0327 ss ren 090308rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
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
renew information collection Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 0648-0327.
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 of
1975 (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSFCMA) as reauthorized in 2006 (16 U.S.C. 1801), the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery
Management Plan, and the regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and part 300 subpart M.
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
statutes and regulations listed above.
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
required 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 implement specific quotas established by ICCAT and
support ICCAT rebuilding and fishery management programs. ICCAT recommendations have
also established restrictions on international trade, such as statistical and catch document
programs to track the trade of bluefin tuna, swordfish, and frozen bigeye tuna. Statistical
document programs recommended by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin
Tuna and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission are also implemented under the authority of
ATCA to effectively implement ICCAT consignment document programs.

The United States is also a member of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC),
and authorized under the Tunas Convention Act of 1950 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 parts 635 and 300 subpart M requires permits to implement the measures
listed above, among other things. The importance of the information collected prior to permit
issuance and the use of the permit system is explained in Question 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 issuing permits 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. The HMS office works with two
regions (Northeast and Southeast) and the Office of Science and Technology to issue HMS
permits. Under these current HMS operations, it is possible that the same business will hold
more than one HMS permit. For example, HMS pelagic longline vessels are required to hold
separate tuna, shark and swordfish fishing permits to conduct commercial pelagic longline
fishing operations. In 2006, 604 permit holders held 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.
Vessel Permits
The general information collected for vessel permits includes all or some of the following:
Vessel owner, corporate status, birth date or corporation filed date, Federal Tax ID number,
names of additional owners, and contact information (e.g. address, phone, etc.);
Vessel name, registration, and port;
Vessel characteristics and construction type;
Gear type/category;
Signature and payment/delivery information.
Shark and swordfish Limited Access Permit Applications collect the following additional
information:
Lease information (if applicable).
2

Transfer of tuna, shark and swordfish limited access permits require the following additional
information: Previous year’s original permit.
Shark, swordfish, and tuna limited access permits require submission of a signed hard-copy
application in addition to the information indicated above. All other vessel permits can be
obtained by submitting a hard-copy application, or using the automated permitting system (toll
free telephone 1-888-USA-TUNA or website www.hmspermits.gov). The application necessary
for each permit is identified below.
Collection of information through annual vessel permits provides current information on the
vessel owners participating in these fisheries, thus facilitating quota monitoring necessary to
avoid exceeding catch quotas for tunas, swordfish and sharks and landings caps for marlins. For
example, NMFS requires that vessel permits be displayed to dealers and that permit numbers be
recorded on dealer reports in order to validate landings of bluefin tuna.
A current permit holder list aids NMFS in the communication and enforcement of fishery
regulations through distribution of management program brochures, fish identification guides,
and regulatory compliance guides. In addition, a permit “universe” facilitates collecting catch
and effort information about recreational fisheries, as required by law. NMFS constructs
sampling frames for dockside and telephone surveys from permit holder lists and uses the list to
select vessels for logbooks and/or at-sea observers (addressed under separate collections). Such
surveys, logbooks and observer reports provide essential information for management of the
Atlantic tunas and HMS fisheries in the United States, particularly in terms of quota allocation
decisions which follow ICCAT and MSFCMA recommendations, such as allocating fishing
opportunities consistent with traditional fishing patterns and considering the economic values to
various user groups. NMFS operates a mandatory angler catch reporting program for bluefin
tuna (addressed under a separate collection) that is linked to the permit number to avoid false
reporting and facilitate enforcement.
Another purpose of the vessel permit requirement is that it serves as a useful tool in support of
enforcement of fishery regulations. That is, the permit can be revoked as a penalty for a
violation of fishery conservation measures.
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: Collection of the Federal Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) requirement, recently reapproved for OMB Control No. 0648-0327, is included in this renewal, specifically for support
3

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 with HMS dealer permits
are likely to participate in the cost recovery program for red snapper, which would require that
the dealers collect cost recovery payments from the vessels and forward them to NMFS.
Collection of the TIN is necessary to ensure that NMFS cost recovery payments are collected
from the individual who owes the debt and properly forwarded to NMFS by the dealer. 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. 1852 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 NMFS has 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 Question 3. In general, the purpose and use of dealer permits is to (1)
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 response to
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 subject 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.
Both telephone and internet are available for submission of Atlantic tunas, HMS
Charter/headboat, and HMS recreational vessel permits. These automated systems are available
on a 7 day/24 hour basis, and are available at no additional charge to the permit holder beyond
the cost of the permit (See Questions 12 and 13 for relative costs). After an electronic
application has been submitted, a vessel owner can track the application process and permit
status via the internet (www.hmspermits.gov). Once application processing is complete, a permit
can be printed off the website or faxed or mailed back to the vessel owner. Alternatively, hard
copy applications for these permits can be obtained directly from the internet site or through the
mail via an automated internet or phone request, and can be filled out by hand and submitted by
mail. Automated information is available on a toll free telephone line (888-USA-TUNA).
4

All other 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 Portable
Document Format (.PDF) files.
For Dealer Permits, renewal is facilitated by providing a pre-filled renewal application. Vessel
permits for Atlantic tunas, HMS Charter/headboat, and HMS Recreational also provide a simpler
opportunity for renewal by providing pre-filled fields for both internet and phone renewal.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The HMS Advisory Panel meets at least once per year (usually twice) 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.
Vessel Permits
No other Federally-issued fishing permits are required for the activities covered by the permits in
this collection. State permits may be necessary for fishing in some states’ waters for certain
species. HMS permitted vessels may participate in other federally regulated commercial
fisheries (i.e., Northeast Region multi-species) for which permits are issued. NMFS is
investigating means to consolidate the permitting process so that permits for multiple fisheries
may be issued/renewed through a single application process (i.e., one stop shopping).
Dealer Permits
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
International Trade Permit (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

PERMIT FOR
TRADE
HMS ITP
HMS ITP (frozen only)
HMS ITP (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.
5

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 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 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 are sold, transferred, or
moved to new locations from year to year. It is also necessary to issue annual dealer permits 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 documenting
shark fin trade and improving domestic management of sharks. If not permitted, NMFS would
continue to lack information on an important facet of the commercial shark fishery.
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.

6

8. Provide information on the PRA Federal Register Notice that solicited public comments
on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments
received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response
to those comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to
obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of
instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data
elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice published on April 28, 2008 (73 FR 22921) solicited public comment
on this information collection. No comments were received.
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 April of 2008, 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, was published in the Federal Register on April 17,
2008 (73 FR 20914).
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.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Burden hours, number of respondents and opportunity costs for each permit are given in the table
below. For most permit types, the numbers of respondents are 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 vessel permits for
which the number of respondents was not increased(1), and the HMS ITP(2). For the HMS ITP,
7

the number of actual 2006 permits was increased by 100 HMS ITP to account for a potential
increase in permits including those newly issued to shark fin traders required on July 2, 2008 (73
FR 31380, June 2, 2008). The cost of processing individual permits is estimated at $15 per hour.
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

38,558

N/A

8,129

121,935

959

9591

0.33
(20 min.)

316

4,747

36,034

39,517

N/A

8,445

126,682

INITIAL - Atlantic Tunas

100

110

28

420

RENEWAL - Atlantic Tunas

306

336

28

420

Shark and Swordfish (shark =
225)
HMS ITP

470

517

43

645

230

330(2)

.25
(15 min.)
.083
(5 min.)
.083
(5 min.)
.083
(5 min.)

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

SUBTOTALS (VESSEL)
DEALER PERMITS

8

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

$.50

10,431

19

N/A

$3.55

67

959
39,517

$50
N/A

.50
N/A

48,430
1,127,772

446
517
330
1,293
40,810

$113
$100
$25

.50
.50
.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 Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
There are no changes.
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 federal governments. 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.
9

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.

10