0203 ss ren 091109rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
NORTHWEST REGION FEDERAL FISHERIES PERMITS
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0203

INTRODUCTION
This request is for renewal of this collection of information required by National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Region (NWR). This statement addresses data collections
authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), developed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The
FMP governs the groundfish fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California (WOC). In
addition, this statement includes data collections to issue exempted fishing permits (EFP) as
prescribed at 50 CFR 600.745(b)(2).
Section 303(b)(1) of the Magnuson-Steven's Act specifically recognized the need for permit
issuance. Almost every international, federal, state, and local fishery management authority
recognizes the value of and uses permits as an integral part of their management systems.
Identification of the participants, their gear types, descriptions of their vessels, and expected
activity levels are needed to measure the consequences of management controls, and is an
effective tool in the enforcement of other fishery regulations. Experience has shown that fines
for violations of specific fishery regulations are not as effective as the threat of a permit
revocation that would exclude the vessel from the fishery altogether.
Some of the responses to the items in the supporting statement are broken out by the various type
of permit function: 1) issuance of an exempted (experimental) fishing permits (EFPs) and
2) Pacific Coast groundfish limited entry permits (LEPs), including transfer and renewal, as well
as other information collections necessary for the sablefish permit stacking program. For each
section of the information collection, we have presented the total number of burden hours and
cost burden.
Currently, there are 399 limited entry permits of which 164 permits have a sablefish endorsement.
The number of EFPs varies from year to year dependent on the number of applications submitted
to PFMC and NMFS.
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)
The requirements associated for EFP are prescribed at 50 CFR 600.745 (b)(2). Exempted
(previously called "experimental") fishing permits are issued to applicants to conduct fishing
activities that would otherwise be prohibited under a FMP. The exempted fishing permits allow
vessels to fish for public display, data collection, exploration, health and safety, environmental
cleanup, hazard removal purposes, or to conduct limited testing. The intent is to respond to
1

changes in the resource, fishery and other applicable law, and to requests of the public or
government, resulting in better management of the fishery resource.
Section 301 of the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1851(a) provides national standards for fishery management
plans and regulations. Standard One requires that “Conservation and management measures
shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each
fishery...”. To comply with this standard and effectively manage a fishery, NMFS needs to
know the amount and species of fish caught, where fish were caught, and the catch disposition.
Exempted fishing, by definition, is fishing outside of the standard regulations. To control this
fishing and determine the extent of this fishing, NMFS requires information to determine if
granting an exempted fishing permit (EFP) or exempted educational activity authorization
(EEAA) is justified. Further NMFS collects catch and landing data resulting from these
authorized EFP activities. The EFP regulations supplement existing information collections
required by the various fishery management plans by establishing minimum standards for these
activities. The regulations related to the specific fisheries may impose additional requirements.
Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Permits (LEPs)
The collection of information for limited entry permits is authorized by Amendments 4, 6 and 9
to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP and by 50 CFR 660 Subpart G. Amendment 6 initially
established the limited entry program. This amendment was approved on September 4, 1992.
Amendment 6 to the FMP addressed the issue of increasing amounts of excess fleet harvesting
capacity by instituting a limited entry program based on the issuance of federal permits to
control the overall fleet harvest capacity of the three major gear types (trawl, longline, and fish
pot) that account for the majority of the Pacific Coast groundfish harvest. Amendment 6 was
intended to control the capacity of the groundfish fishing fleet in three main ways: (1) limiting
the overall number of vessels; (2) limiting the number of vessels using each of the three major
gear types; and, (3) limiting increases in vessel harvest capacity by limiting vessel length.
Amendment 6 provided the basic program elements of the limited entry permit program
including the requirement to register a vessel to a limited entry permit to participate in the
limited entry fishery, initial eligibility and qualification criteria for a LEP, requirements
associated with gear and size endorsements, renewal and transfer of permits, and appeal process.
Eligibility and registration requirements for the limited entry fishery are found at 50 CFR
660.333 and transfer and renewal requirements are found at 50 CFR 660.335.
Appeal requirements are found at 50 CFR 660.340. The appeals process is available to permit
owners who have had their LEP transfers or renewals denied by NMFS. An appeals request
must be made by the permit owner in writing within 30 calendar days of NMFS initial
determination and must explain how the requirements for transfer or renewal of a permit have
been met and/or provide pertinent information that was not considered by the NMFS in making
the initial determination.
In 1993, NMFS carried out the first LEP application and issuance process. Vessel owners were
required to complete an application for a groundfish LEP and submit proof of their landings and
other evidence relevant to meeting the permit qualification criteria. Vessels that met specific
minimum landing requirements were qualified to receive a LEP. This was a one-time
opportunity to apply for a LEP. Approximately 650 LEPs were initially issued and since that
2

time no additional LEPs have been issued. The current total of 399 LEPs is due to the Federal
buy back of limited entry permits, combinations of permits, and the permanent expiration of
permits.
Amendment 9 to the FMP, which was approved on June 27, 1997, provided for a sablefish
endorsement to the limited entry permit. Amendment 9 attempted to respond to a number of
problems associated with derby fishery that resulted in short, intense seasons. Among the
problems associated with the fishery were ones of safety, product quality and value, abandoned
gear, and overcapitalization of the fleet, discards, and lost fishing opportunities. The
endorsement limited participation in the fixed gear sablefish fishery to those vessels that
demonstrated historical participation in the sablefish fishery. As part of the issuance of this
endorsement, permits were given tier designation (1, 2 or 3) based on historic catch which
entitles the vessel registered to it to harvest a specific quantity of sablefish beyond the normal
trip limits. A specific amount of sablefish is assigned to each tier designation, with Tier 1 being
providing the largest amount. The requirements associated with sablefish endorsements and tier
assignments are found at 50 CFR 660.334.
In November 2000, the Council approved Amendment 14, which introduced a permit stacking
program to the limited entry, fixed gear primary sablefish season. On August 7, 2001, NMFS
published regulations that implemented certain provisions of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP (66 FR 41152). These provisions included the following: 1) permit owners are
authorized to stack (register) up to three sablefish endorsed West Coast Groundfish Limited
Entry permits on a single vessel during the primary season in a given year and 2) limited the
number of sablefish endorsed permits a person could own or hold (i.e.; lease) at any one time to
3 except if the permit owner had owned more than 3 sablefish endorsed LEPs prior to
November 1, 2000 and 3) prohibited a corporation or partnership from owning a sablefish
endorsed permit except if it had owned such permits prior to November 1, 2000.
Each sablefish endorsed permit has one of three tier assignments (i.e.; Tier 1 permit, the highest
tier, authorizes harvest of 61,296 pounds in 2009) that allocates an amount of sablefish to the
permit beyond the normal trip limits. If multiple permits are stacked to a single vessel, the
vessel may land up to the cumulative tier amount given for all permits and may use any of the
gears endorsed on any of these permits.
Additional provisions of Amendment 14 to the Groundfish FMP were implemented through
regulations published on March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10614). This final rule implemented permit
stacking regulations that include the following provisions: (1) permit owners and permit holders
(vessel owners) would be required to document their ownership interests in their permits to
ensure that no person holds or has ownership interest in more than three permits; (2) an owner on
board requirement for permit owners who did not own sablefish-endorsed permits as of
November 1, 2000; (3) an opportunity for permit owners to add a spouse as co-owner; (4) vessels
that do not meet minimum frozen sablefish historic landing requirements would not be
allowed to process sablefish at sea; (5) permit transferors would be required to certify sablefish
landings during midseason transfers; and, (6) a definition of the term ‘‘base permit.’’
These provisions allowed for lengthened duration of the limited entry, fixed gear primary
sablefish fishery. Among the objectives of this amendment were to: promote safety in the
fishery, provide flexibility to participants, prevent excessive concentration of harvest privilege,
3

maintain or direct benefits to fishing communities, and reduce capacity in the limited entry fixed
gear fleet and thus promotes efficiency. Requirements associated with this rulemaking are
found at 50 CFR 660.334, 660.335 and 660.372. Several of the above information collections in
our supporting statement submission in 2006 were one-time in nature (#3 and #4) and will not be
included in this renewal.
Please note that NMFS has eliminated from the prior collection: information required for
obtaining a sablefish at-sea processing exemption and the application for sablefish permit owners
to add their spouse as a co-owner of the permit. These were one time collections.
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.
Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)
Exempted fishing permits are issued to applicants for fishing activities that would otherwise be
prohibited under a FMP. On a voluntary basis, applicants initiate a request for an EFP by
submitting a letter to NMFS. An application for an EFP must contain all information required
for an EFP application given at 50 CFR 600.745 (b)(2). A narrative description of the proposed
activity is required to fully document the intended project. EFP applications are subject to
review by the PFMC before NMFS conducts its review and either approves or disapproves the
submission. The terms and conditions of the EFP typically require the permit holder to submit
data and summary reports during and/or at the end of the permit period and to provide other
notifications (i.e.; declaration of fishing under an EFP or meeting or surpassing specified catch
limits). Some EFPs will require a final summary report describing the outcomes of the project
which is reviewed by the PFMC and NMFS in considering requests to continue a subsequent
EFP project in a succeeding year.
The EFP application allows PFMC and NMFS to evaluate the consequences of the exempted
fishing activity and weigh the benefits and costs in making a decision on the application.
Exempted fishing permits may lead to better management of the resource by allowing innovation
that may resolve existing technological barriers or by providing additional scientific and
management data. The total number of EFP applications and the proposed activities described in
EFP applications may vary from year to year, and may be different for each exempted fishery.
An EFP is usually valid for one year or less. The approval of an EFP project by the PFMC and
NMFS may result in several individual EFPs being issued to participating vessels or processing
plants. Such EFPs are required of vessels and processing plants in order to hold them
individually accountable for their activities under the terms and conditions of the overarching
EFP project.
An application from a sponsor organization (i.e.; state agency, non-profit organization) or
individual or entity includes a statement of the purposes and goals of the exempted fishery, with
justification for issuance of the EFP; the species (target and incidental) and amounts expected to
be taken under the EFP; the disposition of the catch; anticipated impacts on marine mammals or
endangered species, description of any other pertinent activities and names and responsibilities
4

of participants. Information on the vessel (including a copy of the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) documentation, state fishing license, state vessel registration, or the information from
those documents), gear used, fishing area, and time of fishing is needed for identification of the
participants at sea, and for boardings and inspections by NMFS enforcement vessels or
overflights. The information also precludes substitution of gear or vessels that may otherwise be
prohibited by other regulations in effect. Information on the gear being used is also used in
making management decisions, since it helps show how gear restrictions affect the members of
the fishery. Gear, fishing areas and duration and timing of fishing activities may be important
factors to consider in determining appropriate permit conditions to attach to the EFP. Similarly,
information from processors (first receivers) about offloads of fish caught under an EFP may
require information about plans to weigh, sort and process fish, efforts to monitor these
activities, and details on the data to be collected and documented.
The information collection for a processor or vessel participating in an EFP project (overseen by
sponsored organization) includes: name, address and telephone number, date of birth (DOB) of
the vessel operator and/or vessel owner; vessel name and official number; Pacific Coast
Groundfish limited entry permit number; and date of the application. This information is used
to identify the permit applicant and the legal ownership of the vessel to be registered to the
permit. The collection of this information is essential to comply with the regulations and for
enforcement purposes. The DOB allows enforcement to conduct an enforcement check prior to
issuing the EFP. For example, violations of catch regulations may result in suspension or
revocation of a permit. Since many vessels are owned by corporations, identification of the
owner on the application form allows NMFS to sanction the company as well as the individual
vessel operator for repeated violations of federal regulations. Telephone and fax numbers are
required so that NMFS staff can contact applicants to resolve outstanding issues in a quick and
efficient manner, or to notify permit holders of the need to cease fishing activities.
Supplemental application information may be requested. For example, other information on the
physical vessel characteristics such as hold or fuel capacity, units and size of gear, or
refrigeration capability may be used to inventory the relative fishing power of each craft. This
information may be used in estimating the effects of fishing effort on the biological status of
stocks, or to assist NMFS in its national security role for the Federal Emergency Planning
Administration. In some cases EFPs are issued allowing the permit holder to keep fish in
compensation for collecting resource survey information according to a NMFS-approved
protocol. In these cases the application must state that the vessel=s participation is contingent
upon compensation.
An authorized representative of the vessel/processor owner or applicant organization must sign
the EFP application to certify that the information provided is correct and true and that the
applicant is eligible to receive a permit under the other FMP regulations. The signed document
provides NMFS evidence that the applicant attests to the authenticity of the application. If there
are false statements or misrepresentations made by the applicant, a signed document will be
important in successfully taking legal actions against the permit holder. All of the information
in this section is needed to help effectively evaluate the proposed fishing activity, its scope and
impacts, and to determine whether the activity is appropriate and whether it should be approved
or disapproved. NMFS also requires an authorized representative to sign the EFP certifying that

5

they and all vessel operators, crew, owners and applicant staff understand and will comply with
the terms and conditions.
The information requested may be used by several offices of NMFS, the USCG and state fishery
enforcement agencies under contract to NMFS and summarizations of EFP may be used by
NMFS, the Council, states, and fishery organizations in considering revisions and enhancements
to existing fishery policies and management specifications.
Permit holders operating under an EFP may be required to provide supplementary information as
required by the terms and conditions of the EFP. For example, in a full retention fishery (no
sorting/discarding of fish at sea), NMFS may require an electronic monitoring systems on a
vessel to assess the technology as a monitoring option. Further, EFP holders may be required to
file reports describing the results of the experiments or to provide data so that NMFS can
evaluate the techniques used or data collected and decide if management
regulations/specifications should be changed.
Typically, an applicant or sponsor of an EFP project makes no more than one application each
year for a particular exempted activity or fishery. Again, a sponsor of an EFP application must
prepare a formal application to both PFMC and NMFS that describes all aspects of the project.
Processors and vessels requiring EFPs will make one application each year that will provide
basic identifier information needed to issue the permit. The types of reports submitted under
EFPs vary according to the nature of the EFP. In some cases the applicant is a state requesting
permits for multiple vessels, and the state is required to collect catch information from the
vessels and submit summary reports. The frequency of data reports depends upon the nature of
the fishery and monitoring requirements set by NMFS. The frequency may start as bi-weekly,
go to weekly, and then every 2-3 days when the remaining allocation is small (the normal season
is 10-12 weeks). In other cases where only individual vessels are involved, only a data report is
submitted at the end of the fishing trip covered by the permit. Also, vessels and/or first receivers
may be required to provide notifications to enforcement or fishery monitors in advance of EFP
trip or offload.
Similarly, EFPs issued to first receivers (processors) may be required to prepare a catch monitor
plan indicating how unsorted catch (exempted activity) will be offloaded, weighed, sorted and
documented. EFPs issued to sponsoring organizations (state agencies, non-profit organizations)
may be required to provide more detailed plans on how the project activities will be carried out
to allow for effective monitoring by the sponsor, NMFS program staff and enforcement agents.
NMFS will require an interim and final report that presents the results of the EFP project to
consider relative progress or final results. The latter is important in considering changes in
management requirements based on the EFP results or whether further research or data
collection is required.
Limited Entry Permits (LEPs)
Annual Permit Renewal: All permit owners are required to renew each of their LEP on an
annual basis as given at 50 CFR 660.335. There are currently 399 valid LEPs. NMFS is
required to mail a permit renewal form and instruction letter to all permit owners on or before
September 1 of each year. Payment of the renewal fee and signed/dated form is due to the
6

NMFS by November 30th of each year. Failure to renew the LEP by December 31 may result in
permanent expiration of the LEP. NMFS provides current permit data on the renewal form
including: permit number; vessel name and official number (USCG or state documentation
number); endorsements (gear, size, fishery), permit owner name, address, phone, fax and Email;
permit holder name, address, phone, fax, email (if different from permit owner). A revision to
the LEP renewal form is the inclusion of DOB for individuals. Individuals who are existing
permit or vessel owners will be requested to provide this information in the first year of the
collection. For a corporation, NMFS may require date of incorporation and the state of
incorporation as necessary. If there are changes to the address, phone, fax or email information
of the permit or vessel owner, the permit owner may update those items on the renewal form. If
the permit owner is a corporation, partnership, or other entity, the authorized representative
signing the renewal form will be requested to print his/her name. By signing this form, the
permit owner certifies that the data is correct and true. We estimate that approximately 90% of
the permit renewals received in a given year do not involve any changes to the current permit
information. Any change in the permit owner name, the vessel registered to the permit or vessel
owner name cannot be made as part of the renewal process but must be requested formally as a
permit transfer.
This updated information allows NMFS to maintain current contact information for those
individuals and entities who are listed on the permit. NMFS uses this information to contact
permit and vessel owners about changes in fishery regulations and specifications, including
closures. Also, NOAA enforcement agents may need to contact permit and vessel owners about
investigative matters. Submission of a signed/dated renewal form and fee payment affirms that
the permit owner wishes to continue to participate in the limited entry fishery. The updated
permit data provides information for NOAA enforcement agents on which vessels are authorized
to participate in the fish. The DOB information will allow NMFS enforcement to positively
identify individuals who may be under investigation for possible violations associated with the
limited entry fishery. Further, updated permit data allows fishery managers to effectively
analyze the demographics associated with permit owners.
Also, the regulations provide at 50 CFR 660.323(b) that during the renewal period each year, the
owner of catcher/processor vessel registered to a permit must declare if the vessel will operate in
the whiting fishery solely as a mothership operation. This provision was incorporated in the
regulations at the request of at-sea processing vessel owners who wanted to avoid confusion as
to whether a vessel is processing only or will be fishing and processing during a particular
season. The permit owner of a trawl endorsed permit need only check a box on the limited entry
permit renewal form to make a mothership designation for the registered vessel. The option to
make this designation appears only on the renewal forms of the 10 permits that have size
endorsements (over 125’) that would allow the vessel to operate either as a catcher processor or
mothership.
NMFS collects the Tax Identification Number (TIN) (for business entity) and DOB (for an
individual) for any permit owner or vessel owner as part of a transfer request and as part of
ownership interest form required of business entities that with own or hold a sablefish endorsed
LEP. The TIN is required to comply with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31
U.S.C. 7701 (c) (1)). Additionally, this information assists NMFS law enforcement in identifying
businesses who may be under investigation for fishing activities. The transfer form and
7

ownership interest form include a statement that advises the permit owner and vessel owner that
TINs and DOBs will not be released to the public.
The persons, business entities and the individuals who have an ownership interest in these
business entities own a Federal government permit that provides a conditional privilege to fish
for groundfish in the Exclusive Economic Zone. NMFS will require TIN and DOB information
for both LEP and EFP collections to assist the Office of Law Enforcement in identifying
individuals who may have a sanction that prevents the issuance of the permit.
Permit Transfer: A permit owner must formally request a transfer of a LEP as required at 50
CFR 660.335. The term Apermit transfer@ refers to one or more of the following actions: change
in permit owner, change in vessel owner, and/or change in the vessel currently registered to the
permit. NMFS requires that the permit owner make a formal request using the Change of Vessel
Registration or Permit Ownership/Holdership Application and submitting his/her current permit.
By regulation (50 CFR 660.335(f)), a change in vessel registration can only occur once in a
calendar year for any one permit. However, the regulations allow a permit owner to request
changes in permit ownership or changes to vessel ownership as frequently as necessary during
the calendar year, as long as the registered vessel remains the same or the permit has no vessel
registered to it. The number of transfers requested is estimated to be about 80 per year.
A transfer form is required to: formally document the request; accurately track changes in
permit owners, vessel owners (if different), changes in the vessel register to the LEP (including
changes in vessel name); verify compliance with permit regulations (i.e.; new permit owner
eligibility); and maintain current address, phone, fax information on new individuals/ entities
registered to the permit and to provide relevant information about the vessel registered to
participate in the groundfish fishery. The following information is required from the permit
owner on a permit transfer request form:
1. For all transfer requests, the LEP number; name and number of vessel currently
registered to the LEP; current permit owner name(s) and TIN for a business entity) or
DOB (for an individual); current business address and telephone and fax numbers; title
(if corporate officer), email address; signature and date. If the signee is an authorized
representative, we may request the individual to print their name to clearly identify name.
The current permit owner will be asked to respond as to whether they are eligible to own
a documented United States (U.S.) vessel. If the permit holder is a corporation,
partnership, or other entity, we may request the printed name/title and DOB of the
authorized representative (person) for that entity.
If there are multiple owners of the permit, the owners must establish with NMFS at the
outset whether one or all owners must authorize any future change to the LEP. Either
one or all permit owners must sign the application to certify that the information provided
is correct and true, to authorize the request and to certify that all entities or individuals
listed to the LEP are eligible to own or hold the permit. Similarly, for business entities,
an authorized representative must sign the application to certify that the information
provided is correct and true, authorize the request and certify that all entities and
individuals are eligible to own or hold the LEP per the regulations.
8

2. For a request to transfer the LEP to a new LEP owner: the name of the new permit
owner, TIN (for a business entity) or DOB (for individual), business address, title (if
corporate officer), telephone and fax numbers, and email address. If the permit holder is
a corporation, partnership, or other entity, the applicant may be required to provide the
name and DOB of an authorized representative (person) for that entity.
3. For a request to transfer the LEP to a new vessel owner (usually an individual leasing
permit for use on his/her permit from a permit owner): the name of the new vessel owner,
TIN (for a business entity) or DOB (for an individual), business address, title (if
corporate officer), telephone and fax numbers and email address. If the permit holder is a
corporation, partnership, or other entity, NMFS may request the name of the authorized
representative (person) for that entity. The new vessel owner will be required to certify
whether they are eligible to own a U.S. documented vessel.
4. For a transfer of the LEP to a new vessel, the vessel name and documentation number
for both current and new vessel, and the new vessel's length overall.
5. If the permit is sablefish endorsed and the transfer request falls after the start of the
primary season, the permit owner must list the cumulative amount of sablefish harvested
to date and credited against the tier amount. Both the current permit owner and either the
new permit owner and/or owner of the vessel registered to the LEP must sign and date
the form acknowledging the cumulative amount of sablefish landed to date on the LEP.
6. On a voluntary basis, the sale and lease price data is requested from the permit owner.
The applicant requesting a transfer must have the form notarized at the time of signature.
Notarization of the document certifies that the individual signing the document has verified their
identity with a notary to substantiate that the request is authentic. As appropriate, the permit
owner may be requested to provide evidence of authority to authorize a transfer, such as:
corporate resolution, contract for sale or lease, court order relative to a divorce decree, litigation,
or settlement of an estate. Further, NMFS may require vessel registration documentation, U.S.
Coast Guard Report of Marine Accident, Injury or Death (CG-2692), affidavit of lost permit,
proof of citizenship or other such credible documentation necessary to determine compliance
with the transfer regulations. The accident report confirms if a vessel was totally lost, and in such
situations, a permit owner is allowed exempted from the one transfer rule. Further, if the permit
is registered to a new vessel that has not recently participated in the fishery, a marine survey is
required that certifies the length overall of the vessel complies with the size endorsement
requirement on the LEP. For a corporation, NMFS may require the date of incorporation and the
state of incorporation as necessary.
The information collected from transfer forms is used by the NMFS for the purposes of
determining whether individuals and vessels are eligible to be registered to a limited entry
permit; maintaining an accurate record of permit histories; and administering the limited entry
program. The question on the form asking if the permit owner and vessel owner are eligible to
own an U.S. documented vessel, requires that the owner of the permit and vessel registered to
the LEP certify eligibility to own or hold the LEP. Also, the NMFS uses the permit owner and
vessel owner addresses information to mail public notices about changes in fishery regulations or
9

specifications. LEPs provide permit data to enforcement agents to assist their tracking vessels in
the vessel monitoring system and establishing whether fishing violations may occurred.
Also, current and historical permit data is used by states, the PFMC and NMFS staff, industry
and academia for various purposes, but primarily to analyze management aspects of the fishery.
State agencies use this permit data to confirm vessels participation in a fishery when entering
data into a state fish ticket system. Current permit owner information will be important in the
implementation of a trawl rationalization program that recently was approved by the PFMC.
Initial allocations of quota shares of groundfish will accrue to permit owners of valid trawl
endorsed LEPs that have historic participation in the groundfish fishery.
NMFS will request a voluntary reporting of the sale or lease price of permits in an attempt to
understand the market value of limited entry permits. This data assists NMFS staff in
understanding the relative value of permits, economic trends in the groundfish fishery and
appropriate levels of compensation under a buyback program. Sale and lease data for individual
permit transactions will not be released to the public; however, summary data may be made
available to NMFS and PFMC staff.
By regulation, any initial decision by NMFS regarding the issuance, renewal, transfer may be
appealed by the permit owner. Such appeals must be submitted in writing within 30 days to
Regional Administrator and must allege facts or circumstances to show why the criteria have
been met. Supplemental documentation may be provided by the appellant. We have had very
few appeals of transfers in recent years (about 2 in the last 5 years).
Ownership Interest in a Sablefish Endorsed LEP: Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish FMP includes several ownership provisions that pertain only to sablefish endorsed
limited entry permits. The regulations given at 50 CFR 660.334 (4) provides that: 1) no
partnership or corporation may own any sablefish endorsed permit unless they owned them as of
November 1, 2000. Any sablefish endorsed permit sold after November 1, 2000 may only be
transferred to an individual person or to a corporation or partnership that had ownership interest
in a sablefish endorsed permit as of November 1, 2000; 2) no person, partnership, or corporation
may have ownership interest in or otherwise hold more than three sablefish endorsed permits as
of November 1, 2000. If a person, partnership or corporation had an ownership interest in more
than three permits as of November 1, 2000, it may continue to have ownership interest in those
same permits, but may not acquire additional permits either through purchase or lease; 3) a
partnership or corporation will lose the exemptions given in 1) and 2) above on the effective date
of any change in the corporation or partnership membership as of November 1, 2000. The term
“change” refers to the addition of a partner or shareholder to the corporation or partnership.
Each year as part of the annual LEP renewal process and as part of a transfer request of a
sablefish endorsed permit, any corporation, partnership or other business entity that owns a
sablefish endorsed LEP or has a vessel registered to a sablefish endorsed LEP must submit an
ownership interest form. Submission of the ownership interest form is mandatory and NMFS
will not renew a permit or process a transfer request until such time as a completed ownership
interest form is received. If a business entity owns or holds more than one LEP, it is required to
fill out only one form as part of renewal or transfer process. Currently, there are about 45 unique
business entities that are currently listed on sablefish endorsed LEPs. All of these entities must
10

submit an ownership interest form as part of renewal. The number of entities having to submit
an ownership interest form at time of transfer depends on the number of transfer requests
initiated for sablefish endorsed permits, where the resulting LEP will list a business entity. For
the 2007-2008 time period, on average, there about 50 sablefish endorsed LEP transfers each
year of which about 25 ownership interest forms will be required.
As part of renewal, NMFS will provide a prefilled ownership interest form providing the
business entity information (name and address of record) and listing shareholders/ partners based
on the prior submission. The respondent is required to add or delete individuals who have
ownership interest in an entity and/or update address information for individuals, as appropriate.
As part of a transfer request, if a new vessel owner is a business entity and NMFS has no prior
ownership interest information for the entity, it is required to provide basic identifier information
such as: permit number, vessel name and registration number, entity name, individual
shareholder or partner’s name (first, last, full middle name), TIN for the corporation or
partnership that owns the permit; the DOB for every individual who has an ownership interest in
the business entity, and each individual’s address, phone and fax. In addition, an authorized
individual representing the corporation/partnership will certify (by signing/dating the form)
whether or not an additional individual with ownership interest had been added since the control
date. The authorized representative signing the form will be requested to print their name on the
form. The applicant may be required to provide a corporate resolution that authorizes the person
signing the form to do so on behalf of the business entity. NMFS may require a copy of the
USCG Abstract of Title as proof of ownership for vessel owners and/or owners and articles of
incorporation or other documentation deemed necessary for proof of corporate or partnership
ownership.
For those permit owners that are a business entity, NMFS compares the list of individuals given
on ownership interest form to the prior list on file to determine if an additional individual(s) with
ownership interest had been added to the business entity. If an addition of a shareholder is found
for the exempted business entity, that entity loses its exempted status and be required to divest
the permit to an individual owner or other eligible entity, per the regulation. If a shareholder is
no longer listed as part of the entity, NMFS makes that change to its database. Again, the

11

regulation was intended to limit existing permit owners who are business entities from adding
new investors to their companies.
Also, NMFS staff establishes a permit count for every individual who owns a sablefish endorsed
permit as an individual or as part of a business entity to ensure limits on permit owner/holder are
not exceeded. For any transfer, NMFS staff reviews the ownership interest forms of new entities
holding a sablefish LEP or a grandfathered entity purchasing a sablefish LEP, and recalculate the
total number of sablefish endorsed LEPs owned or held by the entity and the individuals who
have an ownership interest in the entity. Again, there is a requirement that no individual can
own or hold more than 3 sablefish LEPS, unless the person/entity owned more than 3 permits as
of the control date.
Owner On Board Exemption: The Council designed the permit stacking program to prevent
excessive fleet consolidation and maintain the owner/operator nature of the fleet through owner
on board requirements and limiting ownership of sablefish permits to only those corporations
that owned such permits on November 1, 2000. The Council anticipated situations where a
permit owner may not be able to be onboard the vessel due to death, injury or illness. At
50 CFR 660.372, a person who owns a sablefish permit and is prevented from being on board
because of death, illness or injury may request a temporary exemption from the owner on board
provision. In the case of death, the exemption is available until such time the permit ownership
is reassigned to a beneficiary (typically through a probated will). The executor of the permit
owner’s estate must request the exemption in writing and must provide a death certificate for the
permit owner. The executor may be required to provide he/she is legally authorized to act on
behalf of the deceased permit owner. For illness or injury, the permit owner must submit a
written request justifying the basis for the exemption and must provide written documentation
from a medical professional detailing why the illness or injury prevents them from being on
board. The exemption can be requested only for three years consecutively or cumulatively and
must be requested in each individual year.
NMFS reviews the request and supplemental documentation provided in order to make a
determination if the justification is authentic and if the justification is sufficient to grant an
exemption. NMFS may seek further clarification from the applicant of aspects of the
information justifying the exemption or additional documentation as necessary. Presently, there
are only two individuals who have an exemption from the owner on board provision. The
number of applications made for an exemption since 2006 have been negligible. Any medical
documents provided in support of an exemption request are confidential and not releasable to the
public.
Mid-Season Transfer of a Sablefish Endorsed Permit: The Pacific Coast Groundfish
regulations at 50 CFR 660.335(d) requires that any transfer (also known as “Change of Vessel
Registration, Permit Owner/Holder Application”) request for a sablefish endorsed LEP during
the primary season must provide the cumulative amount in round weight of sablefish caught
against the tier as of the date of the request. This information must be certified in Section F of
the transfer form by both the current permit owner and either the new permit owner and/or owner
of a new vessel being registered to the LEP. The transfer form is described in the previous
section on transfers of LEPs. The number of transfers requested by sablefish endorsed permit
owners varies year to year; however, the average is about 50 transfer requests per year.
12

Sablefish landings are recorded on landing tickets provided by each of the West Coast states and
the data is entered into a common database known as Pacific Coast Fisheries Information
Network (PacFIN). There can be a lag time of up to two months from the time a landing ticket
is completed dockside to the time the data is available in PacFIN. PacFIN catch records for
individual vessels are confidential and they are not accessible by the general public. As such,
potential buyers or lessees of sablefish permits and enforcement agents do not have an
independent source of information detailing the exact amount of catch that has occurred on a
specific permit during the primary season. The potential exists for a permit owner to
misrepresent how much catch remains on a particular permit when selling or leasing a permit.
The current regulations require that any person landing groundfish (permit owner and/or permit
holder) keep a copy of all landing tickets accruing to the vessel during fishing operations to
substantiate the catch to date for a particular permit. The regulations require the transferor to
certify on a transfer form the cumulative amount of sablefish landed on a subject permit during
the primary sablefish fishing season if there is a change of vessel registration, permit owner or
permit holder. Similarly, the transferee will be required to acknowledge the cumulative amount
of sablefish landings stipulated on the form by the transferor.
NMFS requires this information primarily for enforcement purposes. This certification will assist
enforcement agents in effectively monitoring catch amounts on a given permit at the point of
transfer and establish a common understanding of the cumulative landed amount on the permit at
the time of transfer, so that the transferee does not fish in excess of the remaining tier amount.
Also, the mid-season transfer certification is intended to inhibit a transferor from
misrepresenting the amount of catch remaining on a permit. Enforcement agents may conduct a
post season audit of landing records to determine if a particular permit was overfished during the
season. If it is found that a particular permit was overfished, this declaration is important in
determining who is culpable for having committed a fishing violation. The certified landed
amount listed in this transfer form is not made available to the public and is considered business
confidential.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. For all of the
information collections (EFPs, LEPs, Sablefish) described in this statement, 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. NMFS will retain control over the information and safeguard it from improper
access, modification, and destruction, consistent with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See
the response to Question 10 in this section 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.

13

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.

Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)
There is no standard application form for EFPs. Those vessel owners who will participate in an
EFP project need to provide basic identifier information (vessel owner name and business
address, phone number, vessel name and number) as per EFP regulations. Sponsors of an EFP
project (states, non-profits) provide expanded set of information that will allow the PFMC and
NMFS to judge their application. No improved information technology has been identified as a
practical means for reducing the burden on the public. However, NMFS continues to investigate
the possibility of using standardized electronic systems for a permit application.
Limited Entry Permits (LEPs)
The permit application forms and instructions have been condensed as much as possible to
alleviate public burden while still obtaining the information needed to administer the program.
The renewal forms are printed with current permit information and only require the permit owner
to revise selected information and sign/date the form. At this time, NMFS is working with
Pay.Gov (U.S. Department of Treasury) to develop an online LEP renewal system to be available
to permit owners starting in September, 2009 (still in process at time of this submission).
A copy of the transfer application form can be obtained from the NWR web site
(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Permits/index.cfm) and is in a
Portable Document Format (PDF) fillable format. The applicant will be required to mail in a
hard copy application. Changes in permit owner, holder and vessel registration all involve a
signed and dated self certification and a notary signature and stamp to authenticate the individual
signing the form. Further, permit transfer requests require that the individual return their current
permit and to possibly provide other documentation depending on the nature of the requested
action.
The ownership interest form (not prefilled) is available on the NWR web site as well. We have
considered making it available as part of the online LEP renewal system; however, for those
permit owners who lease their permit to a vessel owned by a business entity, the lessee would be
required to provide an ownership interest form. This presents some significant complications as
we would need to prompt the entity leasing the LEP to go online to certify the ownership
information. This would require a separate mailing with a user identification and password. We
continue to review an online portal to gather this information but for the immediate future, we
will require hard copy applications. Again, the hard copy ownership interest form is prefilled
and only requires the respondent to certify the existing information is correct or to make
revisions as necessary.
The names and business address of permit owners and vessel owners, vessel name and number
and effective dates of the LEP are made available at the NMFS NWR web site (see url above).
14

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
The information collections described here are unique to the Pacific Coast. There are no other
programs that involve this unique set of permit holders and collect similar information. The
PFMC reviewed the limited entry program (including subsequent sablefish provisions) and EFP
applications and were/are subject to public review and comment. Further, NMFS implemented
the LEP program by regulation and solicited public comment on these provisions. Similarly,
NMFS publishes a notice of its intent to issue EFPs in advance of issuance. No duplication was
identified as part of those review processes. These processes assist with identifying other
collections that may be gathering the same or similar information. No duplication has been
identified.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
The majority of the EFP applicants, permit owners and vessel owners are independent fishermen
who are owner/operators of their vessel or members of family owned businesses or members of
small partnerships. As such, they are considered to be a small business. The burden will be the
same for all businesses, regardless of size, and NMFS will collect information that is essential in
determining eligibility for an LEP or EFP, the renewal or transfer of a permit, ownership interest,
or satisfy other regulatory requirements.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)
An annual permit application is required to obtain EFPs. Because an EFP authorizes activities
that otherwise would be illegal, annual review and issuance assure that the experiment is
appropriate and designed to achieve its purpose and to allow law enforcement agents to monitor
EFP fishing activities. Also, an annual application helps state and Federal officials to consider
emerging changes in the fishery, account for EFP landings and their impacts on the overall
fishery and to closely monitor scheduled activities. A longer permit period could allow
prohibited activities to take place beyond the time needed to evaluate the activity. However, in
special cases permits can be issued for longer periods. If various reports are not provided,
NMFS and PFMC staff will not be able to evaluate the success or failure of the project.
Limited Entry Permits (LEPs)
If the collection of permit transfer information is not conducted, the NMFS will be unable to
limit fishing effort in the groundfish fishery, which is critical to the conservation and
management of the groundfish resource. Permit owner/vessel owner and vessel registration
information is important in enforcing management regulations and providing analysts with high
quality permit data. Moreover, the transfer information is essential for NMFS to determine
whether the request complies with transfer regulations and to accurately reissue and track a
permit. The annual renewal information collection is necessary to confirm current permit
15

information is correct or to revise it as necessary. If renewals were conducted less frequently,
the permit data may not be accurate, as many permit owners do not update their contact
information at the time of change. This would prevent NMFS ability to contact permit and
vessel owners.
If the NMFS does not collect data on individuals who have ownership interests in entities that
either own or hold a sablefish LEP, it will not be able to account for the number sablefish
endorsed permits owned or held by an individual or to detect changes in grandfathered entities
who are allowed to own a sablefish permit. If NMFS does not collect this information it would
be unable to carry out the requirements specified in its own regulations. Individuals that have
ownership interests in corporations and partnerships are subject to limits on the total number of
permits one can own or hold in an attempt to prevent a small number of individuals controlling a
disproportionate share of the fishery. If such collections were done less frequently, the NMFS
could not as effectively monitor changes in corporate/partnership membership or accurately
monitor the number of permits owned by an individual. Given that changes in business relations
occur frequently and continuously, it is necessary to collect this information no less than
annually.
For the mid-season transfer of sablefish endorsed LEP, if the NMFS does not require the existing
permit owner and new permit owner or holder to certify the amount of sablefish landed to date
on the permit, there is potential to overfish the tier limit on the permit. This would create
difficulties for enforcement agents in determining who is accountable for a possible fishing
violation. If multiple vessels were able to overfish their tier limits, the cumulative overages
could jeopardize the health of the sablefish stock. If NMFS does not collect medical
information in support of an exemption request from the owner on board requirement, it would
not have the needed information to determine whether to approve or disapprove the request.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Exempted Fishing Permits
Summary and call-in reports may be required more often than quarterly. The frequency is
necessary in summary reports to keep track of the catch versus the allocation, and in the case of
call-in trip notifications the need is to know when vessels are leaving so samplers may be
assigned.
Limited Entry Permits (LEPs) and Sablefish Permit Stacking
None.

16

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 April 24, 2009 (74 FR 18687) solicited public comment;
none was received.
Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs)
NMFS staff provides to potential applicants for an EFP the basic information (per the regulation)
needed to make a determination on whether to approve an EFP application and to issue an EFP.
NMFS has regular contact with EFP applicants to discuss their applications and to review the
nature of the data to be provided, the frequency and format. Because the nature of the EFP
activities vary greatly and involve different states, there is need to consult with applicants and
others to determine what data is required, at what intervals and in what formats and to consider
what constraints may prevent providing this data. Applicants frequently suggest various
approaches to the data collection, however, NMFS staff will make the final determinations
regarding the required data in order to develop appropriate terms and conditions.
Limited Entry Permits (LEPs)
The limited entry program, including the sablefish stacking provisions and its associated
information needs were developed by the Council in close coordination with the fishing industry,
NMFS, and the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. Public comment was received at
Council meetings on various aspects of the limited entry program (including sablefish
provisions). On an ongoing basis, staff communicates with permit owners vessel owners and
provides instruction on how to properly complete a transfer form and ownership interest form.
Over the years, we have received comments from the permit owners on how to improve the
clarity and utility of the forms. We have incorporated many of these suggested changes.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
NA.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or NMFS policy.
As stated on the applicable forms, some of the information collection described above is
confidential under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is also confidential under
NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection of Confidential Fisheries Statistics. Phone
number, fax and email information and TIN are not released to the public. The permit sale/lease
information and the amount of sablefish landed to date given on a transfer form are considered
17

confidential. Similarly, the names associated with a entity that owns a sablefish permit or has a
vessel registered a to sablefish endorsed permit are confidential, as are DOB for an individual
and any medical records provided to obtain an exemption from the owner on board requirement.
The information collected is part of a Privacy Act System of Records, COMMERCE/NOAA
#19, Permits and Registrations for United States Federally Regulated Fisheries. A notice was
published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20914) and became effective on June
11, 2008 (73 FR 33065).
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.
NA.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Table A – Total NWR Federal Fisheries Permit Renewal Annual Burden Hours
No. of
Respondents
LEP Renewal
LEP Transfer
Ownership Interest for Sablefish
Endorsed LEP – as part of renewal
Ownership Interest for Sablefish
Endorsed LEPs – as part of transfer
EFP Application, Data, Notification
and Report Submissions
TOTAL

296
80

Total No. of
Responses
Per Year
399
80

45

Average Time
per Response

Total Time
(hours)

20 minutes
30 minutes

133 hours
40 hours

45

10 minutes

8 hours

25

25

10 minutes

4 hours

45

4,035

27 minutes

1,811 hours

341*

4,584

26 minutes

1,996 hours

Note: *This number represents the number of unique respondents. This estimate includes the 296 limited entry permit
owners, 20 business entities that own vessels registered to sablefish endorsed LEP but do not own an LEP, and 25
sponsors, vessel owners or first receivers that do own an LEP.
The total number of hours represents an increase over the prior collection. The EFP application, data, notification and
report submission account for most of the increase time burden for the overall collection.

Detailed break-out of burden and related explanations follow:

18

Table A (1) - Annual Burden Hours - EFPs
Exempted
Fishing Permit
(EFP)
EFP Proposal
Participating
Vessel/
Processor EFP
Application
Preseason Plan
Trip/Delivery*
Notifications
Data Reports**
Summary
Total EFP

No. of
Respondents

Total Annual
Responses

Average Time per
Response

Total Time
(hours)

5
40

5
40

8 hours
20 minutes

40 hours
13 hours

20
40

20
2,400

16 hours
2 minutes

320 hours
80 hours

40
5
45

1,560
10
4,035

43 minutes
24 hours
27 minutes

1,118 hours
240 hours
1,811 hours

*Daily during days of fishing and processing activities
** Reports may be required daily, monthly or semi-annually

It is estimated that 45 respondents will spend 1,811 hours responding to this collection. These
figures represent an increase in the hours of the burden of the collection of information from that
given for the previously approved collection. The increase is due primarily to an increase in the
number of data reports and requirement of preseason plans required of EFP holders. Almost all
EFPs address groundfish related issues and the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery has several
species of fish that are considered overfished. It is critical that EFP fishing activities do not
further jeopardize these species and therefore, NMFS has required frequent data reports to enable
close monitoring of EFP fishing activities.
The estimated number of respondents and annual responses are divided into six categories: 1) 5
individuals or organizations are each expected to complete and submit one exempted fishing
permit project proposal annually for review by the PFMC and NMFS. The application process is
estimated to take 8 hours per application for a total of 40 burden hours per year. 2) 40 vessels
and first receivers will submit EFP applications to participate in exempted fishing activities or in
the approved EFP projects; 3) 20 EFP holders are required to prepare one harvest plan or catch
monitor plan each year which provides more detail on specific requirements to carry out EFP
activities and to comply with the terms and conditions. One preseason plan will be required from
each of the 20 EFPs * and it is estimated that such plans will take 16 hours each to prepare for a
total of 320 hours. 4) Trip and delivery notification call-ins are estimated to affect 2400 trips per
year at an estimated 2 minutes per call for a total of 80 hours per year. 5) Data reports will be
required to be submitted at various intervals after a landing/delivery. It is estimated that there
will be approximately 1560 responses at 43 minutes per minutes per landing for a total of 1,118
burden hours per year. 6) Summary reports are expected to be submitted twice each year by each
of the 5 sponsors of EFP projects. They will prepare interim and final reports describing EFP
project activities and results. [* 5 sponsored EFP plus 15 first receiver EFPs]
The annual costs associated with the burden hours for the respondents are as follows:
Proposal Preparation: 8 hours x $30 per hour = $240
19

First Receiver/Vessel EFP application Preparation: 13 hours x $17.02 per hour = $222
Preseason Plan Preparation: 320 hours x $30 per hour = $9,600
Trip/Delivery Notifications: 80 hours x $17.02 per hour = $1,361
Data Report Preparation: 1120 hours x $17.02 per hour = $19,062
Summary Report Preparation: 240 hours x $30 per hour = $7,200
Total: $37,685
[$17.02 is an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Non-employer Statistics, 2001, as a proxy
for respondent annual income. The $30 per hour estimate is based equivalent of a GS-11
employee rate of pay.]
Table A (2) -

Annual Burden Hours for LEPs –Renewals/Transfers

Groundfish
Limited Entry
Permit
LEP Renewal
LEP Transfer*

No. of
Respondents

Ownership
Interest Forms for
Sablefish
Endorsed LEP – as
part of renewal
Ownership Interest
for Sablefish
Endorsed LEPs –
as part of transfer
TOTAL

296
80

Total No. of
Responses Per
Year
399
80

45

Average Time per
Response

Total Time
(hours)

20 minutes
30 minutes

133 hours
40 hours

45

10 minutes

8 hours

25

25

10 minutes

4 hours

316

549

20 minutes

185 hours

Note: *This burden hour estimate includes time required to fill out the sablefish mid-season transfer section in the
transfer form.

The annual costs associated with the burden hours for the respondents are as follows:
LEP Renewal Form: 399 responses x 20 minutes per response x $17.02 per/hr. = $2,264
LEP Transfer Form Preparation: 80 transfers x 30 minutes per response x 17.02 per hour = $681
Ownership Interest Form Preparation: 70 responses x 10 minutes per response x $17.02 = $204.
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
Question12 above).
Table B – Total Estimated Costs of Annual Cost Burden to Respondents
Info Collection
EFP
LEP
Total

Estimated Cost Amount
$1,444
$44,901
$46,345

20

Table B (1) - Estimated Annual Cost Burden to the EFP Respondents
COST ITEM
Mailing : $0.44 x 555 mailings

Cost
$244
$1,200

Call-in Notifications: 2,400 calls @ $.50 per call
Application Fee

$0
$1,444

TOTAL
Note: *Data Reports may be provided electronically.

Table B (2) - Estimated Annual Cost Burden for LEP Respondents
COST ITEM

Cost

Renewal:
Processing Fee $110 x 399 permits

$43,890

Mail: $0.44 x 399 permits

$176

Transfer:
Processing Fee

$0

Notary: $10 x 80 permit transfers

$800

Mail: $0.44 x 80 permit transfers

$35

TOTAL COST TO RESPONDENTS (Permit Owners)

$44,901

Note: *Ownership interest forms are required as part of renewal and typically mailed to NMFS with the
completed renewal and transfer forms.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The cost to NMFS is incurred through the processing and issuance of EFPs. The estimated cost
to the government is about $1,359. Processing costs for the various EFP applications is
negligible and integrated with other responsibilities.
45 EFP applications x 1 hour per permit x $25.00/hr. (GS-7 equivalent salary) = $1,125
45 EFP mailings at $ 5.20 per mailing = $234
Most of the LEP administrative costs incurred by NMFS are from staff time, overhead, supplies,
and mailing costs associated with permit renewal and transfer processing activities. Estimated
annual costs for processing limited entry permit renewal forms and payments are approximately
$43,890 as determined from processing fees given above. The cost of renewal activities are
reimbursed by a permit processing fee paid by the permit owner. There is no processing fee
currently required for the transfer of permits.

21

The annualized cost to the Federal government to process the revised permit owner/holder/vessel
registration form (with the mid-season sablefish transfer certification), addition of a spouse as a
co-owner on a permit form, sablefish at-sea processing exemption request form is negligible.
The annualized costs for review and documentation of the ownership interest are estimated to be
70 ownership interest forms submitted x 10 minutes per application x $25.00/hr = $300. The
cost of reviewing mid-season transfer information is negligible. NMFS anticipates
implementing a cost recovery fee for sablefish endorsed permits in the future and costs for the
ownership interest and determination of compliance with permit own/hold limits will be
incorporated into this fee.
Total government cost: $300 + $1,359 = $1,659.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
The EFP estimated hours have increased by 1,449, although the proposals are estimated to be
fewer (5, rather than 9): estimated times for proposals and summary reports have increased
significantly and there are a greater number of estimated data reports and notifications of EFP
fishing trips and deliveries under an EFP; NMFS has increased monitoring requirements
associated with EFPs to protect overfished species and to more closely track EFP fishing
activities. Costs have increased by about $1,000, due to increased number of mailings of reports
and notifications.
The time burden for the LEP part of the collection (including sablefish stacking) has decreased
from 280 hours to 185 hours. The reason for the reduction in the time burden is the elimination
of several of the sablefish stacking related collections which were one time in nature, as well as
the marriage declaration form which was a one time opportunity for permit owners to add their
spouses as co-owner of the permit for the purpose of obtaining an exemption from the owner on
board requirement.
Costs have decreased for LEP s primarily due to an adjustment of the costs associated with
processing renewal applications. The renewal fee for LEPs effective in 2010 is estimated to be
$110 per permit. This application fee is a decrease from $152 renewal fee given in the prior
collection. NMFS has realized certain efficiencies in its processing of renewals resulting in a
reduced number of staff hours. The reduced renewal fee amount accounts for most of the
decrease in the total annual cost burden to respondents (a decrease of 17,518: from $61,408
($152 x 404) to $43,890 ($110 x 399). There is no fee to the respondents to recover annualized
costs to the Federal government to process transfer requests and ownership interest information.
In summary, the total burden hours have increased by 1,354 hours and costs decreased by
$18,332.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
There are no plans to tabulate and publish the data. The names of all registered vessels, permit
owners and holders are routinely made available on our web site. Sale or lease price information
of individual transactions and mid-season landing information is considered confidential;
22

however, summary of sale and lease price data may be provided to NMFS economists, PFMC
staff, and academics.
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.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
Not applicable.

B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This collection does not employ statistical methods.

23