0327 ss rev 030408

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES PERMIT FAMILY OF FORMS
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0327

INTRODUCTION
This Supporting Statement is submitted as part of a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) request to
revise information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No.: 06480327. The collection consists of vessel and dealer permits which are part of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) program to manage Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS)
including tuna, billfish, sharks, and swordfish. The covered permits are listed in the table below.
The fishery management program is implemented under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971) and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1801), the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan, and the regulations at 50 CFR
part 635 and part 300.182.
Dealer Permits
HMS International Trade Permit
Atlantic Tunas Dealer
Shark Dealer
Swordfish Dealer
Vessel Permits
Atlantic Tunas
HMS Charter/Headboat
HMS Recreational
Shark (Directed, Incidental)
Swordfish (Directed, Incidental,
Hand Gear)

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The purpose of this collection of information is to comply with the statutory obligations of the
Atlantic Tunas Convention (ATC; 16 U.S.C. 971), the Tuna Conventions (TC, 16 U.S.C. 955),
and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C.
1853), and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and part 300 subpart M.
Section 971d(c)(3) of the ATCA provides the statutory authority to promulgate regulations as
necessary to implement the recommendations of the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). As a member nation of ICCAT, the United States is
obligated to implement ICCAT recommendations and take part in the collection of biological
statistics for research purposes (fishing effort and catch). As one of the member nations fishing
for Atlantic HMS, the United States must abide by the specific catch quotas or caps assigned by
ICCAT and support ICCAT rebuilding and fishery management programs. ICCAT
recommendations have also established restrictions on international trade, such as statistical
document programs to track the trade of bluefin tuna, swordfish, and frozen bigeye tuna.
Statistical documents programs recommended by the Commission for the Conservation of
1

Southern Bluefin Tuna and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission are also implemented under the
authority of ATCA to effectively implement ICCAT statistical document programs.
The United States is also a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC),
and authorized under the Tunas Convention Act to implement resolutions approved by IATTC.
Like ICCAT, IATTC has adopted a resolution for a frozen bigeye tuna statistical document
program.
The Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish and shark fisheries are also managed under the MSFCMA
and the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan, and several of these fisheries are subject
to restrictive catch quotas with the goal of recovering the stocks to a level commensurate with
maximum sustainable yield. Section 303(b) of the MSFCMA provides statutory authority to
require permits for fisheries governed by management plans issued by the Secretary of
Commerce.
Regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and 300 subpart M requires the permits listed above under
Section A. Justification. The importance of the information collected by permit issuance and the
use of the permit system is explained in question #2.
In addition, in a proposed rule (Regulation Identifier Number (RIN): 0648-AU88) to improve
enforcement of the HMS International Trade Permit (ITP) program, NMFS would require that
shark fin traders obtain the HMS ITP, as a means to identify the individuals involved in this
activity, and assist monitoring trade of this valuable commodity. Export of shark fins drives
much of the U.S. shark fishery, including overfishing of several species and landing prohibited
species. Dealers may receive up to $50 per pound for shark fins (dry weight). Dusky sharks
(which are currently prohibited) and sandbar sharks have been determined to be overfished with
overfishing still occurring, and porbeagle sharks have been determined to be overfished. Dusky
sharks (before they were prohibited) and sandbar sharks have been heavily commercially
exploited because of the high value of their fins. NMFS is currently proposing management
measures to rebuild these stocks and stop overfishing, and has already implemented regulations
to control the shark fishery by limiting the amount of shark fins that can be landed relative to the
amount of shark meat that is landed. However, the high prices obtained for shark fins result in
extreme pressure to circumvent the regulations. Once shark fins pass beyond the dealer acting as
first-receiver/landing, it is difficult to track compliance with landing regulations. The regulatory
adjustment requiring shark fin traders to obtain an ITP is expected to result in an increase in the
number of individuals requiring the HMS ITP (estimated 10-100).
The proposed rule would also modify the description of the entity required to obtain the ITP to
harmonize NMFS and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations that address U.S. trade
by foreign entities. This regulatory adjustment is not expected to affect the number of permit
applicants.

2

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.
Permits can be used to accomplish many functions, which are discussed further below. One of
the main purposes for permitting by NMFS is to identify the participants in a particular trade or
industry. NMFS manages fisheries on a regional basis; likewise, permits are issued by regional
offices and the permit databases are regionally distributed. HMS works with two regions and the
Office of Science and Technology to issue HMS permits. Under these current HMS operations,
it is difficult to identify businesses that hold more than one HMS permit. An exception to this
rule are the permits covering the HMS longline fisheries, some of which are required to be held
in unison. In 2006, 604 permit holders held the 1,131 permits issued for this fishery (includes
portions of shark, swordfish and Atlantic Tunas vessel permits). Conversely, the HMS
recreational fishery can be identified as holding only one HMS vessel permit (approximately
25,238 in 2006). All other respondents could hold more than one dealer or (commercial) vessel
permit.
This revision pertains to the International Trade Permit, described below:
Dealer Permits
The general information collected for dealer applications includes all or some of the following
information:
Business & owner name and contact information (e.g. phone, address, business website, etc.),
Birth date for the sole proprietor or applicant,
Business report or articles of incorporation (other than sole proprietorship);
Facilities where product is received or other business addresses/contact information
Applicant name and contact information
Federal Tax I.D. Number
Type of dealer permit requested
Other NMFS dealer permit identification
Applicant signature and date
Note: the currently approved Federal Tax I.D. Number requirement is included in this revision,
specifically for support of the cost recovery requirement in the Southeast Region Gulf of Mexico
Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program, OMB Control No.: 0648-0551. Dealers
applying for the International Trade Permit may be eligible to acquire these quota shares.
Collection of the Tax Identification Number (TIN) is necessary to ensure that we are collecting
from the person who owes the debt. If the fee submission and payment are not received, the
agency must begin collection processes and those collection processes cannot be initiated or
accomplished without the TIN. Because the TIN in this instance is collected for NMFS cost
recovery, there is demonstrable practical utility. In addition, cost recovery is mandated by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a et seq.) as amended in 2006, and the collection of TIN
in such an instance is supported by 31 U.S.C. Section 7701). This is the only method we have
for identifying TIN for those involved, or who may become involved, in the IFQ program.
Application for all dealer permits requires submission of the appropriate hard-copy application
indicated as below in Number 3. In general, the purpose and use of dealer permits is to (1)
3

identify fish dealers and the characteristics of their operations; (2) increase compliance (e.g.,
impose permit sanctions pending collection of required reports or unpaid penalties); (3) provide a
mailing list for the dissemination of important information to the industry; and (4) provide a
universe for data collection samples.
Although the information collected is not expected to be disseminated directly to the public, it
may be used in the development or review of fishery management plans or subject to release
through a Freedom of Information Act request, and is therefore subject to National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Information Quality Guidelines. 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 Question #10
of this Supporting Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The
information collection is designed to yield data that meet all applicable information quality
guidelines. Prior to dissemination, the information will be subjected to quality control measures
and a pre-dissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Dealer permit applications must be submitted in hard copy. Electronic versions of the
applications are available to be printed and filled out by hand or as form-fillable .PDF files.
Renewal is facilitated by providing a pre-filled renewal application.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The HMS Advisory Panel meets at least once per year to discuss issues pertinent to management
of HMS fisheries, including permits. This panel includes representatives from fishing and
processing industries, environmentalists, and state representatives. Through this forum and the
federal rule-making process, information including any potential duplication of permitting
requirements is identified.
Dealer Permit
HMS Dealer permits are species specific for purchasing HMS from fishing vessels (see below).
In addition, HMS dealers who import, export, or re-export species covered by the HMS ITP are
required to hold that permit as well. So, although U.S. dealers may be required to hold more
than one permit for purchasing and trading HMS, each permit covers a different function, and
none of the permits are duplicative in the activities they cover.
SPECIES
Atlantic bluefin tuna
Atlantic bigeye tuna
Atlantic sharks

PERMIT FOR PURCHASE
FROM VESSEL
Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit
Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit
Atlantic Shark Dealer Permit

Atlantic swordfish
Southern bluefin tuna

Atlantic Swordfish Dealer Permit
None

4

PERMIT FOR
TRADE
HMS ITP
HMS ITP (frozen only)
HMS ITP (proposed for
shark fins only)
HMS ITP
HMS ITP

5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Annual permitting does not have a significant impact on small businesses, organizations or
government bodies. The minimal burden per application is outlined in Question #12. Impacts
have been minimized for several vessel permits by providing application and renewal services
over the internet and telephone, as discussed in Question # 3.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If this information collection were not conducted, the United States would have difficulty in
complying with international obligations under ICCAT, possibly resulting in violations of
ICCAT catch recommendations. ICCAT penalties may include reduction in the assigned country
catch quota equal to a minimum of 125% of the excess harvest. In addition, trade restrictions
may be imposed on countries that fail to restrict catch to the level of the assigned quotas. This is
particularly important for those species for which an international rebuilding program is in place
such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and blue and white marlins.
Estimates of the status of the Atlantic HMS resources would be less accurate without this
information, since all contracting parties to ICCAT must submit catch and effort information on
an annual basis. Without such catch and effort statistics, the conservation and management
objectives of ICCAT with respect to the tuna and swordfish rebuilding programs could be
jeopardized. Furthermore, it would be difficult for the United States to formulate domestic
policy consistent with the MSFCMA, which must be based on sound socio-economic and
biological data and analyses. NMFS would be less able to prepare documents such as
Regulatory Impact Reviews, or Environmental Impact Statements, etc., as required under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other applicable laws.
Annual permitting thus provides a more accurate vessel and dealer list and facilitates quota
monitoring and data collections necessary to meet ICCAT obligations. Widening the timeframe
for collection of information on HMS fisheries participants (e.g., every two years rather than
annually) would provide a less accurate sampling frame that is the basis for fleet size
calculations used for annual catch and effort estimates. Many vessels change hands or are
moved from year to year. It is also necessary to permit dealers annually in order to ensure
accurate records of landings and to communicate regulatory changes efficiently and effectively.
Likewise, annual permitting for trade participants provides NMFS with a comprehensive list of
individuals involved in trade of species included in regional fishery management organization
(RFMO, e.g. ICCAT) statistical document programs. This allows NMFS to communicate
program requirements, including time-sensitive changes, and collect necessary data for required
RFMO reports. If reports are not submitted, the United States could be penalized by quota
reductions as discussed above. The permitting of shark traders will assist NMFS in
understanding shark fin trade and improving domestic management of sharks. If not permitted,
NMFS would continue to lack information on the industry driving the shark fishery.

5

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Collection of information will be made in a manner consistent with OMB guidelines.
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 proposed rule, RIN: 0648-AU88, amending regulations so that the HMS ITP may be required
for shark fin traders, will be published for public comment.
All of the permits covered under this collection were established via the federal rulemaking
process which required analyses of the impacts of the permits and provided an opportunity for
public comment. In addition, a federal advisory committee (the HMS Advisory Panel) meets at
least annually to provide input on HMS regulatory and operations programs.
The HMS Advisory Panel met most recently in October of 2007, and continues to support
improved recreational monitoring as a high priority, which would not be possible without this
collection.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
There are no payments or other remunerations to respondents.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
The information collected is confidential under section 402(b) of the MSFCMA, as amended in
2006. It is also confidential under NOAA Administrative Order 216.100, which sets forth
procedures to protect confidentiality of fishery statistics.
A Privacy Act System of Records Notice, COMMERCE/NOAA-19, Permits and Registrations
for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries, will be published in the Federal Register in
April, 2008.
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 sensitive questions are asked.

6

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Although this revision applies only to the International Trade Permit, we are taking this
opportunity to update burden and cost estimates for all permits. Burden hours, number of
respondents and opportunity costs for each permit are given in the table below. For most permit
types, the number of respondents is estimated by actual 2006 data, increased by 10% to account
for any potential increases in number of permits issued over the period covered by this request.
Exceptions for this include limited access permits for which the number of respondents was not
increased(1), and the HMS ITP(2). For the HMS ITP, the number of actual 2006 permits plus an
estimated increase of 100 HMS ITP were added to account for potential increase in HMS ITP
issued to shark fin traders.
Permit Type

Annual
Responses
(2006)

Annual
Responses
(Future/current)

Time per
Response
(hrs)

Annual Burden
(hrs)

Cost ($)
(@$15/hr)

9,710

10,681

0.5 (30 min.)

5,341

80,115

25,124

27,636

0.1 (6 min.)

2,764

41,460

241

2411

0.1 (6 min.)

24

360

35,075
959

38,558
9591

8,129
316

121,935
4,747

SUBTOTALS (VESSEL)
DEALER PERMITS
INITIAL - Atlantic Tunas

36,034

39,517

N/A
0.33 (20
min.)
N/A

8,445

126,682

100

110

28

420

RENEWAL - Atlantic
Tunas
Shark and Swordfish (shark
= 225)
HMS ITP

306

336

28

420

470

517

43

645

230

330(2)

27

405

SUBTOTALS (DEALER)
TOTALS

1,106

1,293
40,810

126
8,571

1,890
128,572

VESSEL PERMITS
INITIAL -- Atlantic Tunas
(General, Harpoon & Trap
categories), HMS
Charter/headboat, HMS
Angling
RENEWAL -- Atlantic
Tunas, HMS
Charter/headboat (General,
Harpoon & Trap categories),
HMS Charter/headboat,
HMS Angling
RENEWAL – Atlantic
Tunas limited access (Purse
seine & Longline categories)
SUBTOTAL
Shark and Swordfish

7

0.25 (15
min.)
0.083 (5
min.)
0.083 (5
min.)
0.083 (5
min.)
N/A
N/A

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).
Permit Type

VESSEL PERMITS
Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/headboat,
HMS recreational – internet application &
self printed/faxed/mailed (99% of 38,558)
Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/headboat,
HMS recreational – hardcopy application
(0.95% of 38,558)
Atlantic Tunas, HMS Charter/headboat,
HMS recreational – overnight delivery (.05%
of 38,558)
Shark and Swordfish
SUBTOTAL
DEALER PERMITS
Atlantic Tunas
Shark and Swordfish
HMS ITP
SUBTOTAL
TOTALS

Annual
Responses
(Future)

Estimated
Permit Cost ($)

Application
Submission
and/or Permit
Delivery Cost

Total
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
Cost ($)

38,173

$28

0

1,068,844

366

$28

$0.50

10,431

19

N/A

$3.55

67

959
39,517

$50
N/A

0.50
N/A

48,430
1,127,772

446
517
330
1,293
40,810

$113
$100
$25

0.50
0.50
0.50

50,621
51,958
8,415
110,994
1,238,766

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The cost of all these permits will be reimbursed by an administrative cost recovery fee, and there
will be no cost to the Federal government.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Questions 13
or 14 of the OMB 83-I.
Program Changes – Changes to dealer permitting that resulted in changes to the number of
respondents, responses, or costs in this request as compared to the previous version are the result
of: 1) the new requirement for shark traders to obtain the HMS ITP; and 2) a new fee ($113) for
the Atlantic Tunas Dealer Permit.
Program Adjustments – Adjustments to the number of respondents, responses, or costs as
compared to the previous version are the result of: 1) the use of more recent data for estimation
of the number of permit holders; 2) an estimated addition of 10% more permit holders by the end
of the reporting period; 3) adjustment in cost of ITP from $100 to $25; 4) changes in the
percentage of renewal v. initial permits.

8

Description
Add Charge
for ATDP
Add shark fin
traders to
HMS ITP

Number of Responses
Previous

Current

Change

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

100

100

TOTAL for PROGRAM CHANGE
On 83i

DEALER PERMITS
509
ATDP
Shark &
583
SWO
960
HMS ITP
VESSEL PERMITS
Shark &
974
SWO

446

Number of hours
Previous

Change

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

8

8

100

-63

Recordkeeping/reporting Cost

Current

Previous

N/A

Current`

Change

50,398

50,398

2550

2550

8

52

53

56

4

255

223

-32

43

-5

58,592

51,958

-6634

48
517

-113

230

-730

80

19

-61

24,480

5865

-90,615

959

-15

321

316

-5

49,187

48,430

-757

38,558

-3,936

7989

8129

140

926,068

1,079,275

153,207

TOTAL for PROG ADJ on 83i
45,520
40,810
TOTAL per
83i

-4857
8490

8571

1,059

1,239

Atlantic Tunas,
HMS
Recreational,
& HMS
Charter/
headboat

42,494

-4757

73
81

127
180

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No publication of information is planned other than annual summary tables of the total number
and type of permit issued by state and. Such tables may appear in reports to ICCAT, Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation reports, Environmental Assessments, Regulatory Impact
Reviews, etc.
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 control number and expiration date for OMB approval are displayed on all hardcopy forms
(applications and/or instructions) and under the permit information screen on the web site.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Question 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