taken for inclusion in the
total catch, to confirm the activities conducted were in accordance with the permit, and for
consideration of future requests.
Requiring EFP recipients to report their harvest per occurrence in both Federal and state waters
as well as “no-catch” reporting allows management to document catch taken for inclusion in the
total catch. In addition, tagging animals collected for public display, and notifying enforcement
when departing for fishing trips for collection of animals for public display provides law
enforcement personnel with a means to monitor fishing activities and to ascertain whether the
vessel’s observed activities are in accordance with those authorized for that vessel. Annual
reports provide a validation check against the data submitted in interim reports as well as a way
for NMFS to determine if all individual reports have been submitted. Additionally, as many
EFPs are issued for the purposes of research and/or public display, the scientific community, as
well as the general public, will benefit as unauthorized and illegal fishing are deterred and more
burdensome regulations are avoided. The information collected pursuant to scientific collection
activities under EFPs may be incorporated in future stock assessments. Inadequate harvest
controls under these EFPs could result in curtailment of collection activity and the loss of public
benefits.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. 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 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. 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.
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.
This collection of information does not require the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological techniques; however applications, interim, and annual reporting forms can be
sent electronically to permittees, and permittees may also return forms electronically. The
applications, interim, and annual reports may be mailed, faxed, or e-mailed in to the HMS
Division, as applicable, and the fishing notifications must be called in to enforcement.
NMFS requires the implantation of a dart tag or a microchip Passive Integrated Transponder
(PIT) tags in animals brought back to shore for public display. This will impose no burden on
the public since NMFS will supply the tags to collectors and supply the tag readers to
enforcement.

4

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Scientific Research Plans: To the extent that scientific research organizations are required to
submit scientific research plans to NOAA, NMFS, or other agencies as a part of any contract or
grant, those same plans would be acceptable for the purposes of this information collection.
Copies of any scientific cruise report or research documentation required to be submitted by a
scientific research organization would be acceptable as a voluntary report for the purposes of this
collection.
Exempted fishing: There is no duplication with other collections. These EFPs are issued relative
to specific requirements submitted to NMFS.
Shark research permits: There is no duplication with other collections. These permits are issued
relative to specific research objectives outlined annually by NMFS.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Nearly all commercial fishing and collection vessels in the HMS fisheries are categorized as
small businesses. The collection in and of itself will not have a significant impact on small
businesses, and no special modifications of the requirements were considered necessary to
accommodate the needs of small businesses.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
Scientific research plans: Violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA where the violator
asserts he/she was conducting scientific research and not commercially or recreationally fishing
will be difficult to prove if a scientific research plan is not obtained, and a SRP or a LOAs is not
issued. Without a SRP or LOA, legitimate researchers will be inconvenienced and enforcement
units will conduct needless and inappropriate boardings of scientific research vessels whose
activities are confused with commercial and/or recreational fishing. In addition, if the catches of
some scientific activities are large and not documented, then such activities cannot be managed
properly and may contribute to overfishing. Therefore, SRPs and LOAs allow the Agency to
monitor quotas and track landings conducted through research, and this data is used in future
stock assessments.
Exempted fishing: Issuance of EFPs allows NMFS access to relevant information that can be
used in the management of fisheries. If the information requested by exempted fishing and
exempted educational activity permits is not obtained, there will be no standard way of dealing
with these activities from region to region, and there could be more incidents of persons who
think they are conducting scientific research being found in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and/or ATCA. In addition, requiring EFP applicants to report landings or collections and to
provide an annual summary of these activities will increase the efficacy of management
measures and reduce costs for both the U.S. Coast Guard and NMFS Office of Law
Enforcement. Less frequent reporting would not support this goal, and would not allow the
Agency to track landings and monitor quotas. Dart tags and PIT tags allow NMFS to avoid
significant problems with accurate and timely enforcement of fisheries management measures.
5

All data collected under these permits would be used in future stock assessments; without
accounting for this mortality, such stocks could be subject to overfishing.
Shark research permits: Issuance of shark research permits identifies commercial shark
fishermen that are participating in the shark research fishery. Without such a permit, these
vessels would not be able to retain and sell sandbar sharks. Therefore, such a permit helps with
enforcement of this fishery and allows commercial fishermen to retain and sell sandbar sharks.
The shark research fishery also allows NMFS to conduct research cooperatively with commercial
shark fishermen. This research allows testing of novel fishing gear and methods; the acquisition
of data from some portion of the historical Atlantic shark fishery; and/or investigating means of
reducing bycatch, economic discards, or regulatory discards as well as any appropriate research
objectives identified by NMFS. Without such research, data collection from commercial shark
fishermen for future stock assessments would not occur, modifications to fishing gears to reduce
bycatch would not occur, and increased post-release survival of bycatch could not be
investigated.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Interim reports (required within five days of the conclusion of a fishing trip) and “no catch”
reports (required each month no fishing is conducted) are necessary for the management of
different fisheries through quota monitoring. Annual reports provide a validation check against
the data submitted in interim reports as well as a way for NMFS to determine if all individual
interim reports have been submitted. Thus, these reports are necessary for management as well
as enforcement.
Commercial fishermen carrying a shark research permit do not need to submit an interim or
annual report. Participants in the shark research fishery must carry a scientific observer at all
times when fishing within the shark research fishery, so catch reports regarding all catch during
these trips will be submitted by scientific observers. Fishermen with a shark research permit,
however, must report their commercial catch in the appropriate logbook for quota monitoring of
other species.
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.
Comments from the public will be solicited in Proposed Rule 0648-AU89.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
NMFS does not make payments or gifts to respondents.

6

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Generally, the information collected is confidential under section 402(b) of the MagnusonStevens Act, as amended in 2006. It is also confidential under NOAA Administrative Order
216.100, which sets forth procedures to protect confidentiality of fishery statistics. However,
applicants for experimental fishing permits and exempted educational activities may be required
to waive confidentiality of information as a condition of a permit. Whenever data are requested,
the Agency ensures that information identifying the pecuniary business activity of a particular
vessel operator is not identified.
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 information of a sensitive nature is requested.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
An application for an EFP, SRP, Display Permit, LOA, or shark research permit must contain all
the information required for an EFP application found at 50 CFR part 600.745(b)(2). An
application for a SRP and a LOA must include a research plan and/or all the information required
for an EFP application. Based on recent information on the number of EFP, SRP, display, and
LOA applications, NMFS estimates: 2 hours for a scientific research plan; 40 minutes for an
application for an EFP, display, SRP, or LOA for Highly Migratory Species; 1 hour for an
interim report; 40 minutes for an annual fishing report; 15 minutes for an application for an
amendment to an EFP; 5 minutes for notification of departure phone calls to NMFS
Enforcement; 2 minutes for “no-catch” reports; and 2 minutes for tag applications. NMFS has
updated the burden hours to account for the addition of a shark research permit but anticipates
that the application for participation in this program would take the same amount of time as
completing an EFP, Display permit, LOA, or SRP application. NMFS assumes that all current
directed and incidental shark permit holders (i.e., 529) could apply for a shark research permit.
4 scientific research plans @ 2 hours = 8 hours
529 shark research permit applications @ 40 minutes = 353 hours
45 EFP, SRP, LOA, and display permit applications @ 40 minutes = 30 hours
14 amendments to exempted fishing permits @ 15 minutes = 4 hours
95 interim reports @ 1 hour = 95 hours
19 “no catch” reports @ 2 minutes = 38 minutes (rounded up to 1 hour)
45 annual reports @ 40 minutes = 30 hours
10 departure notifications to enforcement for collection of display animals @ 5 minutes = 50
minutes (rounded up to 1 hour)
7

92 notification calls to the Southeast Fisheries Science Center for observer coverage @ 10
minutes = 15 hours and 18 minutes
15 tag applications @ 2 minutes = 30 minutes (rounded to zero by ROCIS)
Total annual burden for applying, notifying, tagging and reporting for HMS exempted fishing
permits: 537 hours
Total respondents: 574 (45 EFP, SRP, LOA, and display permit applications + 529 shark
research permit applications)
Total responses: 868 (4 research plans + 574 applications + 14 amendments + 95 interim reports
+ 45 annual reports + 19 “no-catch” reports + 10 departures notifications + 92 notification calls +
15 tag applications)
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).
The cost to applicants is minimal, with only a letter, landing report forms, or local telephone call
needed to apply, notify or report. NMFS estimates that the total annual cost burden at $308.32
with the average cost per EFP, SRP, LOA, display or chartering permit respondent at $0.54:
NMFS typically receives amendments via e-mail, so there would be no cost associated with
submitting these requests. In addition, departure notification calls are done via telephone to local
enforcement offices, so there is no charge associated with these responses. Therefore, the
number of responses that would require mailing a form to NMFS includes:
Total EFP/SRP/LOA/display/Shark Research applications (574), research plans (4), and tag
applications (15) = 593
Total EFP/SRP/LOA/display/chartering permit reports (95 interim reports + 45 annual reports +
19 “no-catch” reports) = 159
Total Responses: = 593 + 159 = 752 responses
Total EFP/SRP/LOA/Display/Shark Research applications, research plans, tag applications, and
EFP/SRP/LOA/Display and chartering permit reports = 752 x $0.41 postage per application,
interim, and annual report = $308.32 (rounded up to $310 by ROCIS).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
Costs for printing and supplying EFP collection information cards are expected to be minimal.
The information cards have been produced with a word processor and can be faxed or mailed to
EFP recipients. No new overhead costs will be incurred for these collections because NMFS will
be using existing staff and equipment to conduct duplication, distribution, collection, and data
entry. Costs of dart and PIT tags (microchips) for use by applicants will be incurred by NMFS;
however, as inspection operations will be conducted by existing staff, no new personnel costs
8

will be incurred. NMFS has already purchased PIT tag readers (10 @ $475 each for a total of
$4,750) and has already purchased a supply of dart tags that will last the duration of three years.
The annual cost for PIT tags is estimated to be $600 (100 tags @ $6 per tag). Therefore, for the
annual total cost to the Government is expected to be $600.
The overall level of observer coverage due to the shark research fishery will not change;
therefore, there is no expected increase in the cost to the Government due to 100 percent
observer coverage in the shark research fishery. There is a scientific observer program in place
for the current shark fishery. Under the preferred measures in the proposed rule, there would
only be a maximum of 10 shark vessels operating in the shark research fishery with 100 percent
observer coverage. Due to the reduced number of vessels in the shark fishery under the proposed
rule, the overall number of observers is not expected to increase, rather they will just be allocated
differently amongst the shark fishery fleet.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
This submission is a modification of a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) package OMB Control
No.: 0648-0471 that expires on February 28, 2009. The changes from the previous submission
are as follows: the HMS Management Division will be issuing shark research permits for a small
shark research fishery under Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP. To be selected to
participate in this research fishery, current commercial shark fishermen would need to apply
annually for this permit. NMFS assumes that any current directed or incidental shark fishermen
could apply for this permit (i.e., 529 applicants). Therefore, the annual cost burden has increased
from $68.45 to $308.32 (a difference of $239.87). In addition, since the number of applicants is
expected to increase with the addition of shark research permits, the burden hours associated
with these activities is now 536.4 (i.e., the burden hours have increased 367.8 hours from 168.6
burden hours to 536.4 burden hours).
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No publication is planned.
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 date will be displayed.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
No exceptions are requested.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection does not employ statistical methods.
9