0204 ss ren 020310rev

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

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
established regional fishery management councils, including the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Pacific Council), to develop fishery management plans (FMP) for fisheries in the U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These plans, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce, are
implemented by Federal regulations, which are enforced by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the United States (U.S.) Coast Guard (USCG), in cooperation with State
agencies to the extent possible. FMPs are intended to regulate fishing for stocks to prevent
overfishing and achieve the optimum yield from the fisheries for the benefit of the U.S.
The Pacific Council has prepared a FMP for the coastal pelagic species (CPS) fishery off the
U.S. West Coast and for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species. Each of these
FMPs contain a requirement that commercial fishery participants obtain permits for the fishery.
This request deals with the information collection requirements for permits. The Southwest
Region, NMFS, administers the permit program. Both permits are valid for a two-year term.
There are three types of permits: basic fishery permits (e.g., highly migratory species (HMS)),
limited entry permits for selected fisheries (e.g., West Coast coastal pelagic fishery), and
experimental fishing permits (EFP). Basic permits are used in all fisheries where there are no
specific limitations or eligibility criteria for entry to the fishery. Limited access/entry permits are
used to prevent overcapitalization or address other management goals in the fishery. EFPs are
used to authorize controlled and observed fishing with gear or techniques or within closed areas,
which would otherwise be prohibited. Such fishing may demonstrate new ways to fish
economically without significant adverse biological problems or with less take of protected
resources such as sea turtles. In addition, there are provisions for transfers among owners and
for appeals of actions of certain limited entry permits such as the coastal pelagic species limited
entry permits.
General permit requirements are found in 50 CFR 660.1-3 (Subpart A) with the specific
requirements contained in relevant sections of 50 CFR 660 (Subpart I and Subpart K).
There are typically provisions in the permit process for appeals of permit denials. Appellants
may use any appropriate format in requesting NMFS to review their case.
Permits and the information obtained through permit applications are essential in the
management of these fisheries. They serve to identify actual or potential participants in the
various fisheries. These data are needed to help measure the impacts of management controls on
the participants in the fisheries. Permits are also effective tools in the enforcement of other
fishery regulations. The threat of permit sanctions that would exclude a vessel from the fishery
may be more effective than fines for violations of specific fishery regulations. Further,
1

transferable limited access/entry permits may have a resale value and may be an asset that the
government can seize in settlement of penalties for fishery violations.
Permits also provide an important link between the NMFS and fishermen via the permit
application process. They make it easier for NMFS staff to contact fishermen and advise them of
changes in the regulations or fishery conditions and give fishermen a direct point of contact in
case they have questions or issues they want to bring to the attention of NMFS or a fishery
management council.
Section 303 (b) (1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically authorizes the establishment of
permit requirements. Almost all international, federal, state, and local fishery management
authority uses permits as part of their management systems.
A non-substantive change request was approved July 22, 2009 in advance of a final rule to
establish an annual permit application fee for Pacific HMS fishery permits. This was a request to
implement permit fees under the Fishery Management Plan for United States West Coast
Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control No. 0648-0204, Southwest Region Permit Family of Forms.
The National Marine Fishery Service’s Southwest Region Sustainable Fisheries
Division published a final rule, Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 0648-AW50, “Fisheries off
West Coast States; Highly Migratory Species Fisheries,” that amended regulations implemented
under the U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species, Fishery Management Plan
(HMS, FMP) to establish a framework for the collection of permit fees. The purpose was to
comply with NMFS National Policy Directive 30-120 pertaining to NMFS Permit Fees.
Historically, only some fishery management plans have authorized the collection of permit fees.
This resulted in a set of inconsistent permit fee policies around the country. NMFS issued Policy
Directive 30-120 to establish a more consistent agency permit program that recovers the expense
of permit processing and issuance for all permits issued by NMFS to the extent of the law
allowed.
The final rule specified that an application for an HMS permit, including the renewal of an
existing permit, will include an application fee payable by the permit applicant. In accordance
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Finance Handbook
guidelines for cost recovery permits, the initial fee has been calculated at $30 for the Pacific
HMS Permit, which is valid for two years. The Assistant Administrator may change the fee
amount required at any time if a different fee is determined appropriate in accordance with the
NOAA Finance Handbook and specified by the Administrator, Southwest Region, on the
application form. The final rule became effective August 27, 2009.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The information requested on the NMFS Southwest Region federal fisheries permit application
forms by the Southwest Region is utilized to determine whether the applicant meets the
eligibility criteria for a permit for the fishery the applicant intends to participate in. The data
2

may also be used by several offices of NMFS, USCG, and state and territorial fisherymanagement, research, and enforcement agencies. As requested, summaries of permit
application information are provided to the Western Pacific and Pacific Councils, member states,
and interested parties to describe the characteristics of the fishery and estimate the nature and
magnitude of the impacts of fishery regulations on different permit holders. Information on the
vessel (as provided in documentation or registration certificates) is used to ascertain actual or
potential participants in different sectors of each fishery and the amount of harvesting pressure
they might exert on the fishery. This is important in determining the potential effectiveness and
impacts of different management approaches and in assessing the capacity of the fleets in the
fisheries.
The information collected is basic data on applicants, such as name of owner and vessel operator,
name of vessel and its official number, address, telephone number, and radio call sign.
Independently verifiable data on the vessel’s USCG documentation or state registration
certificates identify the legal ownership of the vessel being permitted. This latter requirement is
essential for imposing permit sanctions, which are an effective fisheries enforcement tool. Since
many vessels may be owned by partnerships or corporations, identification of ownership on the
application form allows NMFS to sanction the company as well as the individual vessel operator
for repeated violations of federal regulations. By having addresses, the NMFS can mail fishery
information to vessel owners and operators; also permit renewal forms are sent to permit holders
quickly and easily. Telephone numbers (business, home, facsimile) are used to assist NMFS in
processing the application by allowing questions to be resolved more quickly than by
correspondence.
Disclosure of the Employer Identification Numbers of the corporate applicants is mandatory in
accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. 7701), which requires that
agencies obtain taxpayer identification numbers from persons applying for Federal permits.
Vessel owner or his or her agent’s signature is required as legally binding actions, which ensure
eligibility to receive or transfer a permit under specific FMP regulations. False statements
without the signature of the applicant would be difficult to prosecute.
Appeals of permit denials must be accompanied by documentation from the appellant to
demonstrate why the permit should have been granted. This could include fishing logs, invoices
from fish sales, State landings records, auction house receipts, financial transaction records
relative to vessel ownership, or other records to demonstrate that the appellant had met the
eligibility criteria for the particular fishery.
EFPs are issued to applicants for fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited under a
FMP. A specific form for an EFP application is not required; however, an application for an EFP
must provide a narrative description of the proposed activity to fully document the intended
operations. This documentation allows NMFS, the Pacific Council and affected state/territorial
fishery agency to evaluate the consequences of the experimental fishing activity and weigh the
benefits and costs. EFPs allow innovation that may relieve excessive fishing effort or discover
new methods that may resolve existing technological barriers to better management of the
fishery and resource.

3

The implementing regulations of Amendment 10 to the CPS FMP revised criteria and provisions
to allow limited entry permits to be transferred to permit owners or associated vessel.
A permit may be transferred only once during a calendar year. Information obtained from
transfer and renewal applications allows NMFS to determine eligibility and status of each vessel
and permit and overall fishery capacity goals. The coastal pelagic species permit collection is
necessary for NMFS to administer and monitor the limited entry program for the fishery. Vessels
authorized to fish in a restricted U.S. West Coast fishery need to be distinguished from
unauthorized vessels with regard to assessing economic impacts and enforcement at sea.
It is anticipated that the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to
support publicly disseminated information. As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the
information gathered has utility. NOAA Fisheries will retain control over the information and
safeguard it from improper access, modification, and destruction, consistent with NOAA
standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See response 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 subjected to quality control measures
and a pre-dissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
The Southwest Region’s (SWR) Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/permits.htm is used to
inform the public about the SWR permit programs and provides a means by which the
application form for the Pacific HMS and coastal pelagic species limited entry permits may be
obtained. EFP applications have no forms associated with them. These applications are relatively
rare events and cannot be predicted in advance. While there is no current improved information
technology that would simplify the application process, implementation of the National Permits
System (NPS) is ongoing. NPS is expected to soon have a public interface option that will allow
SWR permit applicants to apply for permits via the internet.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
One Federal program that provides some similar information is the vessel documentation
program of the U.S. Coast Guard. The permit process incorporates verification of the current
USCG Certificate of Documentation data on file for vessels to determine information about the
vessels and their ownership. This is achieved via a NMFS internet site that reflects quarterly
updates from USCG data sources. Similar verification is occasionally conducted via state vessel
registration contacts. The permit application form no longer contains a requirement to provide
duplicate information.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
All of the vessels in the Pacific coastal pelagic fishery are small business entities of similar size
and are affected comparably. All fishing operations involving vessels in the highly migratory
fisheries, except the large scale tuna purse seine vessels, can be categorized as small businesses.
4

However, the reporting burden of applying for a permit is slight relative to the overall cost of
fishing. No special measures are needed to accommodate different sized businesses. Only the
minimum data to meet the permit program objectives are requested from the permit applications.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If permit data are not available or are collected less frequently, NMFS will have difficulty
monitoring the fishery, determining entry and exit patterns, and providing information needed to
ensure full impact analysis from the regulatory programs. NMFS Enforcement will be unable to
assure the identity of current permit holders for purposes of compliance monitoring and
enforcement of the regulations. There will be less frequent contact with fishermen and our
ability to contact permit holders to consult them prior to adopting new regulations and to advise
them of regulatory changes will diminish. Our ability to document transfers of marketable
permits under the current CPS limited access permit programs will be compromised.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
The collection is consistent with the OMB Guidelines.
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 November 5, 2009 (74 FR 57289) solicited public
comment on this collection. None was received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are involved in this program.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
As stated on the forms: under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NOAA Administrative Order 216100, information submitted in accordance with regulatory requirements under the Act is
confidential. This includes confidential information submitted with a permit application.
Personal and proprietary information is not released to the public.

5

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
No questions of a sensitive nature are asked.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
For the west coast HMS fishery permits, it was estimated that after the initial first 2-year cycle
has been completed, 90 percent of all permit holders (1,587 of 1,763 current valid permit
holders) will renew permits every 2 years with minimal changes in information, taking 6 minutes
(0.1 hours) per year. Thus, 1,587 vessels would renew with a burden of 158.7 hours, or an
annualized burden of 79.4 hours (794 responses). Permit renewals are staggered, with only half
of current permit holders expected to renew in a given year. In addition, there will be substitution
vessels for the 10 percent (176 vessels) which depart the fishery, at a burden of 30 minutes for a
new permit, with a total burden estimated at 88 hours. The annualized burden for this sector is
44 hours per year (88 responses). Thus, the total annualized burden is 123 hours (79.4 + 44).
Total annualized responses are 882.
For the west coast coastal pelagic fishery permits, there will be no new permits issued, only
biannual renewals. It is estimated that there will be 65 respondents x 0.25 per hour equaling
16.25 hours. The annualized burden for this sector would be 8.1 hours (33 responses).
Transfers are estimated at 7 respondents x 0.50 hr/response = 3.50 hours (annualized to 1.75
hours, 4 responses). Appeals are estimated at 5 respondents x 2 hours/response = 10 hours
(annualized to 5 hours; 3 responses). Thus, the total annualized burden is 15 hours (8.1 +
1.75 + 5). Total annualized responses are 40.
For EFPs, it is estimated that there will be one new permit issued each year x 60 minutes to
complete. Thus, the total annualized burden hours would be 1 hour and 1 response per
year.
Total respondents will be 1829. Total annualized responses will be 923. Total annualized
burden hours will be 139.
The estimated total annual labor cost to respondents is estimated at $2,780 per year. This was
derived by multiplying the number of hours of burden each year times an hourly cost rate of $20,
the estimated total cost for administrative staff support in an office setting.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in Question
12 above).
There is no "start-up" capital cost for complying with these requirements. The annual cost to the
respondents for postage, faxes, copies, etc. related to this collection is estimated at $851.00
(approximately $0.92 per response).

6

A total of 882 Pacific HMS permit applications (794 renewals and 88 new applications) are
expected per year. At $30 per permit application fee, this will add $26,460 to the adjusted total
recordkeeping/reporting costs of $851, bringing the new total to $27,304.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The estimated annualized cost to the government is estimated at $19, 524.19. This is based on
the approximate cost of a GS-7/8 Permits Technician in the Los Angeles Area for sending out
permit renewal notices, reviewing application, responding to inquiries, awarding the permit and
processing the data. The breakdown is as follows:
1.10 hrs x 923 responses = 1,015.3 hours x $19.23 per hour = $19,524.19.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
Although there has been an increase of 213 annual HMS permit responses, with other response
categories remaining the same, there is a small net decrease in burden hours due to an adjusted
estimate for new HMS applications, from 60 minutes to 30 minutes.
The total cost burden for recordkeeping has increased by $6,701, due to greater numbers of HMS
respondents and responses: both the number of permit submission recordkeeping/reporting costs
and the number of $30 HMS permit fees.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No publications based solely on permit data are planned at this time.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
The expiration dates will be shown on the application forms.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement.
There are no exceptions.
B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

This collection does not employ statistical methods.

7