Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 54389-54419 [2016-19158]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54389-54419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19158]



[[Page 54389]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 157

August 15, 2016

Part IV





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 216





Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 54390]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 216

[Docket No. 0907301201-6406-03]
RIN 0648-AY15


Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final action implements the import provisions of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This rule establishes conditions 
for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory program to address 
incidental and measures to address intentional mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in fisheries that export fish and fish 
products to the United States. Under this rule, fish and fish products 
from fisheries identified by the Assistant Administrator in the List of 
Foreign Fisheries can only be imported into the United States if the 
harvesting nation has applied for and received a comparability finding 
from NMFS. The rule establishes procedures that a harvesting nation 
must follow and conditions to meet, to receive a comparability finding 
for a fishery. The rule also establishes provisions for intermediary 
nations to ensure that intermediary nations do not import, and re-
export to the United States, fish or fish products subject to an import 
prohibition. Agency actions and recommendations under this rule will be 
in accordance with U.S. obligations under applicable international law, 
including, among others, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Young, Office of International 
Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NMFS at Nina.Young@noaa.gov or 301-427-
8383. More information on this final action can be found on the NMFS 
Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

MMPA Requirements

    The MMPA contains provisions to address the incidental mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals in both domestic and foreign 
commercial fisheries. With respect to foreign fisheries, section 
101(a)(2) of the MMPA states that the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
ban the importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have 
been caught with commercial fishing technology which results in the 
incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess 
of United States standards. For purposes of applying the preceding 
sentence, the Secretary of Commerce shall insist on reasonable proof 
from the government of any nation from which fish or fish products will 
be exported to the United States of the effects on ocean mammals of the 
commercial fishing technology in use for such fish or fish products 
exported from such nation to the United States. (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2))
    Section 102 (c)(3) of the MMPA states that it is unlawful to import 
into the United States any fish, whether fresh, frozen, or otherwise 
prepared, if such fish was caught in a manner which the Secretary of 
Commerce (Secretary) has proscribed for persons subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not any marine mammals 
were in fact taken incident to the catching of the fish. (16 U.S.C. 
1372(c)(3)).

Petition To Ban Imports

    On March 5, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce and other 
relevant Departments were petitioned under the MMPA to ban the imports 
of swordfish and swordfish products from nations that have failed to 
provide reasonable proof of the effects on ocean mammals of the 
commercial fishing technology in use to catch swordfish. The petition 
was submitted by two nongovernmental organizations, the Center for 
Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network. The 
petition is available at the following Web site: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/ gov/ia/. Copies of this petition may also be obtained by contacting 
NMFS (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    On December 15, 2008, NMFS published a notice of receipt of the 
petition in the Federal Register and a request for public comments 
through January 29, 2009 (73 FR 75988). NMFS subsequently reopened the 
comment period for an additional 45 days from February 4 to March 23, 
2009 (74 FR 6010, February 4, 2009).
    On April 30, 2010, NMFS published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) describing options to develop procedures to implement 
the import provisions of MMPA section 101(a)(2) (75 FR 22731). On July 
1, 2010, NMFS extended the comment period for an additional 60 days (75 
FR 38070).
    Additionally, on October 5, 2011, and on March 13, 2012, NMFS 
received correspondence from 21 animal rights and animal welfare 
organizations and Save Our Seals Fund, respectively, urging it to take 
action to ban the importation of Canadian and Scottish aquaculture 
farmed salmon into the United States due to the intentional killing of 
seals asserting such lethal deterrence is subject to the importation 
ban under the MMPA sections 101(a)(2) and 102(c)(3) for international 
fisheries. NMFS decided that the proposed rule would be broader in 
scope than the 2008 petition. In particular, NMFS decided that it would 
be not limited in application to swordfish fisheries and would cover 
intentional, as well as incidental, killing and serious injury of 
marine mammals.
    NMFS published a proposed rule on August 11, 2015 (80 FR 48172) 
that included a 90-day comment period. A summary of the comments 
received on the proposed rule and how these comments were addressed in 
the final rule can be found below. Further background is provided in 
the above referenced Federal Register documents and is not repeated 
here.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    NMFS prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) to accompany 
this final rule. The EA was developed as an integrated document that 
includes a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Copies of the EA/RIR/FRFA analysis are 
available at the following address: Office of International Affairs and 
Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Copies are also available via the 
Internet at the NMFS Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/.

Overall Framework To Implement Sections 101(a)(2) and 102(c)(3) of the 
MMPA

Overview of the MMPA Import Rule Process

    NMFS is amending 50 CFR 216.24 to add a new paragraph to establish 
procedures and conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's 
regulatory program addressing marine mammal incidental mortality and 
serious injury in its export fisheries, to determine whether it is 
comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. The new 
paragraph also addresses intentional mortality and

[[Page 54391]]

serious injury in fisheries that export to the United States. The 
following is a brief summary of the process for implementing MMPA 
sections 101(a)(2)(A) and 102(c)(3). Each step was discussed in detail 
in the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

List of Foreign Fisheries

    NMFS will identify harvesting nations with commercial fishing 
operations that export fish and fish products to the United States and 
classify those fisheries based on their frequency of marine mammal 
interactions as either ``exempt'' or ``export'' fisheries (See 
regulatory text in this rule for definitions of exempt and export 
fisheries).
    NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a List of Foreign 
Fisheries by harvesting nation, their fisheries, and their 
classifications. After the effective date of the rule, NMFS will 
publish a proposed List of Foreign Fisheries for comment and a 
subsequent final List. To develop this list, NMFS will notify each 
harvesting nation having fisheries that export to the United States and 
request that within 90 days of notification the harvesting nation 
submit reliable information about the commercial fishing operations 
identified, including the number of participants, number of vessels, 
gear type, target species, area of operation, fishing season, and any 
information regarding the frequency of marine mammal incidental 
mortality and serious injury, including programs to assess marine 
mammal populations. Harvesting nations will also be requested to submit 
copies of any laws, decrees, regulations, or measures to reduce 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in those 
fisheries or prohibit the intentional killing or injury of marine 
mammals. NMFS will evaluate each harvesting nation's submission, any 
readily available information, request additional information from the 
harvesting nations, as necessary, and use this information to classify 
the fisheries. Where no information or analogous fishery or fishery 
information exists, NMFS will classify the commercial fishing operation 
as an export fishery until such time as the harvesting nation provides 
reliable information to properly classify the fishery or such 
information is readily available to the Assistant Administrator in the 
course of preparing the List of Foreign Fisheries.
    The year prior to the expiration of the exemption period and every 
four years thereafter, NMFS will re-evaluate foreign commercial fishing 
operations and publish a notice of the proposed list, for public 
comment, and the final revised List of Foreign Fisheries in the Federal 
Register. In revising the list, NMFS may reclassify a fishery if new 
substantive information indicates the need to re-examine and possibly 
reclassify a fishery. The List of Foreign Fisheries will be organized 
by harvesting nation and other defining factors including geographic 
location of harvest, gear-type, target species or a combination 
thereof. Based upon the List of Foreign Fisheries, the Assistant 
Administrator will consult with harvesting nations, informing them of 
the regulatory requirements for exempt and export fisheries to import 
fish and fish products into the United States.

Exemption Period and New Entrants

    NMFS will allow a one-time only, initial five-year exemption 
period, similar to the Interim Exemption for domestic fisheries that 
occurred in 1988 prior to implementation of the framework for 
addressing marine mammal bycatch in U.S. commercial fisheries, 
commencing from January 10, 2017. During the exemption period, the 
prohibitions of this rule will not apply to imports from the harvesting 
nation; however, harvesting nations are expected to develop regulatory 
programs to comply with the requirements to obtain a comparability 
finding during this time period.
    After the conclusion of the one-time exemption period, any 
harvesting nation or fishery that has not previously exported to the 
United States wishing to commence exports will be granted a provisional 
comparability finding for a period not to exceed twelve months. Such 
fishery will be classified as an export fishery until the next List of 
Foreign Fisheries is published. If a harvesting nation provides the 
reliable information necessary to classify the commercial fishing 
operation at the time of the request for a provisional comparability 
finding or prior to the expiration of the provisional comparability 
finding, NMFS will classify the fishery in accordance with the 
definitions. Prior to the expiration of a provisional comparability 
finding, a harvesting nation must provide information to classify the 
fishery and apply for and receive a comparability finding for its 
fishery to continue exporting fish and fish products from that fishery 
to the United States after the expiration of the provisional 
comparability finding.

Consultations With Harvesting Nations

    The rule includes three broad consultation areas: (1) Notification 
of the List of Foreign Fisheries; (2) notification of a denial of a 
comparability finding; and (3) discretionary consultations for 
transmittal or exchange of information.

Comparability Finding

    By the end of the exemption period and every four years thereafter, 
a harvesting nation must have applied for and received a comparability 
finding for its fisheries to export fish and fish products to the 
United States. Fish and fish products from fisheries that fail to 
receive a comparability finding may not be imported into the United 
States.
    To receive a comparability finding for an exempt or export fishery 
operating within the harvesting nation's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 
and territorial sea, the high seas, or in the waters of another state, 
the harvesting nation must demonstrate it has prohibited the 
intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations in the fishery unless the intentional 
mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is imminently necessary 
in self-defense or to save the life of a person in immediate danger; or 
that it has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and 
fish products to the United States are not the product of an 
intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal unless the 
intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is 
imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in 
immediate danger.
    The harvesting nation must also demonstrate that it has adopted and 
implemented, with respect to an export fishery, a regulatory program 
governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 
in the course of commercial fishing operations in its export fishery 
that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program. The 
U.S. regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations 
is specified in the MMPA (e.g., 16 U.S.C. 1386 and 1387) and its 
implementing regulations. To determine whether a harvesting nation 
maintains a regulatory program that is comparable in effectiveness to 
the U.S. regulatory program for a fishery, NMFS will examine whether 
the harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program that includes, or 
effectively achieves comparable results, as certain conditions 
specified in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of the rule, subject to additional 
considerations specified in paragraph (h)(7) of the rule. The 
conditions specified in paragraph

[[Page 54392]]

(h)(6)(iii) are features of the U.S. regulatory program.
    Paragraph (h)(6)(iii) specifies different conditions that a 
harvesting nation must meet for the Assistant Administrator to issue a 
comparability finding for: Export fisheries operating within the EEZ or 
territorial waters of the harvesting nation, export fisheries operating 
within the jurisdiction of another state, and export fisheries 
operating on the high seas. The conditions specified in paragraph 
(h)(6)(iii) and additional considerations specified paragraph (h)(7) 
are summarized below.
    For export fisheries operating within the EEZ or territorial waters 
of the harvesting nation, the conditions include:
    1. Marine mammal stock assessments that estimate population 
abundance for marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction 
that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export 
fishery;
    2. An export fishery register containing a list of all vessels 
participating in the export fishery under the jurisdiction of the 
harvesting nation, including the number of vessels participating, 
information on gear type, target species, fishing season, and fishing 
area;
    3. Regulatory requirements (e.g., including copies of relevant 
laws, decrees, and implementing regulations or measures) that include:
    (a) A requirement for the owner or operator of vessels 
participating in the fishery to report all intentional and incidental 
mortality and injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial 
fishing operations; and
    (b) A requirement to implement measures in export fisheries 
designed to reduce the total incidental mortality and serious injury of 
a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit. Such measures may 
include: Incidental mortality and serious injury limits; careful 
release and safe-handling of marine mammals and gear removal; gear 
marking; bycatch reduction devices or avoidance gear (e.g., pingers); 
gear modifications or restrictions; or time-area closures; and
    (c) for transboundary stocks or any other marine mammal stocks 
interacting with the export fishery, any measures to reduce the 
incidental mortality and serious injury of that stock that are the same 
or are comparable in effectiveness to measures the United States 
requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that 
transboundary stock or marine mammal stock in the United States.
    4. Implementation of monitoring procedures in export fisheries 
designed to estimate incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals in each export fishery under its jurisdiction, as well as 
estimates of cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury for 
marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction that are 
incidentally killed or seriously injured in the export fishery and 
other export fisheries with the same marine mammal stock, including an 
indication of the statistical reliability of those estimates;
    5. Calculation of bycatch limits for marine mammal stocks in waters 
under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously 
injured in an export fishery;
    6. Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of 
each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export 
fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison 
of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each 
marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and 
any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these 
export fisheries:
    (a) Do not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks; or
    (b) Exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the 
portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for 
which the exporting fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the 
other export fisheries interacting with the same marine mammal stock or 
stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative 
incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit 
for that stock or stocks.
    For export fisheries operating within the jurisdiction of another 
state the conditions include:
    1. With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the 
export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and 
serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its 
domestic fisheries to take with respect to that transboundary stock; 
and
    2. With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting with 
the export fishery while operating within the jurisdiction of the 
state, any measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury 
that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with 
respect to that marine mammal stock; and
    3. For an export fishery not subject to management by a regional 
fishery management organization:
    (a) An assessment of marine mammal abundance of stocks interacting 
with the export fishery, the calculation of a bycatch limit for each 
such stock, an estimation of incidental mortality and serious injury 
for each stock and reduction in or maintenance of the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of each stock below the bycatch limit. 
This data included in the application may be provided by the state or 
another source; and
    (b) Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of 
each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export 
fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison 
of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each 
marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and 
any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these 
export fisheries do not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or 
stocks; or that, if they do exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or 
stocks, the portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious 
injury for which the export fishery is responsible is at a level that, 
if the other export fisheries interacting with the same marine mammal 
stock or stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative 
incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit 
for that stock or stocks; or
    4. For an export fishery that is subject to management under an 
intergovernmental agreement or by a regional fishery management 
organization, implementation of marine mammal data collection and 
conservation and management measures applicable to that fishery 
required under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional 
fisheries management organization to which the United States is a 
party.
    For an export fishery operating on the high seas under the 
jurisdiction of the harvesting nation or of another state:
    1. Implementation in the fishery of marine mammal data collection 
and conservation and management measures applicable to that fishery 
required under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional 
fisheries management organization to which the United States is a 
party; and
    2. Implementation in the export fishery of:
    (a) With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the 
export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and 
serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its 
domestic fisheries to take with respect to that transboundary stock; 
and
    (b) With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting with 
the export fishery while operating on the high seas, any measures to 
reduce

[[Page 54393]]

incidental mortality and serious injury that the United States requires 
its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that marine mammal stock 
when they are operating on the high seas.

Additional Considerations

    When determining whether to issue any comparability finding for a 
harvesting nation's export fishery the Assistant Administrator will 
also consider:
     U.S. implementation of its regulatory program for similar 
marine mammal stocks and similar fisheries (e.g., considering gear or 
target species), including transboundary stocks governed by regulations 
implementing a marine mammal take reduction plan, and any other 
relevant information received during consultations;
     The extent to which the harvesting nation has successfully 
implemented measures in the export fishery to reduce the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the harvesting 
nation's export fisheries to levels below the bycatch limit;
     Whether the measures adopted by the harvesting nation for 
its export fishery have reduced or will likely reduce the cumulative 
incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock 
below the bycatch limit, and the progress of the regulatory program 
toward achieving its objectives;
     Other relevant facts and circumstances, which may include 
the history and nature of interactions with marine mammals in this 
export fishery, whether the level of incidental mortality and serious 
injury resulting from the fishery or fisheries exceeds the bycatch 
limit for a marine mammal stock, the population size and trend of the 
marine mammal stock, the population level impacts of the incidental 
mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in a harvesting nation's 
export fisheries, and the conservation status of those marine mammal 
stocks where available;
     The record of consultations with the harvesting nation, 
results of these consultations, and actions taken by the harvesting 
nation, including under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or 
regional fishery management organization, to reduce the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in its export fisheries; 
and
     Information gathered during any onsite inspection by U.S. 
government officials of a fishery's operations.
     For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an 
applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management 
organization to which the United States is a party, the harvesting 
nation's record of implementation of or compliance with measures 
adopted by that regional fishery management organization or 
intergovernmental agreement for data collection, incidental mortality 
and serious injury mitigation or the conservation and management of 
marine mammals; whether the harvesting nation is a party or cooperating 
non-party to such intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery 
management organization; the record of United States implementation of 
such measures; and whether the United States has imposed additional 
measures on its fleet not required by an intergovernmental agreement or 
regional fishery management organization.
     For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an 
applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fisheries management 
organization to which the United States is not a party, the harvesting 
nation's implementation of and compliance with measures adopted by that 
regional fisheries management organization or intergovernmental 
agreement, and any additional measures implemented by the harvesting 
nation for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury 
mitigation or the conservation and management of marine mammals and the 
extent to which such measures are comparable in effectiveness to the 
U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries.

Issuance or Denial of a Comparability Finding

    No later than November 30th of the calendar year when the exemption 
period or comparability finding is to expire, the Assistant 
Administrator will publish in the Federal Register, by harvesting 
nation, a notice of the harvesting nations and fisheries for which it 
has issued or denied a comparability finding and the specific fish and 
fish products that, as a result, are subject to import prohibitions.
    Prior to publication in the Federal Register, the Assistant 
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State and, in the 
event of a denial of a comparability finding, with the Office of the 
U.S. Trade Representative, shall notify each harvesting nation in 
writing of the fisheries of the harvesting nation for which the 
Assistant Administrator is:
     Issuing a comparability finding;
     Denying a comparability finding with an explanation for 
the reasons for the denial; and
     Specify the fish and fish products that will be subject to 
import prohibitions on account of a denial of a comparability finding 
and the effective date of such import prohibitions.
    For a fishery that applied for and is unlikely to receive a 
comparability finding, NMFS will conduct a preliminary comparability 
finding consultation. NMFS, in consultation with the Secretary of State 
and the United States Trade Representative, will notify the harvesting 
nation prior to the notification and publication of the decision 
whether to issue or deny a comparability finding in the Federal 
Register that it is preliminarily denying the harvesting nation a 
comparability finding for the fishery, or terminating an existing 
comparability finding, and provide the harvesting nation with an 
opportunity to submit reliable information to refute this preliminary 
denial or termination of the comparability finding, and communicate any 
corrective actions taken since submission of its application to comply 
with the applicable conditions for a comparability finding. If a 
harvesting nation does not take action or the situation is not 
otherwise resolved by the time the Assistant Administrator has made all 
comparability findings, issued such findings in writing to the 
harvesting nation and published them in the Federal Register, the 
fishery will not receive and will have to reapply for a comparability 
finding. NMFS will take the information received and the results of 
such consultations into consideration in finalizing its comparability 
finding for the fishery. A preliminary denial or termination of a 
comparability finding shall not result in import prohibitions.

Duration and Renewal of a Comparability Finding

    For those fisheries receiving a comparability finding, such finding 
will remain valid for 4 years or for such other period as the Assistant 
Administrator may specify. To seek renewal of a comparability finding, 
every 4 years, the harvesting nation must submit to the Assistant 
Administrator an application by March 1 of the year when the 
comparability finding is due to expire, requesting a comparability 
finding for the fishery and providing the same documentary evidence 
required for the initial comparability finding, including documentary 
evidence of any measures they have implemented to reduce the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in its export fishery 
that are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program, in 
particular by maintaining a regulatory program that includes, or 
effectively achieves comparable results as the

[[Page 54394]]

features of the U.S. regulatory program described in paragraph 
(h)(6)(iii) of the rule. The Assistant Administrator may request the 
submission of additional supporting documentation or verification of 
statements made to support a comparability finding. If a harvesting 
nation's fishery does not receive a comparability finding during the 
renewal process, import restrictions will be applied.

Import Restrictions

    If the Assistant Administrator denies or terminates a comparability 
finding for a fishery, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with 
the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will identify 
and prohibit the importation of fish and fish products into the United 
States from the harvesting nation caught or harvested in that fishery. 
Any such import prohibition will become effective 30 days after 
publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the comparability 
finding and shall only apply to fish and fish products caught or 
harvested in that fishery. Any import prohibition imposed under this 
rule will remain in effect until the harvesting nation reapplies and 
receives a comparability finding for that fishery.

Duration of Import Restrictions and Removal of Import Restrictions

    NMFS, in consultation with the Department of State and the Office 
of the United States Trade Representative, will consult with harvesting 
nations that failed to receive a comparability finding for a fishery, 
provide the reasons for the denial, and encourage the harvesting nation 
to take corrective action and reapply for a comparability finding. A 
harvesting nation may, at any time, reapply for or request the 
reconsideration of a denied comparability finding for a fishery, and 
submit documentary evidence to the Assistant Administrator in support 
of such application or request. Upon issuance of a comparability 
finding and notification to the harvesting nation, the Assistant 
Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and 
Homeland Security, will publish notification of the removal of the 
import prohibitions for that fishery, effective on the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Certification of Admissibility

    If fish or fish products are subject to import prohibitions from a 
harvesting nation's fishery, the Assistant Administrator, to avoid 
circumvention of or to facilitate enforcement of import prohibitions, 
may require and publish in the Federal Register the requirement that 
the same or similar fish or fish products from the harvesting nation's 
exempt or export fisheries that are not subject to any import 
prohibitions (i.e., those that have received a comparability finding) 
be accompanied by certification of admissibility or electronic 
equivalent filed through the National Marine Fisheries message set 
required in the International Trade Data System.
    The Assistant Administrator will notify the harvesting nation of 
the fisheries and the fish and fish products required to be accompanied 
by a certification of admissibility and provide the necessary documents 
and instruction. The Assistant Administrator in cooperation with the 
Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall as part of the 
Federal Register notice referenced above, publish by harvesting nation 
the fish and fish products required to be accompanied by a 
certification of admissibility. Any requirement for a certification of 
admissibility shall be effective 30 days after the publication of such 
notice in the Federal Register.

Discretionary Review of Comparability Findings

    In addition, the Assistant Administrator may reconsider a 
comparability finding and may terminate a comparability finding if he 
or she determines that the fishery no longer meets the applicable 
conditions for a comparability finding. Given that comparability 
findings are made every four years, this provision allows the Assistant 
Administrator to consider the progress report submitted by a harvesting 
nation, information collected by NMFS, or information provided by 
entities including RFMOs, nongovernmental organizations, and the 
public, to determine whether the exempt or export fishery is continuing 
to meet the conditions for a comparability finding. After such review 
or reconsideration, and after consultation with the harvesting nation 
(preliminary comparability finding), a comparability finding can be 
terminated if the Assistant Administrator determines that the basis for 
the comparability finding no longer applies. The Assistant 
Administrator shall notify in writing the harvesting nation and publish 
notice in the Federal Register, of the termination and the specific 
fish and fish products that as a result are subject to import 
prohibitions.

Intermediary Nations

    To prevent any fish or fish products subject to import prohibitions 
authorized by this rule from being imported into the United States from 
any intermediary nation, including a processing nation, NMFS includes 
provisions for intermediary nations. Under these provisions, NMFS will 
identify intermediary nations that may import, and re-export to the 
United States, fish and fish products from a fishery subject to an 
import prohibition applied under this rule and notify such nations of 
the fish and fish products for which NMFS has identified them. Such 
intermediary nations must in turn certify that it does not import such 
fish and fish products from a harvesting nation's fisheries that are 
subject to import prohibitions applied under this rule or that it has 
procedures to reliably certify that its exports of fish and fish 
products to the United States do not contain such fish or fish products 
caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition. 
Those procedures can be implemented globally or on a shipment-by-
shipment basis and could include, for example, prohibiting the import 
of the prohibited fish and fish products, prohibiting the export of 
such product to the United States, or maintaining a tracking and 
verification scheme and including certification of such scheme on a 
shipment-by-shipment basis. The steps that the Assistant Administrator 
and the intermediary nation must follow are detailed in the preamble to 
the proposed rule and the regulatory text below and are not repeated in 
this summary.
    For an intermediary nation that NMFS has identified as a nation 
that may import, and re-export to the United States, fish or fish 
products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import 
prohibition and that cannot certify that it does not import such fish 
or fish products caught or harvested in the fishery, such fish and fish 
products from that intermediary nation will not be imported into the 
United States, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the 
intermediary nation does not have procedures to reliably certify that 
exports of such fish and fish products from the intermediary nation to 
the United States do not contain fish or fish products caught or 
harvested in the fishery subject to the import prohibition. No fish or 
fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import 
prohibition under the rule may be imported into the United States from 
any intermediary nation. The Assistant Administrator, in cooperation 
with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will 
publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the prohibited fish 
and fish products exported from the

[[Page 54395]]

intermediary nation to the United States that are of the same species 
as, or similar to, fish or fish products subject to an import 
prohibition.
    The Assistant Administrator will review determinations under this 
paragraph upon the request of an intermediary nation. Such requests 
must be accompanied by specific and detailed supporting information or 
documentation indicating that a review or reconsideration is warranted. 
Based upon such information and other relevant information, the 
Assistant Administrator may determine that fish and fish products from 
the intermediary nation should no longer be subject to an import 
prohibition. Based on that determination, the Assistant Administrator, 
in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland 
Security, may lift an import prohibition under this paragraph and 
publish notification of such action in the Federal Register.

Progress Report

    To review the harvesting nation's ongoing progress in developing 
and implementing its regulatory program for its export fisheries, NMFS 
will require progress reports every four years. The first report will 
be submitted two years prior to the end of the exemption period and 
then every four years thereafter, on or before July 31. In this report, 
the harvesting nation will present an update on actions taken over the 
previous two years to develop, adopt, and implement its regulatory 
program, as well as information on the performance of its export 
fisheries in reducing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals. This progress report should detail the methods used to obtain 
the information contained in the progress report and should include a 
certification by the harvesting nation of its accuracy and 
authenticity. The report allows NMFS to monitor the harvesting nation's 
efforts in its export fisheries and to work closely with a harvesting 
nation to ensure they meet and continue to meet the conditions for a 
comparability finding.

International Cooperation and Assistance

    Throughout implementation of this rule, NMFS will engage in 
consultations with harvesting nations. Consistent with existing 
authority under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1378), and contingent on annual 
appropriations, NMFS may provide assistance to harvesting nations to 
aid in compliance with this rule. Assistance activities may include 
cooperative research on marine mammal assessments (e.g., designing 
vessel surveys and fishery observer programs) and development of 
techniques or technology to reduce incidental mortality and serious 
injury (e.g., fishing gear modifications), as well as efforts to 
improve governance structures or enforcement capacity (e.g., training). 
NMFS would also facilitate, as appropriate, the voluntary transfer of 
appropriate technology on mutually-agreed terms to assist a harvesting 
nation in qualifying its export fishery for a comparability finding and 
in designing and implementing appropriate fish harvesting methods that 
minimize the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.

Emergency Rulemaking

    During the five-year interim exemption, NMFS may consider emergency 
rulemaking to ban imports of fish and fish products from an export or 
exempt fishery having or likely to have an immediate and significant 
adverse impact on a marine mammal stock. Under this rule, ``U.S. 
regulatory program'' is defined as the regulatory program governing the 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations as specified in the MMPA and its 
implementing regulations. The U.S. regulatory program at section 118(g) 
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(g)) contains provisions for emergency 
rulemaking for U.S. domestic fisheries that are having or likely to 
have an immediate and significant adverse impact on a marine mammal 
stock. NMFS would likewise consider an emergency rulemaking for an 
export or exempt fishery having or likely to have an immediate and 
significant adverse impact on a marine mammal stock interacting with 
that fishery. Before NMFS initiates an emergency rulemaking, NMFS would 
consult with the nation with the relevant fishery and urge it to take 
measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury and 
effectively mitigate such immediate and significant adverse impact on 
the marine mammal stock(s). If the harvesting nation fails to take 
measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury and 
mitigate such immediate and significant adverse impact, NMFS would 
consider prohibiting the imports of fish and fish products from the 
relevant export or exempt fishery through notice and comment 
rulemaking.
    The emergency regulations or measures allow for timely treatment of 
cases where the usual process and timeframe could result in 
unacceptable risks to the affected marine mammal stock or species. 
Logically, such risks would result either from very small populations 
where any incidental mortality could result in increased risk of 
extinction or larger populations with substantial mortality that could 
become very small populations within the timeframe taken by the 
standard management process; in either situation these cases represent 
an unacceptable ecological risk.

Responses to Comments on the Proposed Rule

    NMFS received comments on the proposed rule from fishing industry 
groups, including fish importers, processors, and trade organizations, 
environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private citizens, 
the Marine Mammal Commission, and foreign governments.

General Comments

    NMFS received more than 92,000 comment letters and petitions from 
private citizens through environmental NGOs supporting procedures to 
implement the MMPA import provisions. Specifically, the majority of 
commenters expressed their support for the comparability finding 
process and the application of trade measures. NMFS received numerous 
comments asking the agency to adopt the strongest measures possible to 
reduce marine mammal bycatch to conserve these resources and level the 
playing field for U.S. fishermen. Several commenters supported NMFS 
holding other nations to the same rigorous and strict standards to 
which U.S. fishermen are subject.
    Several comments received were not germane to this rulemaking and 
are not addressed in this section. These comments include actions 
outside the scope of the statutory mandate or actions covered under 
other rulemakings. Comments received are available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2010-0098. In the 
following section, NMFS responds to the comments applicable to this 
rulemaking.

Definitions

    Comment 1: Numerous commenters recommended expanding the definition 
of ``Fish and Fish Products'' to encompass all fish products including 
highly processed products and expressed concern that the proposed 
exclusion of highly processed product has the potential to exempt from 
this rule a significant portion of U.S. imports from, or worse 
encourage exporters to increase export of process product to evade 
compliance with the MMPA.

[[Page 54396]]

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the proposed exemption would 
incentivize businesses to increase production of highly processed 
products over traditional product forms in order to circumvent the 
requirements of the rule. However, NMFS is modifying the rule to remove 
language excluding highly processed products from the definition of 
fish and fish products. The rationale for doing so is provided below in 
``Changes From Proposed Action''. If a fishery of a harvesting nation 
fails to receive a comparability finding for a fishery, fish and fish 
products caught or harvested in that fishery will be subject to an 
import prohibition, including highly processed fish products containing 
fish caught or harvested in the fishery. This revision of the 
definition of fish and fish products to remove the exclusion for highly 
processed products also has implications for the provision of this rule 
that allows the Assistant Administrator to require that the same or 
similar fish and fish products caught or harvested in another fishery 
of the harvesting nation and not subject to the prohibition be 
accompanied by a certification of admissibility and therefore has 
clarified that provision as described ``Changes to the Proposed 
Action'' below.
    Comment 2: Several commenters disagree that the MMPA authorizes 
NMFS to exempt certain fish products from this regulation. Further, 
exempting this subcategory of fish products runs contrary to the MMPA's 
accompanying regulations under 50 CFR 216.24 for ``tuna product'' which 
explicitly include processed items such as ``fish pastes,'' and ``fish 
balls, cakes, and puddings.''
    Response: For the reasons explained in the ``Changes from Proposed 
Action'' section, NMFS is modifying the rule to remove language that 
would exclude highly processed products from the definition of fish and 
fish products.
    Comment 3: One commenter suggested that the term ``remote'' be 
clarified within the definition of an exempt fishery.
    Response: NMFS believes no further clarification of the term 
``remote'' is needed. The definition clearly indicates that a 
commercial fishing operation with a remote likelihood of causing 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals is one that 
collectively with other foreign fisheries exporting fish and fish 
products to the United States causes the annual removal of:
    (1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit; 
or
    (2) More than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch 
limit, yet that fishery by itself removes 1 percent or less of that 
stock's bycatch limit annually.
    Comment 4: One commenter questioned why NMFS chose only two 
categories of fisheries, exempt and export, as opposed to the 3 
categories of fisheries applicable to U.S. fisheries, stating that 
three categories of fisheries would allow the fisheries with the 
highest marine mammal bycatch to be excluded from comparability 
findings by the harvesting nations until those fisheries could be 
brought into compliance with the comparability finding requirements.
    Response: Having only two categories simplifies and streamlines the 
development of the List of Foreign Fisheries. The regulatory program 
governing U.S. fisheries requires management action for Category 1 and 
2 fisheries; this simplified approach is more practical for a 
harvesting nation developing regulatory programs to reduce marine 
mammal bycatch in its export fisheries. Nonetheless, nothing prevents 
the harvesting nation from prioritizing the export fisheries to which 
it will devote resources in developing regulatory programs for reducing 
marine mammal bycatch. Export fisheries not included in the application 
for a comparability finding and not governed by the harvesting nation's 
regulatory program will not receive a comparability finding and fish 
and fish products from those fisheries will be subject to import 
prohibitions.
    Comment 5: One commenter questioned whether the rule would address 
the bycatch of marine mammals that migrate from waters under the 
jurisdiction of one nation into U.S. waters?
    Response: Yes, and NMFS has specifically defined ``transboundary 
stock'' as a marine mammal stock occurring in the: (1) Exclusive 
economic zones or territorial sea of the United States and one or more 
other States; or (2) Exclusive economic zone or territorial sea of the 
United States and on the high seas. A harvesting nation with bycatch of 
a transboundary stock in an export fishery must develop a regulatory 
program comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for 
that transboundary stock.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated it is unclear why NMFS 
distinguishes between U.S. transboundary and non-transboundary stocks; 
and there is no reason NMFS should limit the application of this rule 
to U.S. stocks.
    Response: NMFS is not limiting the application of this rule to U.S. 
stocks. Because NMFS has developed regulatory measures for its domestic 
commercial fisheries with incidental mortality and serious injury of 
some transboundary stocks and shares management authority for such 
stocks with other harvesting nations, NMFS emphasizes the consideration 
of transboundary stocks in the comparability finding conditions in the 
rule. Because NMFS shares conservation and management for these stocks 
with other nations, there is a greater need for a harvesting nation to 
demonstrate that it has implemented a regulatory program for its export 
fisheries (whether operating in its EEZ, territorial sea, or on the 
high seas) that is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory 
program for such transboundary stocks, especially for transboundary 
stocks governed by specific requirements of the U.S. regulatory 
program, including marine mammal take reduction plans.
    Comment 7: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS 
include a definition of the term ``ocean mammals'' and that it be 
defined as equivalent to the statutory definition of the term ``marine 
mammal.''
    Response: For this rule, NMFS considers the terms ``marine mammal'' 
and ``ocean mammal'' to be equivalent.
    Comment 8: A commenter noted that NMFS defines a commercial fishing 
operation to include aquaculture activities that interact with or occur 
in marine mammal habitat (50 CFR 216.24(h)(3)(i)(A)). The commenter 
recommended that NMFS clearly state the commercial aquaculture 
operations that would not be: Impacted by the final rule, included in 
the List of Foreign Fisheries and required to have a comparability 
finding to export to the U.S.
    Response: This rule applies to aquaculture facilities sited in 
marine mammal habitat that have or may incidentally or intentionally 
kill and seriously injury marine mammals. NMFS does not intend to 
include aquaculture facilities that are freshwater-based or are not 
located in marine mammal habitat.

Application of This Rule

    Comment 9: One commenter asserts the purpose of this rule is to 
punish nations that continue to hunt whales while another urged NMFS to 
prohibit importation of fish products from Japan until they ceased 
their drive fisheries for dolphins.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. This rule does not apply to commercial 
and subsistence whaling or drive fisheries for marine mammals. 
Subsistence and commercial whaling are governed under the other 
provisions of the MMPA, other U.S. laws, and the International

[[Page 54397]]

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
    Comment 10: One nation asserted the U.S. does not have the 
authority to regulate marine mammals within another nation's coastal 
waters, except for those species included under an international 
management framework such as the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species (CITES).
    Response: NMFS is not attempting to regulate marine mammals within 
a nation's coastal waters. NMFS is prohibiting the importation of fish 
and fish products into the United States from a fishery that has not 
been issued comparability findings and establishing criteria for such 
comparability finding. The rule does require an export fishery 
operating under the jurisdiction of a harvesting nation within its EEZ 
(or the equivalent) or territorial sea, to develop and maintain a 
regulatory program comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory 
program in order to obtain a comparability finding. The harvesting 
nation must develop and implement such a regulatory program only if it 
wishes to export fish and fish products to the United States.
    Comment 11: One nation commented that the rule should not be 
applied to all marine mammals, stating the proposed rule does not take 
into account that many marine mammal species are abundant and that 
incidental injury or mortality of some species will have little or no 
effect on their respective populations and recommended that NMFS list 
the specific species of concern, rather than all marine mammals 
generally.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. The MMPA requires that the incidental 
mortality or serious injury of marine mammals occurring in the course 
of commercial fishing operations be reduced to insignificant levels 
approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate. This goal 
includes all marine mammals and does not differentiate based on level 
of abundance. The MMPA does prioritize action for those stocks defined 
as ``strategic,'' and the agency hopes that nations would also 
prioritize action for threatened and endangered species and those for 
which bycatch is unsustainable.

Aquaculture

    Comment 12: Numerous commenters supported inclusion of aquaculture 
operations under the rule. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended 
that foreign aquaculture operations should be subject to the import 
provisions under the MMPA recognizing that aquaculture operations 
interact with marine mammals in ways that can result in intentional or 
incidental mortality or serious injury. Additionally, several 
commenters called for an immediate investigation into lethal practices 
(e.g. intentional shooting of depredating seals) by the global salmon 
aquaculture industry, while others recommended an immediate import 
prohibition of salmon harvested by aquaculture operations that engage 
in such practices, stating it was a violation of the MMPA to import the 
product.
    Response: The regulatory definition of a commercial fishing 
operation includes aquaculture, and NMFS will classify foreign 
aquaculture operations considering both intentional and incidental 
mortality and serious injury according to the requirements of this 
rule. When making comparability finding determinations for farmed 
salmon imports, NMFS will evaluate measures to reduce interactions, 
prohibit intentional, and reduce incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in foreign aquaculture operations as compared 
to the U.S. standards for aquaculture facilities (e.g., use of predator 
nets and the prohibition on intentional killing).
    Comment 13: One nation asked what standard or measures the United 
States has implemented in its aquaculture facilities to avoid marine 
mammal bycatch, and what marine mammal mortality and serious injury 
rates are associated with U.S. aquaculture operations.
    Response: U.S. marine aquaculture fisheries are currently Category 
III fisheries under the MMPA and are regulated under the regulations 
implementing the MMPA section 118 provisions governing the incidental 
take of marine mammals in all U.S. commercial fishing operations. These 
regulations also include provisions that prohibit the intentional 
killing and serious injury of marine mammals in commercial fishing 
operations. No U.S. marine aquaculture fishery is currently included 
under any marine mammal take reduction plan which would specify 
additional regulations specific to that particular aquaculture fishery 
(e.g., California white seabass enhancement net pens). Annual estimates 
of marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury resulting from 
aquaculture operations, when they are reported, are published in the 
annual marine mammal stock assessment reports.

Five-Year Interim Exemption Period

    Comment 14: The majority of commenters, including private citizens 
and environmental NGOs, opposed the five-year exemption period, stating 
several species may become extinct within that timeframe, that nations 
have had a 43-year de facto exemption, that some nations and fisheries 
can comply in a shorter timeframe, and that an exemption period of that 
length weakens the incentive for a nation to develop the necessary 
infrastructure, much less the political and economic will to satisfy 
the rule's requirements. Further, some commenters assert that the MMPA 
does not authorize such an exemption. These commenters recommended 
exemption periods of 1 to 3 years, immediate implementation of a 
prohibition on intentional killing and serious injury, or adoption of 
emergency regulations for species of particular conservation concern. 
Numerous commenters stated that if the five-year exemption period is 
retained, provisions should be put in place requiring harvesting 
nations to demonstrate in the interim that they are making a good faith 
effort to comply with the rule.
    Response: NMFS will retain the five-year interim exemption because 
we believe that this exemption is needed to provide nations with 
adequate time to assess marine mammal stocks, estimate bycatch, and 
develop regulatory programs to mitigate that bycatch. The progress 
report is NMFS' means to determine if nations are making a good faith 
effort to comply with the rule. Moreover, nothing in the rule prevents 
a nation from implementing a bycatch reduction regulatory program and 
seeking a comparability finding during the five-year exemption period.
    Comment 15: The Marine Mammal Commission asserts the MMPA import 
provision is an ongoing, long-standing statutory requirement, and it 
does not see a legal basis for deferring implementation. To the extent 
that any delay can be countenanced, it should be kept to the absolute 
minimum necessary to secure the required information from exporting 
countries. The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that NMFS provide 
additional justification, including a legal analysis explaining why 
imports of fish and fish products need not be banned until the 
exporting countries provide the ``reasonable proof'' required under 
section 101(a)(2)(A), if it decides to defer implementation as 
proposed. NMFS also should explain why a shorter phase-in is not 
possible.
    Response: NMFS has concluded that a five-year exemption period is 
permissible and has provided the rationale for such in the above 
response to comment 14 and the preamble to the

[[Page 54398]]

proposed rule (See August 11, 2015 80 FR 48172).
    Comment 16: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS 
establish a shorter exemption period for fisheries that (1) have 
bycatch of marine mammals that are critically endangered; (2) involve 
marine mammal stocks for which ample information already exists on 
their status and bycatch levels and for which monitoring and bycatch 
mitigation measures are already well developed or could be quickly 
established; or (3) are already subject to RFMO measures for monitoring 
and mitigating marine mammal bycatch. If NMFS proceeds to allow a five-
year exemption period, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended that 
harvesting nations be required to take immediate steps once the final 
List of Foreign Fisheries is published to institute programs that 
require all fishermen engaged in fisheries that might take marine 
mammals to register with the appropriate national agency to identify 
their target catch and gear type, to report all marine mammals taken, 
and to carry observers when asked to do so.
    Response: The intent of the exemption period is to provide nations 
with the time needed to assess marine mammal stocks and estimate and 
mitigate bycatch in their export fisheries. To meet these objectives 
nations will have to implement registries, and monitoring programs of 
the type recommended by the Marine Mammal Commission. NMFS believes the 
progress report will provide critical information on a nation's actions 
toward developing its regulatory program so it might receive a 
comparability finding for its fisheries.
    Comment 17: Several commenters including the Marine Mammal 
Commission recommended that in lieu of decreasing the timeframe for the 
five-year exemption period, NMFS consider implementing an emergency 
import ban to protect species facing ``significant adverse'' impacts 
during the delay period. The Marine Mammal Commission noted the 
domestic interim exemption included an emergency rulemaking provision 
that directed NMFS to issue regulations ``to prevent to the maximum 
extent practicable any further taking'' of marine mammals in a fishery 
if information being collected under the interim program indicated that 
incidental taking was having ``an immediate and significant adverse 
impact'' on any marine mammal stock.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the domestic interim exemption 
included emergency provisions, and believes the adoption of such 
measures would add a layer of precaution. The emergency provisions are 
included within the U.S. standards to ensure that the United States can 
move quickly to engender protections for highly at-risk species. See 
the preamble for the discussion of emergency rulemaking during the 
interim exemption period and comparability finding period.
    Comment 18: Processors and nations supported the exemption period 
stating that the majority of the harvesting nations exporting fish and 
fish products to the United States are not as advanced as the U.S. in 
developing, implementing, and enforcing fishery or protected species 
conservation and management rules; and in cases where data deficiencies 
exist, five years will likely be too short of a period to develop and 
apply rules for flag nation fleets and/or for fishing operations within 
an EEZ. These commenters recommended a ten-year exemption period, with 
one-year renewable extensions to the initial exemption period or 
flexibility in the timeline to avoid a disruption in trade that could 
arise if foreign fisheries fail to receive a comparability finding 
simply because they or even NMFS could not fulfill all the provisions 
of the rule within a non-extendable timeline.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the exemption period should be 
increased or have one-year renewable extensions. NMFS considers the 
five-year exemption period to be sufficient time for nations to develop 
regulatory programs for their fisheries subject to this rule.

United States Regulatory Program

    Comment 19: Two nations requested information on incidental bycatch 
of marine mammals taken in U.S. fisheries and stock abundance 
estimates. One nation stated that it is important that NMFS provide all 
harvesting nations with sufficient information and suggested that NMFS 
first provide the contents of existing regulations and rules for 
conservation and management of marine mammals that the U.S. has already 
implemented as well as existing bycatch data.
    Response: This information is readily available. Information on 
marine mammal bycatch and the U.S. regulatory program and stock 
assessments can be found at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/marine_mammal_take_reduction_program.html and https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm, respectively. In addition, when 
NMFS provides the List of Foreign Fisheries and the harvesting nation's 
export and exempt fisheries, NMFS will also provide harvesting nations 
with general information on the regulatory program governing the 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fisheries and specific regulations applicable to their 
fisheries.
    Comment 20: Several commenters recommended that NMFS adopt a 
bycatch standard that fully mirrors the U.S. standard in the MMPA 
including incorporating the MMPA's goal of reducing incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels 
approaching a zero mortality and injury rate (ZMRG).
    Response: The rule defines U.S. regulatory program as the 
regulatory program governing the incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations 
as specified in the MMPA and its implementing regulations. NMFS is not 
ignoring the ZMRG standard in the rule; it has prioritized reducing 
bycatch to sustainable levels (e.g. below the bycatch limit) and will 
consider the application of the ZMRG, or metrics/measures comparable in 
effectiveness to ZMRG, to foreign fisheries providing the same 
flexibility to foreign fisheries as it has applied to analogous U.S. 
fisheries that have not met ZMRG.
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that, for marine mammal species 
that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, NMFS may 
only authorize incidental mortality and serious injury from all 
commercial fisheries that have a ``negligible impact'' on the listed 
stocks. NMFS has not addressed section 101(a)(5)(E) or the negligible 
impact standard in its proposed rule.
    Response: Section 101(a)(5)(E) is one of the links to the ESA to 
ensure threatened and endangered species are adequately addressed in 
fisheries. One of the requirements in section 101(a)(5)(E) is to comply 
with monitoring and take reduction plans, which are the same elements 
included in the comparability finding process for this rule.

List of Foreign Fisheries

    Comment 22: Several commenters asked whether foreign fishery 
classifications would apply to a nation's entire fishery based on 
species, or whether there would be sub-classifications based on 
specific geographic areas and frequency of marine mammal interactions.
    Response: NMFS intends to work with harvesting nations to adopt 
classifications of fisheries that, to the extent practicable, reflect 
gear type, geographic or management areas, and

[[Page 54399]]

frequency of interaction when warranted.
    Comment 23: One commenter stated the regulatory language must be 
clear that imports of fish and fish products from a commercial fishing 
operation not on the List of Foreign Fisheries and not covered under 
this regulatory process must be banned.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. A fishery must be classified as export or 
exempt. The nation must then apply for and receive a comparability 
finding for those fisheries otherwise the fish and fish products from 
that fishery cannot be imported into the United States.
    Comment 24: Several commenters raised concern and sought 
clarification on the discretionary reasoning and factors that the 
Assistant Administrator may use to classify ``exempt'' or ``export'' 
fisheries absent adequate scientific information provided by the 
harvesting nation about the frequency and/or magnitude of incidental 
mortalities. Another commenter opposes the approach of classification 
by analogy, asserting the diverse range of gear types and 
configurations and differences in marine mammal distribution and 
behavior in various geographic locations. The Marine Mammal Commission 
recommended that, if NMFS finds that available information is not 
adequate to determine with sufficient reliability the frequency with 
which a foreign fishery takes marine mammals and from what stocks, the 
List of Foreign Fisheries identify that fishery as an export fishery 
until such information becomes available.
    Response: To classify fisheries as exempt or export fisheries in 
the absence of information from the harvesting nation, NMFS will 
evaluate information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, 
gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, 
seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher 
reports, stranding data, the species and distribution of marine mammals 
in the area, and will classify fisheries by analogy with similar U.S. 
or foreign fisheries and gear types interacting with similar marine 
mammal stocks. Where no analogous fishery or other reliable information 
exists demonstrating that the likelihood of incidental mortality and 
serious injury is remote, NMFS will classify the commercial fishing 
operation as an export fishery until such time as the harvesting nation 
provides the reliable information to properly classify the fishery or, 
in the course of preparing the List of Foreign Fisheries, such 
information becomes readily available to the Assistant Administrator.
    Comment 25: One commenter raised a concern about using readily 
available information stating NMFS should not reward a harvesting 
nation with a finding of exemption if that nation has not made a good-
faith effort to support such a finding. The Marine Mammal Commission 
was troubled that the rule could be interpreted as placing the onus on 
NMFS to gather the necessary information.
    Response: Consistent with section 101(a)(2)(A) of the MMPA, this 
rule places the burden of proof on the harvesting nation to supply the 
information to classify its fisheries. However, through the 
implementation of other regulations and participation in RFMOs, NMFS 
may have readily available information that it can use to supplement 
its evaluation and classification.
    Comment 26: One commenter sought guidance on whether depredation by 
marine mammals on fish such as albacore captured on longlines can be 
regarded as interactions under the proposed rule.
    Response: This rule addresses mortality and injury of marine 
mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. Depredation in 
and of itself will not be considered for the purposes of this rule 
unless the outcome of that depredation is mortality or serious injury.

Application and Duration of a Comparability Finding

    Comment 27: Several commenters opposed having the comparability 
finding being valid for four years noting that, in the interim, changes 
in fishing operations, regulations, and enforcement can all affect 
compliance with the conditions of a comparability finding. Some 
commenters suggested that comparability findings be renewed annually, 
others suggested that NMFS shorten the time that comparability findings 
are valid, to more closely align with the process to issue permits for 
the incidental take of threatened and endangered species by domestic 
commercial fisheries (e.g. three years). While no commenters supported 
issuing comparability findings lasting longer than 4 years, some stated 
the regulation should explicitly state that the Administrator's 
discretion on timing may not extend beyond 4 years.
    Response: NMFS maintains that four years is an appropriate duration 
for a valid comparability finding. The rule provides adequate oversight 
during the time when a comparability finding is in effect by requiring 
harvesting nations to submit a progress report half way through the 
four-year period that comparability findings are in effect, and by 
providing the Assistant Administrator with the discretion to 
reconsider, at any time throughout the four year effective period, a 
comparability finding based on new information.

Intentional Killing and Serious Injury

    Comment 28: The majority of commenters supported the prohibition on 
intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in foreign 
commercial fishing operations as a condition for receiving a 
comparability finding. Several commenters noted that because the MMPA 
prohibits ``the intentional lethal take of any marine mammal'' by 
domestic commercial fishing operations, this is the clearest standard 
applicable to domestic commercial fisheries and as such must be applied 
to foreign commercial fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the 
United States.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the rule should cover intentional 
mortality and serious injury and has retained, from the proposed rule, 
the provisions concerning intentional mortality and serious injury of 
marine mammals in the final rule.
    Comment 29: Several commenters noted that when Congress granted 
U.S. fisheries an interim exemption from MMPA's take ban in 1988, 
Congress maintained a strict prohibition on the ``intentional lethal 
taking'' of (a) any Steller sea lion, (b) any cetacean, and (c) any 
marine mammals from a depleted stock (i.e., ESA-listed species or 
stocks below Optimum Sustainable Population). 16 U.S.C. 1383a(b)(2)(C). 
Therefore, these commenters were of the view that, if NMFS adopts an 
exemption period, the agency should institute an analogous ban on 
intentional take comparable to that in the interim exemption during the 
exemption period.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the interim exemption under the 
MMPA included a ban on the intentional lethal taking and that ban did 
not include all species or stocks of marine mammals due to species-
specific conservation concerns relative to U.S. commercial fisheries at 
the time. The species-specific intentional lethal taking prohibition of 
the interim exemption does not include all marine mammals. Requiring 
harvesting nations to implement immediately a prohibition on the 
intentional mortality and serious injury on all or only some marine 
mammals, creates two problems. First, the application of such a piece-
meal prohibition on intentional lethal take may not realize the same 
conservation benefit internationally that it did in the

[[Page 54400]]

United States. For example, data indicate that much of the intentional 
mortality and serious injury of pinnipeds involves species other than 
Steller sea lions, which were included in the interim exemption 
prohibition. Second, it is not feasible to require such a prohibition 
immediately as nations need sufficient time to institute decrees, laws, 
or regulations to prohibit the intentional mortality and serious injury 
of marine mammals.
    Comment 30: The Marine Mammal Commission and other commenters 
expressed concern with the option that would allow imports of fish and 
fish products to the United States from fisheries in which it is 
permissible to kill marine mammals intentionally, as long as no marine 
mammals were killed or seriously injured in catching or raising the 
particular fish being exported to the United States. The Marine Mammal 
Commission stated that this is inconsistent with U.S. domestic 
standards for aquaculture and other fisheries, and provides a 
significant loophole for aquaculture operations around the world to 
circumvent the rule's requirements. It also presents significant 
enforcement problems, both in terms of monitoring whether any marine 
mammals were intentionally killed or injured in raising or harvesting 
the fish products and in differentiating seafood that can be imported 
from that which is banned. One commenter stated the statute does not 
explicitly authorize NMFS to create such a bifurcated regime, and there 
exists no general administrative power to create exemptions to 
statutory requirements based upon the agency's perceptions of costs and 
benefits. The Marine Mammal Commission and others recommended that NMFS 
require an outright prohibition on intentional mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing as a 
condition to be met before any fishery, including an exempt fishery, 
could receive a comparability finding, and that the alternative 
provided by the second option be dropped.
    Response: For implementation and enforcement purposes, NMFS' 
preference is that a nation demonstrate it has prohibited the 
intentional mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations in exempt and export fisheries unless 
the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal is 
imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person in 
immediate danger. Harvesting nations may implement this provision by 
either instituting a law, regulation, or licensure or permit condition 
applicable to its export and exempt fisheries that prohibits the 
intentional killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations. Section 102(c)(3) only applies to 
imports of fish caught in a manner proscribed by the Secretary of 
Commerce. The alternative to the outright prohibition requires a 
harvesting nation to submit documentary evidence demonstrating that it 
has procedures to reliably certify that its exports of fish and fish 
products to the United States are not the product of the intentional 
killing or serious injury of marine mammals. NMFS expects that such 
procedures would include certification programs and tracking and 
verification schemes. For NMFS to consider that such a scheme can 
``reliably'' certify their claims, the documentary evidence submitted 
by a harvesting nation must include tracking, verification, and chain 
of custody procedures ensuring, throughout the entire chain of commerce 
from the farms, to the packers, to the distributers, and finally to the 
ultimate importer -- the ability to consistently segregate fish caught 
without intentional mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. 
This mirrors traceability requirements for seafood imports as described 
in the proposed seafood traceability implementing regulations (81 FR 
6210, February 5, 2016).

Stock Assessments

    Comment 31: Several nations raised concerns that for some species 
of marine mammals (such as rare species or species with wide 
distribution ranges), abundance estimates may be inadequate or lacking 
and that requiring governments to undertake such assessments is 
burdensome. One nation recommended that NMFS provide a specific 
treatment when data for marine mammals is not available and where the 
generation of such data would entail high and disproportionate costs.
    Response: NMFS will consider all data, including abundance 
estimates, provided in a harvesting nation's application for a 
comparability finding for an export fish in light of the U.S. 
implementation of its stock assessment program for the same or similar 
marine mammal stocks and its bycatch mitigation measures for similar 
fisheries.

Bycatch Limits

    Comment 32: Several nations requested clarification on the 
calculation of bycatch limits. One nation asked how the bycatch limit 
compares to thresholds based on the scientific advice provided by the 
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and the 
Institute of Marine Research. Other commenters asked for examples of 
what constitutes a comparable equation. Another commenter recommended 
that NMFS rigorously define the standards applicable to determining 
whether an equation or bycatch estimation method is ``comparable'' 
including by stipulating appropriate and precautionary, recovery 
factors in the PBR equation.
    Response: In addition to the U.S. Potential Biological Removal 
(PBR) level, there are several bycatch limit calculations that could be 
considered comparable formulae; these include the Catch Limit Algorithm 
and the conservation objective of the Agreement on the Conservation of 
Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS). For example, 
the conservation objective for harbor porpoise set under ASCOBANS calls 
for all anthropogenic mortality to be reduced to less than 1.7% of the 
best available estimate of abundance. ASCOBANS has subsequently reduced 
that further to less than 1% of the best available estimate of 
abundance.
    PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not 
including natural mortalities that may be removed from a marine mammal 
stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 
sustainable population. The PBR level is the product of the following 
factor: (a) The minimum population estimate of the stock; (b) one-half 
the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock 
at a small population size; and (c) a recovery factor of between 0.1 
and 1.0. The following guidelines apply to PBR elements:
     Minimum population estimate or Nmin is defined as the 
lower 20th percentile of a log-normal distribution according to Nmin = 
N/exp(0.842 * (ln(1+CV(N)2))1/2), where CV(N) is the coefficient of 
variation of the stock's abundance.
     Default values of the maximum theoretical or estimated net 
productivity or Rmax are used when stock-specific values are not 
available: 0.12 (pinnipeds and sea otters) and 0.04 (cetaceans and 
manatees).
     Recovery Factor or Fr is set at 0.1 for endangered species 
and 0.5 when stocks are depleted, threatened, or of unknown status. 
When stocks are within OSP or are increasing and incidental mortality 
has not been increasing, other values may be used up to 1.

    NMFS does not need to go further by stipulating specific recovery 
factors as

[[Page 54401]]

there is ample guidance and the definition of bycatch limit, as we have 
stated in the proposed rule, notes a comparable equation for a bycatch 
limit is one that incorporates scientific uncertainty about the 
population estimate and trend and results in sustainable levels of 
incidental mortality and serious injury while still allowing the marine 
mammal stock to grow or recover.
    Comment 33: One nation stated it is not clear how NMFS determines 
bycatch limits for incidental catches of marine mammals in individual 
fisheries given the fact that they have different stock development 
characteristics, feeding patterns, reproductive abilities, etc. The 
nation also asked from where the figure of 10 percent and below 
incidental catch level, as an objective, was taken.
    Response: NMFS has conducted a series of workshops starting in 1994 
to develop guidelines that may be consistently applied nationally to 
assess marine mammal stocks. These workshops resulted in Guidelines for 
Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) and address the elements of PBR, 
abundance estimates, stock identification, etc. These guidelines and 
workshop reports can be found at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/guidelines.htm.
    The MMPA includes a goal for U.S. domestic fisheries to reduce the 
mortality and serious injury levels incidental to commercial fishing to 
``insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 
rate.'' NMFS has defined this insignificant threshold as 10% of the PBR 
level for a given stock. Ten percent of PBR is a level of mortality and 
serious injury incidental to commercial fisheries that, by itself, 
would allow a population to equilibrate to a level within 90 percent of 
its carrying capacity and would be considered insignificant to the 
population.
    Comment 34: One commenter was concerned that NMFS only requires 
export fisheries to reduce their mortality and serious injury below the 
bycatch limit, while allowing non-export fisheries causing bycatch of 
the same stock to exceed the bycatch limit. They recommended that NMFS 
require harvesting nations to demonstrate that, for any stock that 
interacts with an export fishery, all bycatch of that stock (both from 
export and non-export fisheries) is cumulatively below the bycatch 
limit.
    Response: Section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA only provides the U.S. 
authority to require fish imported into the United States to meet U.S. 
standards; consequently NMFS has no authority to address non-export 
fisheries. Even so, NMFS will encourage harvesting nations to reduce 
cumulative bycatch by export, exempt, and non-export fisheries to 
levels below the bycatch limits for marine mammal stocks killed or 
seriously injured in such fisheries. We hope that through the 
development of effective bycatch mitigation measures and capacity 
building efforts, there will be the collateral benefit of bycatch 
reduction in non-export fisheries.
    Comment 35: Several commenters opposed the ``cumulative exceedance 
exemption'' which allows a harvesting nation's export fisheries to 
export fish to the U.S. when the cumulative incidental mortality or 
serious injury of exporting fisheries exceeds the bycatch limit for a 
marine mammal stock or stocks provided the harvesting nation 
demonstrates that the portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or 
serious injury for which the exporting fishery is responsible is at a 
level that, if the other export fisheries of that nation interacting 
with the same marine mammal stock or stocks were at the same level, 
would not result in a cumulative mortality or serious injury in excess 
of the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks. Commenters in opposition 
noted this exception is not part of the U.S. regulatory program, does 
not ensure that a harvesting nation's mortality and serious injury 
level is below a marine mammal stock's bycatch limit or approaching 
ZMRG, and would not meet the goal of the MMPA to ensure that marine 
mammal stocks meet their optimum sustainable population. They further 
maintained that the exemption is complicated and will likely confuse 
nations trying to comply with this rule.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS adopted this approach to encourage 
compliance with the rule and avoid impacting export fisheries with low 
bycatch, while allowing nations to focus resources on fisheries with 
the highest bycatch. This is similar to the U.S. marine mammal take 
reduction program that prioritizes increased regulation of fisheries 
with high bycatch rather than fisheries that contribute little to the 
cumulative estimated bycatch.

Comparable in Effectiveness

    Comment 36: Nations, industry, and environmental NGOs suggested 
that NMFS must either define what will be deemed comparable to U.S. 
standards or provide more detail and specificity on the criteria that 
will be used to determine ``comparable in effectiveness''. Some 
commenters asserted that because ``comparable in effectiveness'' is 
vague, without establishing minimum standards that all nations must 
meet, it will be difficult for the agency to make consistent and 
objective comparability determinations. By adopting such a vague 
standard, the agency greatly reduces transparency and accountability to 
the public, making it difficult to ascertain how and why the agency 
made a particular comparability determination. Commenters urge NMFS to 
provide specific examples within the rule of alternative programs that 
it would find ``comparable.''
    Response: In using the terms ``comparable in effectiveness'' NMFS 
means that the regulatory program effectively achieves comparable 
results to the U.S. regulatory program. This approach gives harvesting 
nations flexibility to implement the same type of regulatory program as 
the United States or a program that is completely different but 
achieves the same results. For example, if a particular fishery with 
high bycatch switches to non-entangling gear and can demonstrate that 
it has virtually eliminated its bycatch, those results can be 
considered comparable in effectiveness. Likewise, if a nation chooses 
to eliminate its bycatch by implementing time/area closures and can 
demonstrate the effectiveness of such closures, that regulatory program 
may be considered comparable in effectiveness. When making this 
determination, NMFS is evaluating, in lieu of implementing all 
conditions (e.g., stock assessments and bycatch limits), a harvesting 
nation's implementation of bycatch mitigation measures that will result 
in clear and significant reductions.
    Comment 37: One commenter stated that to properly ensure that a 
harvesting nation's regulatory scheme is comparable to the U.S. 
regulatory program, a comparability finding should include a review of 
all sources of human-caused mortality and serious injury under a 
harvesting nation's jurisdiction including all of its fisheries, not 
only those fisheries planning to export to the U.S.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Section 101 (a)(2) neither gives NMFS the 
legal authority to require nations to submit data on all human-caused 
mortality as a condition for a comparability finding nor does it 
authorize NMFS to regulate such mortality; see response to Comment 34.
    Comment 38: One commenter supported the approach outlined in 
Alternative 3 of the Environmental Assessment requiring countries to 
implement specific regulatory measures required of U.S. commercial 
fishing operations as the result of a Take

[[Page 54402]]

Reduction Plan's implementing regulations, stating such an approach 
better meets the requirements of the MMPA.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Focusing only on those export fisheries 
for which NMFS has implemented specific regulatory requirements under a 
Take Reduction Plan would exclude many foreign fisheries from this 
regulation, permitting bycatch to continue, and providing no means to 
compel these fisheries to assess and reduce their bycatch.
    Comment 39: The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that NMFS 
provide additional details on how it would make determinations as to 
whether U.S. and foreign fisheries are analogous, and that similarities 
in the taxa, behavior, and status of the marine mammals subject to 
taking be one of the considerations.
    Response: Due to the highly variable nature of commercial fisheries 
and the marine mammals species with which they interact, NMFS cannot be 
rigid or overly prescriptive in its methodology for identifying 
analogous fisheries. To consider a fishery analogous, NMFS will use the 
best available information when considering the gear type, target 
species, and taxa of the marine mammal stocks incidentally killed and 
seriously injured.

High Seas Fisheries

    Comment 40: For fisheries operating on the high seas, one of the 
conditions for a comparability finding is that a harvesting nation must 
demonstrate how its export fisheries implement both conservation and 
management and data requirements of any international agreement ``to 
which the United States is a party.'' One commenter stated it is 
unclear why NMFS only requires compliance with agreements to which the 
United States is a party, as opposed to broadly requiring nations to 
comply with any international agreement that is applicable to that 
fishery.
    Response: When fishing on the high seas, U.S. fishermen are 
required to comply with international measures to conserve and manage 
species of living marine resources recognized by the United States, 
pursuant to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) (16 U.S.C. 
5505(1)). The United States participates in the negotiation and 
adoption of such measures. For export fisheries subject to measures 
adopted by RFMOs of which the United States is not a member, or under 
international agreements to which the United States is not a party, 
NMFS will still evaluate the harvesting nation's implementation of any 
conservation and management measures adopted under that 
intergovernmental agreement or by that RFMO as well as any other 
measures adopted by a harvesting nation that constitute its regulatory 
program governing its high seas export fisheries interacting with 
marine mammals. NMFS will then determine whether this regulatory 
program is comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program 
for similar fisheries interacting with similar stocks.
    Comment 41: Another commenter noted that the standards for 
transboundary and non-transboundary stocks appear to be identical, and 
thus without further detail, it is unclear to the reader why NMFS is 
separating them. A second condition that an export fishery operating on 
the high seas must meet is implementation in the export fishery of: (a) 
With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the export 
fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and serious 
injury of that stock that the United States requires its domestic 
fisheries to take with respect to that transboundary stock; and (b) 
With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting with the 
export fishery while operating on the high seas, any measures to reduce 
incidental mortality and serious injury that the United States requires 
its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that marine mammal stock 
when they are operating on the high seas.
    Response: These requirements target situations where the United 
States has adopted regulatory measures through a marine mammal take 
reduction plan governing U.S. vessels participating in high seas 
fisheries to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of a 
transboundary stock. While the United States would generally attempt to 
advance such measures for adoption by the intergovernmental agreement 
or RFMO, there may be situations where the U.S. has implemented 
regulatory measures for transboundary stocks that are more restrictive 
than existing RFMO measures or where measures have not been adopted by 
the relevant international body or RFMO, for high seas fisheries that 
interact with transboundary stocks. A harvesting nation would be 
expected to implement a regulatory program for such stocks that is 
comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for its 
vessels operating on the high seas or the U.S. EEZ or territorial sea, 
including any relevant RFMO measures that the U.S. is applying to its 
fisheries. If the U.S. regulatory program includes measures prescribed 
for the high seas and the U.S. EEZ or territorial sea to reduce the 
incidental mortality or serious injury of transboundary stocks, and 
such stocks frequent both the high seas and the harvesting nation's EEZ 
or territorial sea, the harvesting nation must have a regulatory 
program applicable to both areas that is comparable in effectiveness to 
the U.S. regulatory program including any marine mammal take reduction 
plan measures.
    Comment 42: A commenter noted the Western and Central Pacific 
Fisheries Commission, of which the United States is a member, has 
developed draft guidelines for the safe release of encircled animals in 
the purse seine fishery, and similar international guidelines are 
available for longline captured marine mammals. Given the role of the 
United States in developing and negotiating such arrangements, they 
recommended that the application of these guidelines should be 
considered sufficient under the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges these guidelines but notes that RFMO 
conservation and management measures reflect multilateral agreements 
which may or may not meet U.S. standards for its domestic fisheries. 
The U.S. standard applicable to domestic fisheries under the MMPA 
prohibits the intentional encirclement of dolphins in the course of 
purse seine fishing; and there are additional regulatory requirements 
on longline fisheries to reduce the bycatch of false killer whales 
including longline gear requirements and longline prohibited areas (see 
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/29/2012-28750/taking-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-commercial-fishing-operations-false-killer-whale-take).

Progress Reports

    Comment 43: The majority of commenters supported the submission of 
a progress report. One commenter suggested that the progress reports 
should be made available to the public to aid outside groups in 
evaluating the veracity of the report and the extent of compliance with 
the MMPA rule. An industry organization supported the initial progress 
report but questioned the value of continued progress reports for 
harvesting nations that have been determined to have a comparable 
regulatory system, especially with the requirement to reapply and be 
reassessed every four years. The Marine Mammal Commission recommended 
progress reports be required for all fisheries to ensure that the 
conditions that led to a comparability finding being issued remain in 
place and that each fishery continues to be comparable to U.S. 
standards, particularly in cases where complete information was not

[[Page 54403]]

provided by the harvesting nation. The Marine Mammal Commission further 
recommended that failure to meet research and monitoring standards by 
the time that the initial progress report is due should be a sufficient 
basis for implementing a trade ban immediately rather than allowing the 
full five-year exemption.
    Response: NMFS maintains that progress reports provide the agency 
with an important means to track both the development and continued 
application of a regulatory program. While NMFS is not proposing to use 
the initial or subsequent progress report as the basis for imposing 
import restrictions, NMFS can use the information or lack thereof as 
grounds to initiate consultations to guide harvesting nations in the 
development of their regulatory program or urge improved compliance 
with the conditions of a comparability finding. For example, if NMFS 
provides a comparability finding to an export fishery that has just 
implemented or newly revised its regulations to meet reduce marine 
mammal incidental mortality or serious injury to levels below the 
bycatch limit, the progress report enables NMFS to track whether such 
regulations are meeting their target. This could prompt NMFS to work 
with nations to identify and correct problem to proactively avoid 
denying or revoking the comparability finding. Progress reports can 
also signal major shifts in the fishery which either reduce or increase 
incidental mortality or serious injury, enabling NMFS to work with the 
nations to make necessary adjustments. NMFS can also use the progress 
report as the basis to initiate reconsideration of a comparability 
finding.

Consultations

    Comment 44: A commenter noted that information regarding regulatory 
requirements must be shared with nations, prior to the commencement of 
the five-year exemption period so every nation has equal opportunity to 
comply. Each nation needs an equal opportunity to share, discuss, and 
validate information.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will continue to provide information on 
the rule to nations and use every avenue possible to consult with 
nations and provide information on an equal basis to facilitate 
compliance with this rule.

Additional Consideration/Flexibility

    Comment 45: Several commenters noted that there can be multiple 
solutions to address a bycatch issue; therefore, harvesting nations 
should be afforded flexibility to set up regulatory programs to protect 
marine mammals and reduce bycatch. Different measures should not be 
discarded as long as they contribute to the required objective. 
Generally, programs that allow solutions to develop that meet the needs 
of the individual nation and communities have a higher likelihood of 
success than prescribing one standard approach.
    Response: NMFS agrees. By taking into account different approaches 
in a harvesting nation's export fishery, including alternative measures 
that could bear on the feasibility and effectiveness of certain bycatch 
mitigation measures, NMFS considers alternative measures implemented by 
the nation that are as effective or more effective than those 
applicable in U.S. fisheries. It is the essence of ``comparable in 
effectiveness.''
    Comment 46: A commenter was concerned that NMFS proposes to examine 
several ``considerations'' in determining whether a program is 
comparably effective, including ``[w]hether the measures adopted by the 
harvesting nation . . . have reduced or will likely reduce'' mortality 
and serious injury to below the bycatch limit; ``the progress'' of the 
foreign program in achieving its objectives; and ``[t]he extent to 
which the harvesting nation has successfully implemented'' bycatch 
measures. The commenter claims that this is contrary to ``United States 
standards,'' which clearly require NMFS to only permit nations to 
import if they meet or go beyond the strict standards of section 
101(a)(2).
    Response: NMFS recognizes that there will be situations, similar to 
those encountered in our domestic fisheries, where comparability 
findings determinations will occur during a time when a harvesting 
nation may be implementing new regulations or revising existing 
regulations to meet the conditions of a comparability finding. NMFS 
believes that such actions should be encouraged rather than penalized. 
In those situations, NMFS must determine whether such regulations are 
likely to, or are making progress toward, reducing marine mammal 
bycatch. The Secretary must make that same determination when 
promulgating regulations to implement domestic take reduction measures, 
as the MMPA mandates that a ``take reduction plan shall include 
measures the Secretary expects will reduce, within 6 months of the 
plan's implementation, such mortality and serious injury to a level 
below the potential biological removal level.'' 16 U.S.C. 
1387(f)(5)(A).
    Comment 47: The Marine Mammal Commission raised a similar concern 
to the one described in Comment 46, noting it would be unfortunate if 
comparability findings were granted to export fisheries at a time when 
U.S. fisheries' bycatch or marine mammal stock assessments are not 
meeting the performance standards but corrective actions are being 
implemented or developed. The Marine Mammal Commission recommends that 
NMFS base an export fishery's comparability finding on its 
comparability to the overall performance and effectiveness of the U.S. 
marine mammal science and regulatory framework over a longer time 
period.
    Response: NMFS has included in the rule the consideration of ``U.S. 
implementation of its regulatory program for similar marine mammal 
stocks and similar fisheries.'' NMFS will consider the implementation 
history of marine mammal take reduction measures and stock assessments.

Comparability Finding Requirements for New Entrants

    Comment 48: The majority of commenters opposed granting a 1-year 
provisional comparability finding to a harvesting nation or fishery 
that has not previously exported to the U.S. With a provisional 
comparability finding, NMFS will allow imports from harvesting nations 
that have not submitted ``reasonable proof'' that the new foreign 
commercial fishing operation is meeting U.S. standards for marine 
mammal bycatch. Commenters urged NMFS, once the proposed regulations 
come into force, to only allow imports from new foreign commercial 
fishing operations after they have received a comparability finding 
supported by reasonable proof. One industry commenter recommended new 
entrants be afforded the same five-year exemption period proposed for 
nations and fisheries currently exporting fish or fish products to the 
United States, and noted that there is no justification for two 
different approaches.
    Response: NMFS retains the provisional comparability finding in the 
rule. While a new entrant may or may not be a new fishery or merely an 
existing fishery that is a new exporter, is inconsequential. All 
nations will receive an initial five-year exemption period and will be 
familiar with the requirements of this rule. NMFS does not want to 
incentivize non-compliance by providing each new entrant with another 
five-year exemption period. The shorter timetable for new entrants 
provides both NMFS and harvesting nations with the minimum amount of 
time to gather information to classify the

[[Page 54404]]

fishery, apply for, and make a comparability finding determination.

Intermediary Nations

    Comment 49: Several commenters associated with the Maine lobster 
industry and the Maine Department of Marine Resources expressed concern 
with the intermediary nations provisions. A significant portion of 
Maine's lobster is sent to Canada for processing and comes back to the 
United States as a product of Canada. Commenters claim that seafood 
traceability is inadequate and existing traceability technologies are 
not operationally feasible for many fish product supply chains, 
including live lobster, to address any trade restrictions imposed by 
the proposed rule due to comingling of product and scale of operations. 
Application of an import prohibition on Canadian lobster could prevent 
millions of pounds of Maine-caught lobster from being sold in the U.S.
    Response: There is no basis now to speculate that any import 
prohibition would ensue on Canadian lobster. Also in terms of re-
imports to the U.S. of U.S. lobster, processed in Canada, the commenter 
has wrongly characterized Canada as an intermediary nation. For the 
Canadian caught lobster, Canada is the harvesting nation, and for the 
U.S. caught lobster Canada doesn't meet the definition of an 
intermediary nation because the U.S. lobster fishery is not on the List 
of Foreign Fisheries. If the Canadian lobster fishery fails to receive 
a comparability finding, the fish and fish products harvested in the 
Canadian lobster fishery would be subject to an import prohibition and 
NMFS may require a certificate of admissibility accompany processed 
lobster from Canada that is not harvested in the Canadian lobster 
fishery. According to Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR), in 
2014, Maine imported $238 million of seafood from Canada. However, DMR 
did not stipulate what percentage of these imports are Maine-caught 
lobsters being re-imported to the U.S. Two actions appear to mitigate 
any potential impact from requiring a certificate of admissibility 
under this rule. First, Maine is increasing its lobster meat processing 
capabilities. In 2010, there were five companies processing lobster, in 
2013 that number increased to 15 firms processing approximately 20 
million pounds of meat. As Maine continues to increase its processing 
capacity, any potential economic impact from requiring a certificate of 
admissibility would be lessened.
    Second, Canada is implementing traceability measures, not in 
response to this rule, but to global forces demanding seafood 
traceability throughout supply chains. In 2011 the Canadian Council of 
Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers undertook the ``Lobster 
Traceability Pilot Project'' the objective of which was to ``test the 
implementation of a seafood traceability system with practical 
experience, with real-life situations and challenges, and with a small 
number of participants at each step of the lobster value chain (a small 
number of fishermen, a few processors, one or two distributors, 
etc.).'' The report of the pilot project lays out traceability 
requirements and models based on existing government regulations and 
existing traceability programs that Canada should use as it moves 
forward with its traceability program. The pilot project identified 
that the primary requirement of any traceability program must be that 
it can fully trace lobster, at any point in the supply chain, back to 
the source within 24 hours. Globally recognized basic models for 
traceability, and one implemented in the U.S. Bioterrorism Act, include 
a ``one up, one down'' approach. This mandates that each organization 
in the supply chain must be able to identify from whom, where, and when 
the product was received and to whom, where, and when the product was 
sent. Since this pilot project report several harvesters and processors 
have adopted traceability programs including the lobster fishery on the 
Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec and the Fisheries, Science Stewardship and 
Sustainability Board implemented a Newfoundland, Labrador lobster 
traceability program. As Canadian importers and processors continue to 
develop and roll-out additional tracking, verification, and 
traceability procedures that will allow for the differentiation of 
U.S.-harvested product from Canadian product, Canada should be able to 
meet any certification of admissibility requirements the AA may impose 
on processed lobster from Canada.
    Comment 50: The proposed regulations call for any nation that NMFS 
identifies as a possible intermediary nation to either prohibit the 
importation of fish or fish products from fisheries subject to import 
prohibitions under this rule or to have procedures to reliably certify 
that exports of fish and fish products exported to the United States do 
not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery 
subject to an import restriction. Several commenters expressed concern 
that this approach introduces additional challenges to traceability and 
allows for the mixing of legally and illegally sourced fish; 
subsequently allowing illegally sourced fish to enter international 
trade as a ``legal'' product of the exporting nation. Another commenter 
stated that the rule lacks any real details as to what constitutes a 
reliable certification and does not specify what type of port state 
measures will be expected to monitor transshipments, loading, 
unloading, segregation of catch, processing of raw product from mixed 
sources; what type of effective monitoring, control and surveillance 
systems NMFS will require to be in place, or what type of legislative 
and administrative measures will be required to support a reliable 
catch documentation system.
    Response: NMFS is neither prescribing the details for traceability 
or segregation of fish and fish products caught or harvested in a 
fishery subject to an import restriction nor defining what constitutes 
a reliable certification. The burden to develop these certification 
procedures rest on the possible intermediary nation, and NMFS wants to 
provide such nations with the flexibility to determine how best to 
comply with the intermediary nation requirements. If the nation's 
procedures can reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products 
from the nation to the United States do not contain fish or fish 
products caught or harvested in a fishery subject to an import 
prohibition, NMFS will continue to allow trade in those fish and fish 
products from that nation.

Certificate of Admissibility

    Comment 51: Several commenters including the Marine Mammal 
Commission were extremely concerned that the rule would allow a 
harvesting nation denied a comparability finding for one fishery to 
export that same seafood product from another fishery in another region 
or using a different gear type, which presents considerable risk that 
the trade ban could be bypassed. One commenter believes the possibility 
of fraud or even accidental mislabeling is too great, and the 
documentation required from the exporting nation is too complex to 
expect compliance or detection of violations by the United States. 
Therefore, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended that, if a 
harvesting nation fails to receive a comparability finding for a 
certain seafood product produced by a given fishery, then all exports 
of that seafood product from all fisheries should be prohibited until 
the harvesting nation is able to meet U.S. standards, unless the 
harvesting nation and intermediary

[[Page 54405]]

nation or the United States are able to design and implement a tracking 
program that provides reasonable assurance that no prohibited fish or 
fish products are being exported to the United States.
    Response: NMFS disagrees and believes the rule addresses the 
concern through provisions providing for the Assistant Administrator to 
require a Certification of Admissibility on the same or similar fish 
and fish products caught or harvested in another fishery of the 
harvesting nation and not subject to the prohibition. Requiring a 
Certification of Admissibility properly places the burden on the 
harvesting nation to substantiate the attestation on the Certification 
of Admissibility form that the fish or fish products are not caught or 
harvested from the fishery subject to an import prohibition. The 
Certification of Admissibility avoids penalizing export fisheries that 
receive a comparability finding by allowing the same or similar fish 
and fish products from those fisheries to enter the United States.
    Comment 52: A nation asked what constitutes other readily available 
sources and how NMFS will determine the veracity of that information. 
Another commenter expressed concern that NMFS could potentially rely on 
information provided by nongovernmental organizations and the public 
and asked how NMFS would ensure that information provided by 
nongovernment organizations and public sources is substantiated and 
credible if utilized in comparability finding determinations.
    Response: NMFS will analyze and assess readily available 
information from a variety of sources, including scientific literature 
and reports from RFMOs and intergovernmental organizations. NMFS will 
evaluate which information and evidence is most appropriate for use in 
classifying fisheries and making comparability findings. This 
information could include data actively gathered by the U.S. Government 
as well as data offered by other nations, or international 
organizations (such as RFMOs), institutions, or arrangements that 
provides a reasonable basis to evaluate comparability findings or 
classify fisheries. NMFS decisions under this rule must comply with the 
Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits arbitrary and capricious 
decision making.

Burden of Proof and Non-Comparability Findings

    Comment 53: Several commenters note that the proposed rule rightly 
places the burden of proof on the harvesting nation to provide the 
information necessary to show that fish and fish products exported to 
the United States were not caught in ways that exceed U.S. marine 
mammal protection standards. Unless sufficient evidence is presented by 
the exporting nation, imports of such fish and fish products are to be 
banned. Additionally, several commenters recommended that NMFS reject 
the options of issuing non-comparability findings or issuing 
comparability findings unless it was determined that such a finding was 
unwarranted. Other commenters noted that neither of these are viable 
options, as neither allows a process for the U.S. to ensure compliance 
with the MMPA before allowing access to the U.S. market, and both would 
place the burden of proof on NMFS. The MMPA requires the harvesting 
nation to provide evidence of compliance to maintain or gain access to 
the U.S. market; this process provides greater incentive for compliance 
and also allows for bilateral dialogue and U.S. technical and funding 
support to support compliance. The regulations, as proposed, will go 
much further in ensuring the goal of marine mammal protection across 
the globe. Likewise, the Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS 
either issue or deny a comparability finding, rather than issuing a 
``Finding of Non-Comparability for nations that do not meet 
comparability finding requirements'' as it would violate the MMPA by 
switching the burden of proof onto the U.S. government by allowing 
imports to continue until NMFS has collected sufficient information to 
show that the measures in place for a given fishery are not comparable. 
The Marine Mammal Commission further recommended that the final rule 
clearly specify that harvesting nations be issued a comparability 
finding only if they meet the U.S. standards, rather than be issued a 
comparability finding unless it is shown that they do not meet the 
applicable requirements.
    Response: The MMPA bans imports of fish and fish products that 
result in the incidental morality or serious injury of marine mammals 
in excess of U.S. standards for administering the ban to ``insist on 
reasonable proof from the government of any nation from which fish or 
fish products will be exported to the United States of the effect on 
ocean mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use for such fish 
or fish products exported from such nation to the United States.'' 16 
U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(A). Thus, this rule requires any harvesting nation 
submitting an application for a comparability finding for a fishery to 
provide documentary evidence demonstrating that it has met the 
applicable conditions for a comparability finding for that fishery, 
including reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals of 
commercial fishing technology in use in the fishery for fish or fish 
products exported from such nation to the United States.
    Comment 54: One commenter suggested that NMFS could presume that a 
harvesting nation's standards are comparable in effectiveness to those 
of the United States upon presentation of reasonable proof of a valid 
marine mammal protection program. Such a country could export fish to 
the United States unless NMFS issued a non-comparability finding upon 
closer examination of the nation's application, or a comparability 
finding would automatically issue if NMFS did not act on the 
application within a specified time period, perhaps six months, subject 
to a later determination of non-comparability. The commenter also 
suggested that NMFS consider third party certifications of foreign 
fisheries, as sufficient to establish comparability findings and 
certifications of admissibility in order to reduce redundant efforts. 
Likewise one nation recommended NMFS consider Marine Stewardship 
Council (MSC) certifications in support of program efficiencies, 
towards establishing exempt fisheries classifications under the 
proposed rule, since amongst other criteria, the MSC certification 
considers marine mammal bycatch.
    Response: NMFS disagrees, see response to Comment 53. Nothing in 
the MMPA authorizes NMFS to abrogate its responsibility to determine 
whether a fishery has bycatch in excess of U.S. standards to a third-
party issuing certifications for other market or ecological purposes. 
NMFS cannot outright use third-party certifications as a proxy that an 
export fishery is meeting the conditions of a comparability finding. 
NMFS can consider such information as part of the documentary evidence 
that a harvesting nation submits to receive a comparability finding. 
Currently, NMFS does not recognize MSC certification in its management 
of protected species because the criteria for obtaining MSC 
certification do not comport with all the specific requirements of the 
MMPA or the ESA. Therefore, NMFS cannot base determinations to issue 
comparability findings solely on MSC certification.
    Comment 55: Several nations asserted that NMFS should issue a 
comparability

[[Page 54406]]

finding in situations where the agency cannot evaluate an application 
within the stipulated timeframe or cannot judge whether the harvesting 
nation's regulatory program is comparable in effectiveness, due to 
scientific uncertainty, the lack of data, absence of consensus among 
scientists, or technical reasons such as there is no similar fishery. 
While other commenters stressed that, in the absence of reasonable, 
direct proof from a harvesting nation, NMFS should not render a 
comparability finding.
    Response: NMFS will only make its comparability finding 
determinations based on the information provided by the nation, and any 
other readily available information, taking into consideration 
scientific uncertainty.

Reasonable Proof

    Comment 56: Several commenters recommended that NMFS define 
``reasonable proof.'' Some commenters stated that requiring harvesting 
nations to provide documentary evidence of sufficient detail and an 
attestation that the evidence is accurate does not define the specific 
requirements which represent ``reasonable proof.'' Other commenters 
stated, given the MMPA's reliance on the best available scientific 
information, NMFS should incorporate this standard into the meaning of 
``reasonable proof'' for the submission of scientific information and 
should make determinations on Lists of Foreign Fisheries and 
comparability using the best scientific information available for 
science-based factors. The Marine Mammal Commission interprets the 
``reasonable proof'' requirement of section 101(a)(2)(A) as placing the 
onus on the exporting country to provide information of sufficient 
quality and reliability to make the required showings. The Marine 
Mammal Commission asserts that the proposed rule does not include clear 
mechanisms for NMFS to ensure the reliability of the information that 
is submitted and recommended that NMFS require the harvesting nation to 
provide information in sufficient detail to demonstrate its 
reliability.
    Response: NMFS will, as a matter of practice, use the best 
scientific information available. This rule does not define 
``reasonable proof''; but, in our guidance to harvesting nations, NMFS 
will make clear that the information provided by a harvesting nation in 
its application for a comparability finding must include documentary 
evidence of sufficient detail, quality, and reliability for NMFS to 
fully evaluate the regulatory program for a given export fishery.

Capacity Building

    Comment 57: The Marine Mammal Commission urges NMFS to pursue one-
on-one consultations, as well as capacity building, whenever possible. 
The Marine Mammal Commission and other commenters stated it would be 
important for NMFS to have sufficient funding in order to provide 
``carrots'' and not just ``sticks'' to build capacity and encourage 
compliance. One commenter recommended that NMFS, in conjunction with 
cooperating nations, establish a permanent fund for research and 
implementation, and work in conjunction with foreign nations to make 
new bycatch reduction technologies available to all. Other commenters 
submitted that budgetary constraints and realities make direct capacity 
building assistance to other nations for MMPA implementation unlikely, 
especially given the number of competing priorities.
    Response: NMFS, compliant with requirements regarding 
Congressionally-appropriated funding, will work cooperatively with 
harvesting nations to assist those nations in reducing their marine 
mammal bycatch and provide appropriate assistance to help such nations 
obtain a comparability finding. While NMFS cannot commit to 
establishing a fund (given this would require Congressional 
appropriations), we note that capacity building can take many forms, 
including technical collaboration between staff at NMFS and harvesting 
nations.
    Comment 58: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that any 
harvesting nation seeking a comparability finding should be subject to 
a shorter exemption period if the harvesting nation has benefited from 
capacity building from the United States in designing the bycatch 
reduction program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees; the capacity building program is designed 
to help those nations, species, and fisheries most in need to comply 
with the comparability finding requirements. The Marine Mammal 
Commission recommendation would be a disincentive for nations to seek 
and participate in capacity building efforts.
    Comment 59: Numerous commenters expressed concern that this rule 
would create a complex and cumbersome regulatory program for NMFS to 
administer and the process of evaluating comparability finding 
applications will be very time and resource consuming given the number 
of harvesting nations, especially with the added layer of complexity of 
having to potentially translate existing rules and applications into 
English. Commenters were troubled that implementation of this rule, 
including its capacity building, has the potential to divert already 
limited resources necessary to implement MMPA provisions for domestic 
fisheries and result in other unintended consequences to U.S. 
fisheries. Still others were concerned that the proposed regulations 
put a sizable administrative burden on an agency that is resource-
constrained and, without additional resources, these tasks may not be 
accomplished within the prescribed timeframes. A commenter recommended 
that NMFS request and ensure that the agency has the appropriate budget 
to fully implement the final regulatory regime. The Marine Mammal 
Commission recommended that the preamble to the final rule estimate the 
resource requirements (staff, funding) needed to implement the rule and 
identify the steps that will be taken to secure those resources (e.g., 
new budget initiatives, reallocation).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges these concerns and will work, within 
its appropriated budget, to allocate sufficient resources toward the 
implementation of this program while continuing to meet its domestic 
conservation, science, and management obligations. The tasks and the 
actions to administer the rule are set out in Table 17 of the RIR. NMFS 
estimates that implementation of this rule will cost approximately $0.9 
million per year, which is based on the cost of NMFS and contract staff 
to carry out these activities. NMFS estimates that a total of 3.5 full 
time employees (FTEs) and two contract employees with subject matter 
expertise will be required. The 3.5 FTEs are already part of the plan 
for hiring for the Office of International Affairs and Seafood 
Inspection (3 FTEs) and the Office of Sustainable Fisheries (0.5 FTEs) 
and therefore this activity will not require additional personnel or 
funds. NMFS has provided an estimate in the Final Regulatory Impact 
Review of the cost for NMFS to administer the rule and the task 
associated with the rule.
    Comment 60: The Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS 
explore some form of cost recovery to supplement funding needed to 
implement the import provisions of the MMPA. A commenter specifically 
suggested a ``sustainability fee'' levied on foreign fisheries 
commensurate with their level of bycatch. Recognizing the multi-billion 
dollar value of seafood products imported annually into the United 
States, shifting the burden of funding research and information 
collection onto those nations that benefit from selling fish and fish

[[Page 54407]]

products to the U.S. market is a way to reduce the costs to NMFS.
    Response: The MMPA does not authorize NMFS to collect such fees, 
making implementation of a cost recovery system impossible.

Monitoring, Verification, and Enforcement

    Comment 61: A commenter noted that given the sources of imported 
seafood subject to the MMPA import rule are nations that likely lack 
the capacity and perhaps the will to effectively monitor and control 
both their fishing activities and their seafood supply chain, there is 
substantial opportunity for fraudulent declarations intended to 
circumvent the intent of this rule and any sanctions imposed pursuant 
to that authority. The commenter recommended that NMFS make extra 
efforts to ensure the veracity of declarations and take swift action to 
prohibit imports if verification is not clearly documented or observed. 
Several other commenters noted that NMFS should consider the link 
between illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing rates and 
incidental bycatch and should modify the proposed rule to require 
examination of IUU data when making a comparability finding.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Presidential Task Force on 
Combating Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU) Fishing and 
Seafood Fraud will provide a helpful tool for use in assessing 
comparability. The proposed regulations will establish traceability for 
some marine species from the point of catch or the location of the 
aquaculture facility to the first point of sale in the United States. 
This documentation requirement will aid NMFS in determining whether 
seafood came from a legal fishery, add more transparency to the supply 
chain to address IUU fishing and seafood fraud, and help enforce 
compliance with this final rule.
    Comment 62: Several commenters criticized NMFS for failing to 
provide details as to how it intends to prevent fraud and to ensure the 
authenticity and accuracy of information submitted for comparability 
findings and certifications of admissibility. They questioned how NMFS 
would ensure that comparability findings are based on a truly effective 
program rather than one that only looks good on paper. Similarly, the 
Marine Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS require exporting 
countries to submit more than just a basic written description of its 
incidental take program to obtain a comparability finding. The Marine 
Mammal Commission noted that NMFS must take into account not only the 
statutory or regulatory requirements imposed on foreign fishermen but 
also the corresponding level of compliance. Therefore, the Marine 
Mammal Commission recommended that NMFS require nations to provide 
information on the methods and effectiveness of fishery monitoring and 
enforcement activities in addition to the overall marine mammal bycatch 
reduction program.
    Response: NMFS agrees that implementation and enforcement of a 
regulatory program is critical to its effectiveness and will take these 
factors into account in making comparability determinations. NMFS 
believes that it has included data and information verification 
safeguards through the rule's provisions including allowing other 
entities to challenge a comparability finding through the submission of 
information demonstrating that the conditions for a finding are not 
being met.

International Agreements

    Comment 63: The Marine Mammal Commission suggested that, in 
addition to working bilaterally on capacity building, NMFS should 
continue a multilateral effort to develop guidelines for reducing 
marine mammal bycatch through the United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization, much as was done for sea turtles. In addition to 
providing marine mammal bycatch guidance for nations to apply in their 
small-scale domestic fisheries, these guidelines could be a powerful 
tool in multilateral negotiations within RFMOs on measures to address 
marine mammal bycatch. One nation recommended that the appropriate 
approach should be international action rather than unilateral 
measures; and strongly urged the U.S. to seek an international 
agreement on a common standard for by-catches of marine mammals that 
are in conformity with international trade law.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will continue its multilateral efforts to 
develop guidelines for reducing marine mammal bycatch under the United 
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Consistent with the 
legislative intent of the MMPA, NMFS will work with the U.S. Department 
of State to protect marine mammals through the adoption of measures in 
relevant international fora that require reporting of bycatch data and 
use of bycatch mitigation gear. NMFS will also continue its efforts to 
work cooperatively with nations that lack sufficient capacity for 
fisheries monitoring, control, surveillance, and bycatch mitigation and 
assist these nations to achieve sustainable fisheries.

Economic Burden

    Comment 64: One commenter stated that most foreign nations 
exporting fish and fish products to the U.S. are unlikely to have 
comparable marine mammal protection legislation in place and thus 
unlikely to have information needed to meet the comparability finding 
requirements. As a result, countries that export a small number of 
products may choose to stop exporting to the U.S. if the costs 
associated with meeting the MMPA import provision requirements outweigh 
the benefits, and those that wish to obtain comparability findings 
could require compliance with marine mammal measures only for sectors 
that export fish to the U.S., which may represent a small portion of 
their fisheries.
    Response: NMFS cannot control which export fisheries will seek 
comparability findings and choose to continue to export to the U.S. 
market. NMFS has crafted a rule that implements the relevant provisions 
of the MMPA, establishes clear standards, allows flexibility to comply 
with those standards and, when possible, offers assistance to achieve 
those standards.
    Comment 65: A commenter questioned NMFS' statement that ``[n]o U.S. 
industrial sector is likely to be directly affected by [this] 
rulemaking.'' While it is true that the burden of complying with the 
proposed regulation will be borne by NMFS and the foreign harvesting 
nations, the U.S. seafood supply chain relies heavily on having access 
to imported seafood. Any uncertainties to the availability of supply 
will impact pricing and could jeopardize jobs. The burden to the U.S. 
industry is difficult to estimate without having a sense of which, if 
any, of the over 120 nations would be successful in achieving a 
comparability finding and thus be allowed to continue to export fish 
and fish products to the U.S. Another commenter objected to the lack of 
economic impact analysis included in the Environmental Assessment for 
the proposed rule, especially for the U.S. lobster industry, claiming 
NMFS' inability to identify with certainty the nations that will fail 
to obtain a comparability finding should not absolve the agency of its 
obligation to make a good faith attempt to identify and analyze the 
significant adverse impacts to state and local economies that may 
result from trade restrictions imposed by the proposed rule. Another 
commenter challenged NMFS' assertion that one country's seafood can 
easily be

[[Page 54408]]

substituted for another's. As stated, ``it is possible that a 
substitute product will be more expensive or otherwise less preferable 
to a prohibited foreign fish or fish product.'' If the substitute is 
more expensive, consumers will not buy it. To the extent that they 
purchase another seafood product, the impact generally may be lessened, 
albeit not to the importer who suddenly finds himself with no products 
and no customers. In that situation import prohibitions will be 
devastating to those U.S. businesses built around that particular 
supply.
    Response: There are several factors that would have to occur for 
the regulations to directly increase costs to U.S. suppliers. The 
fishery subject to a ban would need to provide a significant proportion 
of the product to the U.S. Among the most heavily imported seafood 
products into the U.S., there are relatively few countries that 
presently provide a disproportionately large amount. The RIR provides 
data on the top exporting nations for the most widely imported 
categories of seafood. For example, Thailand is a major supplier of 
shrimp and tuna; however, for much of that product they are the 
processing (intermediary) nation and not the harvesting nation. Chile 
and Canada are major suppliers of salmon. Most fisheries supply a 
relatively small amount of product such that importers should be able 
to source an equivalent amount of product from another fishery. NOAA 
recognizes that substitute product may be less desirable and/or more 
expensive, but it would be speculative to quantify these costs. 
Additionally, there are important intermediary nations in the 
processing of certain fish and fish products and the cost of a trade 
prohibition to the U.S. suppliers and consumers would be contingent 
upon the role and behavior of intermediary nations.
    If a foreign nation's ability to import certain fish or fish 
products into the United States is limited upon the failure of a 
particular export fishery to receive a comparability finding and the 
subsequent application of import prohibitions, this may impact the 
ability of U.S. suppliers to access fish or fish products from that 
nation. NMFS assumes that for the majority of the fish and fish 
products imported and consumed alternative sources of fish and fish 
products could mitigate the impacts of restrictions on U.S. suppliers' 
access to fish and fish products. NMFS will continue to work with 
partner resource agencies in the Federal and state governments to 
obtain the data necessary to fully understand and analyze potential 
trade implications of any import prohibition.

Level Playing Field

    Comment 66: Numerous commenters supported efforts to level the 
playing field for U.S. fisheries, noting that American fishermen comply 
with the requirements of the MMPA in conducting their fishing 
activities, and those efforts come at an increased cost, so it is only 
fair to U.S. fisheries that a level playing field exists such that 
importing fisheries abide by similar standards when introducing fish 
into the U.S. market.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the intent of sections 101(a)(2) and 
102(c)(3) of the MMPA is to ensure that all fish and fish products 
entering the U.S. market was caught or harvested in fisheries meeting 
the U.S. standards for marine mammal bycatch.

Trade Considerations

    Comment 67: One nation contended that not all marine mammals, 
including dolphins and whales, are threatened to extinction; therefore, 
it is not acceptable for an importing country to unilaterally impose 
trade restriction on exporting countries based solely on its unilateral 
sense of value. Another nation noted that the rule may create 
unnecessary obstacles to trade, because it requires considerable and 
unknown use of administrative and human resources relating to 
biological research, record keeping and statistics for the exporting 
countries, in particular developing countries, and seeks to influence 
the specific policy decisions of trading partners. Several questioned 
whether the rule is consistent with the WTO obligations of the U.S.
    Response: NMFS is mindful of U.S. obligations under the WTO 
Agreement when implementing the provisions of the MMPA and works with 
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure that any actions 
taken under the MMPA are consistent with these obligations. Agency 
actions and recommendations under this final rule will be in accordance 
with U.S. obligations under applicable international law, including the 
WTO Agreement. Consistent with the WTO Agreement and U.S. obligations 
under other free trade agreements, NMFS will consider a harvesting 
nation's existing mechanisms, where they provide for comparable 
protection of marine mammal species and are appropriate to the 
conditions in the harvesting nation. By taking into account different 
conditions in a nation's fishery, including conditions that could bear 
on the feasibility and effectiveness of certain bycatch mitigation 
measures, NMFS considers alternative measures implemented by the nation 
that are as effective or more effective than those applicable in U.S. 
fisheries.
    Comment 68: One commenter suggested that NMFS did not consider 
potential retaliatory responses of foreign markets on exports from the 
United States and the impact of such retaliation on U.S. exports. If 
the U.S. violates WTO standards by insisting that a sovereign nation 
with different laws and social mores comply with a complex marine 
mammal regulatory scheme such as is in place for U.S. fisheries, what 
makes NMFS think that said sovereign nation will not exercise its 
rights under the WTO to retaliate against U.S. exports?
    Response: As noted in the response to Comment 67, the rule is 
designed to enable NMFS to apply this entire regulation, including any 
import prohibitions on certain fish or fish products, consistent with 
U.S. international obligations, including the WTO Agreement. Included 
in NMFS' approach is its intention to regulate in a fair, transparent, 
and non-discriminatory manner and to make determinations based on the 
best available science.
    Comment 69: A commenter noted that the public will be challenged in 
assisting NMFS with comparability findings as it will not be informed 
about what information a nation has submitted and what information the 
agency already has and what it needs. They recommended NMFS review the 
proposed compliance process and identify additional opportunities for 
public notice and comment; and urged NMFS to provide for notice and 
comment on its proposed comparability findings.
    Response: NMFS believes that the rule contains ample opportunity 
for input from the public, including at the point of publishing the 
List of Foreign Fisheries, the call for information on bycatch under 
the Moratorium Protection Act that NMFS intends to use to gather 
additional information on marine mammal bycatch, and the ability to 
challenge comparability finding determinations published in the Federal 
Register.

Changes From Proposed Action

    In addition to streamlining the final rule to reduce duplication 
and improve readability, NMFS has made several changes in the final 
rule to respond to public comments, and provide clarification. The key 
changes are outlined below.

[[Page 54409]]

1. Changes to the Definition of Fish and Fish Products

    In the proposed rule, ``fish and fish products'' was defined as any 
marine finfish, mollusk, crustacean, or other form of marine life other 
than marine mammals, reptiles, and birds, whether fresh, frozen, 
canned, pouched, or otherwise prepared in a manner that allows species 
identification, but did not include fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, 
balls, cakes, pudding and other similar highly processed fish products. 
Commenters strongly opposed this exemption arguing it would exclude 
from the regulatory requirements a significant proportion of fish and 
fish product imports so this definition has been revised in response to 
public comments. NMFS is removing from the definition of fish and fish 
products the exemption pertaining to fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, 
balls, cakes, pudding and other similar highly processed fish products. 
NMFS had originally excluded these products because due to the high 
degree of comingling or processing through the supply chain that may be 
associated with these products and the potential difficulty identifying 
the source of fish contained in such products.
    NMFS recognizes the List of Foreign Fisheries is linked to fish 
that are caught or harvested in a specific fishery, not the level of 
processing that occurs downstream of the harvest event. As suggested in 
public comment, NMFS considers the product form to be less 
determinative of an importer's ability to trace back to the source 
fishery than is the specificity and number of fishery or fisheries 
which generated the raw material for that product. For example, NOAA 
considers it no less feasible to identify surimi or fish sticks as a 
product originating from the pollock fishery as it would be for pollock 
fillets. That said, NMFS did not anticipate that a fishery would appear 
on the List of Foreign Fisheries, and therefore need to apply for a 
comparability finding, solely because of its exports of highly 
processed products to the United States. However, as that is a 
possibility and because it will not increase the burden on harvesting 
nations whose fisheries are already on the List of Foreign Fisheries 
for fish and fish products other than highly processed products, NMFS 
considers it appropriate to revise the definition of fish and fish 
products as described.
    NMFS does not consider the level of processing to be applicable to 
the definition of fish and fish products; rather the level of 
processing is applicable to the implementation of import prohibitions 
for fish and fish products from a specific fishery denied a 
comparability finding. If a fishery of a harvesting nation fails to 
receive a comparability finding, fish and fish products caught or 
harvested in that fishery will be subject to an import prohibition. 
When import prohibitions are put into place for such a fishery, NMFS 
will designate HTS codes of species and product originating from that 
fishery that will be prohibited from importation. NMFS ability to 
determine product type and origin for all species is limited. In 
designating those HTS codes NMFS acknowledges that, depending on data 
reporting requirements associated with that product and the 
traceability of product, NMFS may not in all cases include highly 
processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, 
cakes, puddings, and other similar highly processed fish products) for 
which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting 
event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the shipment of the product 
cannot be feasibly identified, either through inspection or 
documentation back to the fishery subject to the import prohibition. 
Also, for the same or similar fish or fish products caught or harvested 
in another fishery of the harvesting nation, NMFS is clarifying in the 
final rule that no certification of admissibility shall apply with 
respect to fish or fish products for which it is infeasible to 
substantiate the attestation contained in the certification of 
admissibility that the fish or fish products do not contain fish caught 
or harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition. NMFS will 
determine whether to apply a certification of admissibility to any fish 
or fish product on a case by case basis.

2. Clarification of Conditions for a Comparability Requirement

    NMFS further clarified that a condition for a comparability 
finding, applicable to all export fisheries regardless of where they 
operate, that must be included in a regulatory program is the condition 
that the regulatory program must provide for or effectively achieves 
comparable results to measures that reduce the incidental mortality and 
serious injury of a marine mammal stock that the United States requires 
its domestic fisheries to take with respect to a transboundary or 
marine mammal stock.

3. Clarification of Use of Alternative Documentation to the 
Certification of Admissibility

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS discussed its intent 
that when the Automatic Commercial Environment/International Trade Data 
System (ACE/ITDS) rulemaking and subsequent rulemakings to implement 
the recommendations of the Presidential Task Force on Combating 
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task 
Force) (see 79 FR 75536; December 18, 2014) are issued, NMFS may be 
able to identify fish prohibited from entry under MMPA authority based 
on the documentation specifying fishery of capture/harvest to be 
submitted by the importer to ACE/ITDS as part of the seafood 
traceability program. To eliminate duplicative requirements for MMPA 
import restrictions, NMFS will utilize import documentation procedures 
that have been developed as part of the ACE/ITDS and Task Force 
rulemakings so long as the information is sufficient to identify the 
fish or fish product was not caught or harvested in a fishery subject 
to an import prohibition under the MMPA. NMFS has added language in the 
regulations for the Certification of Admissibility to allow alternative 
data collection systems that require the same information found on the 
Certification of Admissibility.

Classification

    This rule is published under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 1371, 16 U.S.C. 1372, and 16 U.S.C. 1382.
    Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6), the promulgation of 
regulations that are procedural and administrative in nature are 
categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an EA. 
Nevertheless, NMFS prepared an EA for this action to facilitate public 
involvement in the development of the national standard and procedures 
and to evaluate the impacts on the environment. This EA describes the 
impacts on marine mammals associated with fishing, the methods the 
United States has used to reduce those impacts, and a comparison of how 
approaches under the MMPA and the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 
Protection Act provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 would affect harvesting 
nations.
    The alternatives described in section 2.1 of the EA (see NEPA) 
provide five alternatives for defining ``U.S. standards'' that would 
reduce mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in fishing 
operations (Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.5). In addition to defining 
standards, the alternatives identify implementation and compliance 
steps as part of an overall regulatory program

[[Page 54410]]

for harvesting nations wishing to export fish and fish products into 
the United States.
    The alternatives to implement the import provisions of the MMPA are 
as follows: Under Alternative 1 (Quantitative Standard), NMFS would 
require harvesting nations wishing to export fish and fish products to 
the United States to, as required by NMFS for U.S. domestic fisheries, 
reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to 
levels below PBR and subsequently to the same ``insignificant'' 
threshold, or 10 percent of potential biological removal, to export 
fish and fish products to the United States.
    Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would require harvesting 
nations wishing to export fish and fish products to the United States 
to demonstrate comparability with U.S. standards as set out for 
domestic fisheries under sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA. 
Comparability is defined as ``comparable in effectiveness to that of 
the United States [regulatory program],'' not necessarily identical or 
as detailed. A finding of comparability would be made based on the 
documentary evidence provided by the harvesting nation to allow the 
Assistant Administrator to determine whether the harvesting nation has 
developed and implemented a regulatory program comparable in 
effectiveness to the U.S. program prescribed for U.S. commercial 
fisheries in sections 117 and 118 of the MMPA. Like the prior 
alternative, the preferred alternative also requires calculation of PBR 
or a bycatch limit and reducing incidental mortality and serious injury 
of marine mammals to levels below the bycatch limit.
    Alternative 3 would define U.S. standards as those specific 
regulatory measures required of U.S. commercial fishing operations as 
the result of a take reduction plan's implementing regulations. Such 
regulatory measures could be applied to fisheries conducted on the high 
seas where a take reduction plan is in place (and thus the requirements 
would already apply to vessels under the jurisdiction of the United 
States), and to foreign fisheries, regardless of their area of 
operation, that are comparable to U.S. fisheries.
    Alternative 4 uses a procedure of identification, documentation and 
certification devised under the HSDFMPA and promulgated as a final rule 
in January 2011 (76 FR 2011, January 12, 2011).
    Alternative 5, the no action alternative, proposes an approach for 
taking no action to implement section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA.
    Overall, the preferred alternative in the EA sets the U.S. import 
standards for harvesting nations as the same standard used for U.S. 
commercial fishing operations to reduce incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals with flexibility for comparability in 
effectiveness. It takes an approach that evaluates whether fish and 
fish products exported to the United States are subject to a regulatory 
program of the harvesting nation that is comparable in effectiveness to 
the U.S. regulatory program in terms of reducing incidental mortality 
and serious injury and considers fish and fish products not subject to 
such a regulatory program as caught with technology that results in 
marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of U.S. 
standards. This approach provides harvesting nations with flexibility 
to implement the same measures as under the U.S. program or other 
measures that achieve comparable results.
    This rulemaking has been determined to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because it raises novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
    Pursuant to E.O. 12866, NMFS conducted a Regulatory Impact Review 
(RIR). When conducting the RIR and the EA's socioeconomic analysis of 
the preferred alternative, NMFS considered the number of harvesting 
nations and the types of fish products exported to the United States. 
In 2012, 122 nations exported fish and fish products into the United 
States (see EA Section 3.4.3 Table 3). Fifty-five percent (66 nations) 
of those nations export five or fewer fish products, and 74% of the 
nations export 10 or fewer fish products. Only nine economies export 25 
or more fish products; they are: Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, 
Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and Vietnam. With the exception of 
Japan, all of these economies are included within the U.S. list of top 
ten seafood trading partners by volume and weight (see EA Section 3.4.3 
Table 4).
    The United States imports more than 67 marine species, with tuna, 
shrimp, salmon (both farmed and wild salmon), mollusks, mackerel, and 
sardines representing the six largest imports. Tuna fisheries are 
conducted primarily on the high seas, whereas shrimp and salmon 
fisheries are a combination of live capture and aquaculture operations. 
For example, for high seas export fisheries to receive a comparability 
finding, harvesting nations may demonstrate, among other things, that 
they are implementing the requirements of an RFMO or intergovernmental 
agreement to which the U.S. is a party. Tuna is caught in numerous gear 
types including purse seine nets, longline, hook and line, trolling, 
trap, harpoon and gillnets. Marine mammals interact with several gear 
types used in fisheries managed by tuna regional fishery management 
organizations (RFMOs). They most commonly interact with or are caught 
in purse seine, longline, and gillnet gear. With the exception of the 
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, accurate abundance and bycatch 
estimates for marine mammals are lacking in areas where marine mammal 
distribution overlaps tuna fisheries, making quantitative analysis of 
bycatch extremely difficult. Nevertheless, there has been progress in 
quantifying tuna RFMO fishery impacts on or bycatch of marine mammals 
and several RFMOs have either passed or introduced measures to mitigate 
or reduce marine mammal mortality. For example, both the Western 
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Indian Ocean Tuna 
Commission have adopted measures that prohibit the intentional 
encirclement of marine mammals in purse seine sets and also require 
safe handling and release in the event that a marine mammal is 
encircled. Similar measures have been introduced for purse seine 
fisheries operating under the International Convention for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Therefore, these conservation and 
management measures would govern the purse seine fisheries of Thailand, 
Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and China. The largest exporter is 
Thailand, who exported more than 93 million kilos of tuna to the United 
States. Thailand is both a harvesting nation, landing roughly 26 
million kilos, and intermediary nation, by way of its canning 
operations. Currently, Thailand processes almost one-quarter of the 
world's canned tuna (736,000 mt in 2008). Other nations exporting more 
than 20 million kilos include Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Ecuador, and China. Several of these nations are also processors, 
including Ecuador, which is the second largest processing site 
accounting for almost 12% of global annual production (362,400 mt in 
2008). Ecuador, which has an affirmative finding for its yellowfin tuna 
purse seine fisheries, exports are governed predominantly by the 
Agreement on the Dolphin Conservation Program Act and section 
101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA. Because these regulatory programs are in 
place for purse seine fisheries, import prohibitions are unlikely for 
such fisheries.

[[Page 54411]]

    U.S aquaculture facilities are Category III fisheries, having a 
remote likelihood of marine mammal mortality and serious injury. By 
analogy, NMFS anticipates that most aquaculture facilities will be 
designated exempt in the List of Foreign Fisheries. Therefore, for 
aquaculture facilities classified as exempt fisheries and sited in 
marine mammal habitat or interacting with marine mammals, the 
harvesting nation must demonstrate it is prohibiting the intentional 
killing or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of 
aquaculture operations or has procedures to reliably certify that 
exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the 
product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal.
    Therefore, NMFS anticipates that out of 122 harvesting nations, the 
greatest economic burden will be on the 21 nations that export more 
than 10 fish products, assuming that their regulatory program will 
include more export fisheries. This rule offers harvesting nations time 
to develop their regulatory program. Additionally, the consultative 
process and potential for financial and technological assistance will 
aid harvesting nations in meeting the requirements of these 
regulations. No U.S. industry sector would be directly affected by the 
rulemaking, although indirect effects may cause disruptions in the flow 
of seafood imports, potentially impacting U.S. businesses. Without 
knowing the fish products subject to a trade restriction, it is 
impossible to estimate how these indirect impacts will be distributed 
across U.S. businesses. There are several factors that suggest impacts 
in many instances will be small and short-lived or non-existent, though 
there may be potential scenarios that could result in the rule having 
more than negligible impacts. Additionally, if fisheries of other 
nations become subject to regulatory requirements that are comparable 
in effectiveness to requirements imposed on U.S. fishermen for 
conservation of marine mammals, there could be benefits to U.S. 
fishermen. Whether or not regulatory costs induced in foreign fisheries 
increase import prices enough to affect the price differential between 
domestic products and imported products remains to be seen. If the 
import prices rise enough to cause switching in the U.S. market from 
imports to domestically harvested fish, U.S. commercial fishermen may 
benefit. However, the high rate of exporting for U.S. harvested seafood 
is indicative that foreign markets already offer greater price 
incentives. Thus, it is more likely that seafood dealers will locate 
alternative foreign sources for any product subject to an embargo. 
Additionally, there are important intermediary nations in the 
processing of certain fish and fish products and the cost of a trade 
prohibition to the U.S. consumer would be contingent upon the role and 
behavior of intermediary nations. Therefore, based on these analyses, 
NMFS does not anticipate that national net benefits and costs would 
change significantly in the long term as a result of the implementation 
of the proposed action.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
FRFA describes the economic impact this final rule would have on small 
entities. A statement of the need for and objectives of this rule are 
contained in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble. A 
summary of the analysis follows. A copy of the complete FRFA is 
available from NMFS (see NEPA).
    NMFS did not receive comments from the Chief Counsel of Advocacy 
for the Small Business Administration on the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that was published with the proposed rule. 
As discussed in Comment 49 above, several commenters associated with 
the Maine lobster industry and the Maine Department of Natural 
Resources expressed concern that the rule could negatively impact the 
Maine lobster industry and lobstermen because application of an import 
prohibition on Canadian lobster could prevent millions of pounds of 
Maine-caught lobster, processed in Canada, from being sold in the U.S. 
As stated in the response to Comment 49 above, NMFS believes that the 
efforts Maine and Canada are already undertaking to implement tracking, 
verification, and traceability procedures will mitigate the potential 
for this negative indirect impact.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Final Action

    Under the final rule, NMFS would classify foreign fisheries based 
on the extent that the fishing gear and methods used interact with 
marine mammals. After notification from NMFS, harvesting nations 
desiring to export fish and fish products to the United States must 
apply for and receive a comparability finding for their exempt and 
export fisheries as identified in the List of Foreign Fisheries. Such a 
finding would indicate that marine mammal protection measures have been 
implemented in the fisheries that are comparable in effectiveness to 
the U.S. regulatory program. In the event of import prohibitions being 
imposed for specific fish products, certain other fish products 
eligible for entry from the affected nation may be required to be 
accompanied by a certification of admissibility in order to be admitted 
into the United States.
    This final rule does not directly regulate small entities; the rule 
requires harvesting nations that export fish and fish products to the 
United States to apply for and receive a comparability finding for its 
exempt and export fisheries. The universe of potentially indirectly 
affected industries includes: U.S. seafood processors, importers, 
retailers, and wholesalers. The exact volume and value of product, and 
the number of jobs supported primarily by imports within the 
processing, wholesale, and retail sectors cannot be ascertained based 
on available information. In general, however, the dominant position of 
imported seafood in the U.S. supply chain is indicative of the number 
of U.S. businesses that rely on seafood harvested by foreign entities.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    This final action contains new collection-of-information, involving 
limited reporting and record keeping, or other compliance requirements. 
To facilitate enforcement of the import prohibitions for prohibited 
fish products, harvesting nations with fisheries that do receive a 
comparability finding, that offer similar fish and fish products to 
those that have been prohibited from entry, may be required to submit 
certification of admissibility along with the fish or fish products 
offered for entry into the United States that are not subject to the 
specific import restrictions.

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    No U.S. industrial sector is directly regulated by this rulemaking. 
However, the indirect effects of import prohibitions may cause short-
term disruptions in the flow of seafood imports potentially impacting 
U.S. businesses. NMFS does not anticipate that national benefits and 
costs would change significantly in the long-term as a result of the 
implementation of the rule. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that the 
impacts on U.S. businesses engaged in trading, processing, or retailing 
seafood will likely be minimal.
    As described above and in Section 2.1 of the Final Environmental 
Assessment (see NEPA), NMFS analyzed several alternatives that achieve 
the objective of

[[Page 54412]]

reducing mortality of marine mammals in fishing operations. The final 
rule is based on the preferred alternative and is the one that offers 
the most flexibility while also complying with the relevant provisions 
of the MMPA and U.S. obligations under applicable international law, 
including the WTO Agreement. The flexibility offered under the rule 
allows harvesting nations to adopt a variety of alternatives to assess 
and reduce marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury, 
provided the alternatives are comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. 
regulatory program. Because this flexibility facilitates the ability of 
the harvesting nations to comply, the potential for indirect adverse 
impacts on small entities is minimized.
    The no action alternative, where NMFS would not promulgate 
regulations to implement the international provisions of the MMPA, may 
have reduced the potential indirect burden or economic impact to small 
entities; however, because the international provisions of the MMPA are 
statutory requirements, the no action alternative would be inconsistent 
with the MMPA. The final rule also demonstrates the U.S. commitment to 
achieving the conservation and sustainable management of marine mammals 
consistent with the statutory requirement of section 101(a)(2) of the 
MMPA. Additionally, the increased data collection that may result from 
the regulations could assist in global stock assessments of marine 
mammals and improve our scientific understanding of these species. 
Finally, the rule should help ensure that the United States is not 
importing fish and fish products harvested by nations that engage in 
the unsustainable bycatch of marine mammals in waters within and beyond 
any national jurisdiction.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has 
been submitted to OMB for approval. The information collection in this 
final rule modifies an existing information collection that was 
approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0651 (Certification of 
Admissibility).

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Marine mammals, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Paul Doremus,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR 
part 216 are amended as follows:

Title 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), remove the entry for 
216.24 and add entries for 216.24(f)(2) and 216.24(h)(9)(iii) in 
numerical order under the heading 50 CFR to read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Current OMB control number
 CFR part or section where the information  (all numbers begin with 0648-
     collection requirement is located                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR
 
                                * * * * *
    216.24(f)(2)..........................  -0387
    216.24(h)(9)(iii).....................  -0651
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries

PART 216--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE 
MAMMALS

0
3. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.


0
4. In Sec.  216.3:
0
a. Revise the definition for ``Import''; and
0
b. Add definitions for ``Bycatch limit'', ``Comparability finding'', 
``Exempt fishery'', ``Exemption period'', ``Export fishery'', ``Fish 
and fish product'', ``Intermediary nation'', ``List of Foreign 
Fisheries'', ``Transboundary stock'', and ``U.S. regulatory program'' 
in alphabetical order.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  216.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bycatch limit means the calculation of a potential biological 
removal level for a particular marine mammal stock, as defined in Sec.  
229.2 of this chapter, or comparable scientific metric established by 
the harvesting nation or applicable regional fishery management 
organization or intergovernmental agreement.
* * * * *
    Comparability finding means a finding by the Assistant 
Administrator that the harvesting nation for an export or exempt 
fishery has met the applicable conditions specified in Sec.  
216.24(h)(6)(iii) subject to the additional considerations for 
comparability determinations set out in Sec.  216.24(h)(7).
* * * * *
    Exempt fishery means a foreign commercial fishing operation 
determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports 
of commercial fish and fish products to the United States and to have a 
remote likelihood of, or no known, incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing 
operations. A commercial fishing operation that has a remote likelihood 
of causing incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals is 
one that collectively with other foreign fisheries exporting fish and 
fish products to the United States causes the annual removal of:
    (1) Ten percent or less of any marine mammal stock's bycatch limit; 
or
    (2) More than 10 percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch 
limit, yet that fishery by itself removes 1 percent or less of that 
stock's bycatch limit annually; or
    (3) Where reliable information has not been provided by the 
harvesting nation on the frequency of incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, 
the Assistant Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of 
incidental mortality and serious injury is ``remote'' by evaluating 
information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, 
methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas 
fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding 
data, the species and

[[Page 54413]]

distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other factors at the 
discretion of the Assistant Administrator. A foreign fishery will not 
be classified as an exempt fishery unless the Assistant Administrator 
has reliable information from the harvesting nation, or other 
information to support such a finding.
    Exemption period means the one-time, five-year period that 
commences January 1, 2017, during which commercial fishing operations 
that are the source of exports of commercial fish and fish products to 
the United States will be exempt from the prohibitions of Sec.  
216.24(h)(1).
    Export fishery means a foreign commercial fishing operation 
determined by the Assistant Administrator to be the source of exports 
of commercial fish and fish products to the United States and to have 
more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals (as defined in the definition of an ``exempt 
fishery'') in the course of its commercial fishing operations. Where 
reliable information has not been provided by the harvesting nation on 
the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation, the Assistant 
Administrator may determine whether the likelihood of incidental 
mortality and serious injury is more than ``remote'' by evaluating 
information concerning factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, 
methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas 
fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding 
data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, 
or other factors at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator that 
may inform whether the likelihood of incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing operation is 
more than ``remote.'' Commercial fishing operations not specifically 
identified in the current List of Foreign Fisheries as either exempt or 
export fisheries are deemed to be export fisheries until the next List 
of Foreign Fisheries is published unless the Assistant Administrator 
has reliable information from the harvesting nation to properly 
classify the foreign commercial fishing operation. Additionally, the 
Assistant Administrator, may request additional information from the 
harvesting nation and may consider other relevant information as set 
forth in Sec.  216.24(h)(3) about such commercial fishing operations 
and the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals, to properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation.
* * * * *
    Fish and fish product means any marine finfish, mollusk, 
crustacean, or other form of marine life other than marine mammals, 
reptiles, and birds, whether fresh, frozen, canned, pouched, or 
otherwise prepared.
* * * * *
    Import means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt 
to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, 
bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the Customs 
laws of the United States; except that, for the purpose of any ban on 
the importation of fish or fish products issued under the authority of 
16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(B), the definition of ``import'' in Sec.  
216.24(f)(1)(ii) shall apply.
* * * * *
    Intermediary nation means a nation that imports fish or fish 
products from a fishery on the List of Foreign Fisheries and re-exports 
such fish or fish products to the United States.
* * * * *
    List of Foreign Fisheries means the most recent list, organized by 
harvesting nation, of foreign commercial fishing operations exporting 
fish or fish products to the United States, that is published in the 
Federal Register by the Assistant Administrator and that classifies 
commercial fishing operations according to the frequency and likelihood 
of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals during 
such commercial fishing operations as either an exempt fishery or an 
export fishery.
* * * * *
    Transboundary stock means a marine mammal stock occurring in the:
    (1) Exclusive economic zones or territorial sea of the United 
States and one or more other coastal States; or
    (2) Exclusive economic zone or territorial sea of the United States 
and on the high seas.
* * * * *
    U.S. regulatory program means the regulatory program governing the 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations as specified in the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act and its implementing regulations.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  216.24, the section heading is revised and paragraph (h) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  216.24  Taking and related acts in commercial fishing operations 
including tuna purse seine vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific 
Ocean.

* * * * *
    (h) Taking and related acts of marine mammals in foreign commercial 
fishing operations not governed by the provisions related to tuna purse 
seine vessels in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean--(1) Prohibitions. 
(i) As provided in section 101(a)(2) and 102(c)(3)of the MMPA, the 
importation of commercial fish or fish products which have been caught 
with commercial fishing technology which results in the incidental kill 
or incidental serious injury of ocean mammals in excess of U.S. 
standards or caught in a manner which the Secretary has proscribed for 
persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are 
prohibited. For purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, a fish or 
fish product caught with commercial fishing technology which results in 
the incidental mortality or incidental serious injury of marine mammals 
in excess of U.S. standards is any fish or fish product harvested in an 
exempt or export fishery for which a valid comparability finding is not 
in effect.
    (ii) Accordingly, it is unlawful for any person to import, or 
attempt to import, into the United States for commercial purposes any 
fish or fish product if such fish or fish product:
    (A) Was caught or harvested in a fishery that does not have a valid 
comparability finding in effect at the time of import; or
    (B) Is not accompanied by a Certification of Admissibility where 
such Certification is required pursuant to paragraph (h)(9)(iv) of this 
section or by such other documentation as the Assistant Administrator 
may identify and announce in the Federal Register that indicates the 
fish or fish product was not caught or harvested in a fishery subject 
to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(9)(i) of this 
section.
    (iii) It is unlawful for any person, including exporters, 
transshippers, importers, processors, or wholesalers/distributors to 
possess, sell, purchase, offer for sale, re-export, transport, or ship 
in interstate or foreign commerce in the United States, any fish or 
fish product imported in violation of paragraph (h) of this section.
    (2) Exemptions. (i) Exempt fisheries are exempt from requirements 
of paragraphs (h)(6)(iii)(B) through (E) of this section.
    (A) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, harvesting 
nation means the country under whose flag or

[[Page 54414]]

jurisdiction one or more fishing vessels or other entity engaged in 
commercial fishing operations are documented, or which has by formal 
declaration or agreement asserted jurisdiction over one or more 
authorized or certified charter vessels, and from such vessel(s) or 
entity(ies) fish are caught or harvested that are a part of any cargo 
or shipment of fish or fish products to be imported into the United 
States, regardless of any intervening transshipments, exports or re-
exports.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) The prohibitions of paragraph (h)(1) of this section shall not 
apply during the exemption period.
    (iii) Paragraph (h) of this section shall not apply to a commercial 
fishing operation subject to section 101(a)(2)(B) of the MMPA and its 
implementing regulations set out in the relevant provisions of 
paragraph (f) of this section which govern the incidental take of 
delphinids in course of commercial purse seine fishing operations for 
yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and restrictions 
on importation and sale of fish and fish products caught or harvested 
in that commercial fishing operation. Paragraph (h) of this section 
shall not apply with respect to large-scale driftnet fishing, which is 
governed by paragraph (f)(7) of this section and the restrictions it 
sets out on importation and sale of fish and fish products harvested by 
using a large-scale driftnet.
    (3) Procedures to identify foreign commercial fishing operations 
with incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals as 
exempt or export fisheries. In developing the List of Foreign Fisheries 
in paragraph (h)(4) of this section, the Assistant Administrator:
    (i) Shall periodically analyze imports of fish and fish products 
and identify commercial fishing operations that are the source of 
exports of such fish and fish products to the United States that have 
or may have incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in 
the course of their commercial fishing operations.
    (A) For the purposes of paragraph (h) of this section, a commercial 
fishing operation means vessels or entities that catch, take, or 
harvest fish (as defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802)) from the marine 
environment (or other areas where marine mammals occur) that results in 
the sale or barter of all or part of the fish caught, taken or 
harvested. The term includes aquaculture activities that interact with 
or occur in marine mammal habitat.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) Shall notify, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
each harvesting nation that has commercial fishing operations 
identified pursuant to paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section and request 
that within 90 days of notification the harvesting nation submit 
reliable information about the commercial fishing operations 
identified, including as relevant the number of participants, number of 
vessels, gear type, target species, area of operation, fishing season, 
any information regarding the frequency of marine mammal incidental 
mortality and serious injury and any programs (including any relevant 
laws, decrees, regulations or measures) to assess marine mammal 
populations and to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of 
marine mammals in those fisheries or prohibit the intentional killing 
or injury of marine mammals.
    (iii) Shall review each harvesting nation's submission, evaluate 
any information it contains (including descriptions of its regulatory 
programs) and, if necessary, request additional information.
    (iv) May consider other readily available and relevant information 
about such commercial fishing operations and the frequency of 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals, including: 
fishing vessel records; reports of on-board fishery observers; 
information from off-loading facilities, port-side officials, 
enforcement agents and officers, transshipment vessel workers and fish 
importers; government vessel registries; regional fisheries management 
organizations documents and statistical document programs; and 
appropriate certification programs. Other sources may include published 
literature and reports on fishing vessels with incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals from government agencies; foreign, 
state, and local governments; regional fishery management 
organizations; nongovernmental organizations; industry organizations; 
academic institutions; and citizens and citizen groups.
    (4) List of Foreign Fisheries. (i) Within one year of January 1, 
2017, and the year prior to the expiration of the exemption period and 
every four years thereafter, the Assistant Administrator, based on the 
information obtained in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, will publish 
in the Federal Register:
    (A) A proposed List of Foreign Fisheries by harvesting nation for 
notice and comment; and
    (B) A final List of Foreign Fisheries, effective upon publication 
in the Federal Register.
    (ii) To the extent that information is available, the List of 
Foreign Fisheries shall:
    (A) Classify each commercial fishing operation that is the source 
of exports of fish and fish products to the United States based on the 
definitions for export fishery and exempt fishery set forth in Sec.  
216.3 and identified in the List of Foreign Fisheries by harvesting 
nation and other defining factors including geographic location of 
harvest, gear-type, target species or a combination thereof;
    (B) Include fishing gear type, target species, and number of 
vessels or other entities engaged in each commercial fishing operation;
    (C) List the marine mammals that interact with each commercial 
fishing operation and indicate the level of incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals in each commercial fishing operation;
    (D) Provide a description of the harvesting nation's programs to 
assess marine mammal stocks and estimate and reduce marine mammal 
incidental mortality and serious injury in its export fisheries; and
    (E) List the harvesting nations that prohibit, in the course of 
commercial fishing operations that are the source of exports to the 
United States, the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine 
mammals unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine 
mammal is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a 
person in immediate danger.
    (5) Consultations with Harvesting Nations with Commercial Fishing 
Operations on the List of Foreign Fisheries. (i) Within 90 days of 
publication of the final List of Foreign Fisheries in the Federal 
Register, the Assistant Administrator, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, shall consult with harvesting nations with 
commercial fishing operations identified as export or exempt fisheries 
as defined in Sec.  216.3 for purposes of notifying the harvesting 
nation of the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and this 
subpart.
    (ii) The Assistant Administrator, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, may consult with harvesting nations for the 
purposes of providing notifications of deadlines under this section, 
ascertaining or reviewing the progress of the harvesting nation's 
development, adoption, implementation, or enforcement of its regulatory 
program governing the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine 
mammals in the

[[Page 54415]]

course of commercial fishing operations for an export fishery, 
supplementing or clarifying information needed in conjunction with the 
List of Foreign Fisheries in paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) of this section, 
the progress report in paragraph (h)(10) of this section or an 
application for or reconsideration of a comparability finding in 
paragraphs (h)(6) and (8) of this section.
    (iii) The Assistant Administrator shall, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative, consult 
with any harvesting nations that failed to receive a comparability 
finding for one or more of commercial fishing operations or for which a 
comparability finding is terminated and encourage the harvesting nation 
to take corrective action and reapply for a comparability finding in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(9)(iii) of this section.
    (6) Procedure and conditions for a comparability finding--(i) 
Procedures to apply for a comparability finding. On March 1st of the 
year when the exemption period or comparability finding is to expire, a 
harvesting nation shall submit to the Assistant Administrator an 
application for each of its export and exempt fisheries, along with 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the harvesting nation has met 
the conditions specified in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section for 
each of such fishery, including reasonable proof as to the effects on 
marine mammals of the commercial fishing technology in use in the 
fishery for fish or fish products exported from such nation to the 
United States. The Assistant Administrator may request the submission 
of additional supporting documentation or other verification of 
statements made in an application for a comparability finding.
    (ii) Procedures to issue a comparability finding. No later than 
November 30th of the year when the exemption period or comparability 
finding is to expire, the Assistant Administrator, in response to an 
application from a harvesting nation for an export or exempt fishery, 
shall determine whether to issue to the harvesting nation, in 
accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (h)(8) of this 
section, a comparability finding for the fishery. In making this 
determination, the Assistant Administrator shall consider documentary 
evidence provided by the harvesting nation and relevant information 
readily available from other sources. If a harvesting nation provides 
insufficient documentary evidence in support of its application, the 
Assistant Administrator shall draw reasonable conclusions regarding the 
fishery based on readily available and relevant information from other 
sources, including where appropriate information concerning analogous 
fisheries that use the same or similar gear-type under similar 
conditions as the fishery, in determining whether to issue the 
harvesting nation a comparability finding for the fishery.
    (iii) Conditions for a comparability finding. The following are 
conditions for the Assistant Administrator to issue a comparability 
finding for the fishery, subject to the additional considerations set 
out in paragraph (h)(7) of this section:
    (A) For an exempt or export fishery, the harvesting nation:
    (1) Prohibits the intentional mortality or serious injury of marine 
mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations in the fishery 
unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal 
is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person 
in immediate danger; or
    (2) Demonstrates that it has procedures to reliably certify that 
exports of fish and fish products to the United States are not the 
product of an intentional killing or serious injury of a marine mammal 
unless the intentional mortality or serious injury of a marine mammal 
is imminently necessary in self-defense or to save the life of a person 
in immediate danger; and
    (B) For an export fishery, the harvesting nation maintains a 
regulatory program with respect to the fishery that is comparable in 
effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program with respect to incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of 
commercial fishing operations, in particular by maintaining a 
regulatory program that includes, or effectively achieves comparable 
results as, the conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(C), (D), or (E) of 
this section as applicable (including for transboundary stocks).
    (C) Conditions for an export fishery operating under the 
jurisdiction of a harvesting nation within its EEZ (or the equivalent) 
or territorial sea. In making the finding in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of 
this section, with respect to an export fishery operating under the 
jurisdiction of a harvesting nation within its EEZ (or the equivalent) 
or territorial sea, the Assistant Administrator shall determine whether 
the harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program that provides for, 
or effectively achieves comparable results as, the following:
    (1) Marine mammal assessments that estimate population abundance 
for marine mammal stocks in waters under the harvesting nation's 
jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously injured in the 
export fishery.
    (2) An export fishery register containing a list of all fishing 
vessels participating in the export fishery, including information on 
the number of vessels participating, the time or season and area of 
operation, gear type and target species.
    (3) Regulatory requirements that include:
    (i) A requirement for the owner or operator of a vessel 
participating in the export fishery to report all intentional and 
incidental mortality and injury of marine mammals in the course of 
commercial fishing operations; and
    (ii) A requirement to implement measures in the export fishery 
designed to reduce the total incidental mortality and serious injury of 
a marine mammal stock below the bycatch limit; and
    (iii) with respect to any transboundary stock or any other marine 
mammal stocks interacting with the export fishery, measures to reduce 
the incidental mortality and serious injury of that stock that the 
United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect to 
that transboundary stock or marine mammal stock.
    (4) Implementation of monitoring procedures in the export fishery 
designed to estimate incidental mortality or serious injury in the 
export fishery, and to estimate the cumulative incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammal stocks in waters under its jurisdiction 
resulting from the export fishery and other export fisheries 
interacting with the same marine mammal stocks, including an indication 
of the statistical reliability of those estimates.
    (5) Calculation of bycatch limits for marine mammal stocks in 
waters under its jurisdiction that are incidentally killed or seriously 
injured in the export fishery.
    (6) Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of 
each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export 
fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison 
of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each 
marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and 
any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these 
export fisheries:
    (i) Do not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks; or
    (ii) Exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the 
portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for 
which the export fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the 
other export fisheries interacting

[[Page 54416]]

with the same marine mammal stock or stocks were at the same level, 
would not result in cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury 
in excess of the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks.
    (D) Conditions for a harvesting nation's export fishery operating 
within the jurisdiction of another state. In making the finding in 
paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this section, with respect to a harvesting 
nation's export fishery operating within the jurisdiction of another 
state, the Assistant Administrator shall determine whether the 
harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program that provides for, or 
effectively achieves comparable results as, the following:
    (1) Implementation in the export fishery of:
    (i) With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the 
export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and 
serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its 
domestic fisheries to take with respect that transboundary stock; and
    (ii) With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting 
with the export fishery while operating within the jurisdiction of the 
state, any measures to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury 
that the United States requires its domestic fisheries to take with 
respect to that marine mammal stock; and
    (2) For an export fishery not subject to management by a regional 
fishery management organization:
    (i) An assessment of marine mammal abundance of stocks interacting 
with the export fishery, the calculation of a bycatch limit for each 
such stock, an estimation of incidental mortality and serious injury 
for each stock and reduction in or maintenance of the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of each stock below the bycatch limit. 
This data included in the application may be provided by the state or 
another source; and
    (ii) Comparison of the incidental mortality and serious injury of 
each marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export 
fishery in relation to the bycatch limit for each stock; and comparison 
of the cumulative incidental mortality and serious injury of each 
marine mammal stock or stocks that interact with the export fishery and 
any other export fisheries of the harvesting nation showing that these 
export fisheries do not exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or 
stocks; or exceed the bycatch limit for that stock or stocks, but the 
portion of incidental marine mammal mortality or serious injury for 
which the export fishery is responsible is at a level that, if the 
other export fisheries interacting with the same marine mammal stock or 
stocks were at the same level, would not result in cumulative 
incidental mortality and serious injury in excess of the bycatch limit 
for that stock or stocks; or
    (3) For an export fishery that is subject to management by a 
regional fishery management organization, implementation of marine 
mammal data collection and conservation and management measures 
applicable to that fishery required under any applicable 
intergovernmental agreement or regional fisheries management 
organization to which the United States is a party.
    (E) Conditions for a harvesting nation's export fishery operating 
on the high seas under the jurisdiction of the harvesting nation or 
another state. In making the finding in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this 
section, with respect to a harvesting nation's export fishery operating 
on the high seas under the jurisdiction of the harvesting nation or 
another state, the Assistant Administrator shall determine whether the 
harvesting nation maintains a regulatory program that provides for, or 
effectively achieves comparable results as, the U.S. regulatory program 
with respect to the following:
    (1) Implementation in the fishery of marine mammal data collection 
and conservation and management measures applicable to that fishery 
required under any applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional 
fisheries management organization to which the United States is a 
party; and
    (2) Implementation in the export fishery of:
    (i) With respect to any transboundary stock interacting with the 
export fishery, any measures to reduce the incidental mortality and 
serious injury of that stock that the United States requires its 
domestic fisheries to take with respect that transboundary stock; and
    (ii) With respect to any other marine mammal stocks interacting 
with the export fishery while operating on the high seas, any measures 
to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury that the United 
States requires its domestic fisheries to take with respect to that 
marine mammal stock when they are operating on the high seas.
    (7) Additional considerations for comparability finding 
determinations. When determining whether to issue any comparability 
finding for a harvesting nation's export fishery the Assistant 
Administrator shall also consider:
    (i) U.S. implementation of its regulatory program for similar 
marine mammal stocks and similar fisheries (e.g., considering gear or 
target species), including transboundary stocks governed by regulations 
implementing a take reduction plan (Sec.  229.2 of this chapter), and 
any other relevant information received during consultations;
    (ii) The extent to which the harvesting nation has successfully 
implemented measures in the export fishery to reduce the incidental 
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the harvesting 
nation's export fisheries to levels below the bycatch limit;
    (iii) Whether the measures adopted by the harvesting nation for its 
export fishery have reduced or will likely reduce the cumulative 
incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock 
below the bycatch limit, and the progress of the regulatory program 
toward achieving its objectives;
    (iv) Other relevant facts and circumstances, which may include the 
history and nature of interactions with marine mammals in this export 
fishery, whether the level of incidental mortality and serious injury 
resulting from the fishery or fisheries exceeds the bycatch limit for a 
marine mammal stock, the population size and trend of the marine mammal 
stock, and the population level impacts of the incidental mortality or 
serious injury of marine mammals in a harvesting nation's export 
fisheries and the conservation status of those marine mammal stocks 
where available;
    (v) The record of consultations under paragraph (h)(5) of this 
section with the harvesting nation, results of these consultations, and 
actions taken by the harvesting nation and under any applicable 
intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management organization 
to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 
in its export fisheries;
    (vi) Information gathered during onsite inspection by U.S. 
government officials of a fishery's operations;
    (vii) For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an 
applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management 
organization to which the United States is a party, the harvesting 
nation's record of implementation of or compliance with measures 
adopted by that regional fishery management organization or 
intergovernmental agreement for data collection, incidental mortality 
and serious injury mitigation or the conservation and management of 
marine mammals; whether the harvesting nation is a party or cooperating 
non-party to such intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery 
management organization; the record of United States implementation of 
such measures; and whether the United

[[Page 54417]]

States has imposed additional measures on its fleet not required by an 
intergovernmental agreement or regional fishery management 
organization; or
    (viii) For export fisheries operating on the high seas under an 
applicable intergovernmental agreement or regional fisheries management 
organization to which the United States is not a party, the harvesting 
nation's implementation of and compliance with measures, adopted by 
that regional fisheries management organization or intergovernmental 
agreement, and any additional measures implemented by the harvesting 
nation for data collection, incidental mortality and serious injury 
mitigation or the conservation and management of marine mammals and the 
extent to which such measures are comparable in effectiveness to the 
U.S. regulatory program for similar fisheries.
    (8) Comparability finding determinations--(i) Publication. No later 
than November 30th of the year when the exemption period or 
comparability finding is to expire, the Assistant Administrator shall 
publish in the Federal Register, by harvesting nation, a notice of the 
harvesting nations and fisheries for which it has issued or denied a 
comparability finding and the specific fish and fish products that as a 
result are subject to import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(9) of this section.
    (ii) Notification. Prior to publication in the Federal Register, 
the Assistant Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State and, in the event of a denial of a comparability finding, with 
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, shall notify each 
harvesting nation in writing of the fisheries of the harvesting nation 
for which the Assistant Administrator is:
    (A) Issuing a comparability finding;
    (B) Denying a comparability finding with an explanation for the 
reasons for the denial of such comparability finding; and
    (C) Specify the fish and fish products that will be subject to 
import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section on 
account of a denial of a comparability finding and the effective date 
of such import prohibitions.
    (iii) Preliminary comparability finding consultations. (A) Prior to 
denying a comparability finding under paragraph (h)(8)(ii) of this 
section or terminating a comparability finding under paragraph 
(h)(8)(vii) of this section, the Assistant Administrator shall:
    (1) Notify the harvesting nation that it is preliminarily denying 
or terminating its comparability finding and explain the reasons for 
that preliminary denial or termination;
    (2) Provide the harvesting nation a reasonable opportunity to 
submit reliable information to refute the preliminary denial or 
termination of the comparability finding and communicate any corrective 
actions it is taking to meet the applicable conditions for a 
comparability finding set out in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section 
subject to the additional considerations set out in paragraph (h)(7) of 
this section.
    (B) The Assistant Administrator shall take into account any 
information it receives from the harvesting nation and issue a final 
comparability finding determination, notifying the harvesting nation 
pursuant to paragraph (h)(8)(ii) of this section of its determination 
and, if a denial or termination, an explanation of the reasons for the 
denial or termination of the comparability finding.
    (C) A preliminary denial or termination of a comparability finding 
shall not result in import prohibitions pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) 
and (9) of this section.
    (iv) Duration of a comparability finding. Unless terminated in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(8)(vii) of this section or issued for a 
specific period pursuant to a re-application under paragraph 
(h)(9)(iii) of this section, a comparability finding shall remain valid 
for 4 years from publication or for such other period as the Assistant 
Administrator may specify.
    (v) Renewal of comparability finding. To seek renewal of a 
comparability finding, every 4 years or prior to the expiration of a 
comparability finding, the harvesting nation must submit to the 
Assistant Administrator the application and the documentary evidence 
required pursuant to paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section, including, 
where applicable, reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals 
of the commercial fishing technology in use in the fishery for fish or 
fish products exported to the United States, by March 1 of the year 
when its current comparability finding is due to expire.
    (vi) Procedures for a comparability finding for new foreign 
commercial fishing operations wishing to export to the United States. 
(A) For foreign commercial fishing operations not on the List of 
Foreign Fisheries that are the source of new exports to the United 
States, the harvesting nation must notify the Assistant Administrator 
that the commercial fishing operation wishes to export fish and fish 
products to the United States.
    (B) Upon notification the Assistant Administrator shall issue a 
provisional comparability finding allowing such imports for a period 
not to exceed 12 months.
    (C) At least 120 days prior to the expiration of the provisional 
comparability finding the harvesting nation must submit to the 
Assistant Administrator the reliable information specified in paragraph 
(h)(3)(ii) of this section and the application and the applicable 
documentary evidence required pursuant to paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this 
section.
    (D) Prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, 
the Assistant Administrator shall review the application and 
information provided and classify the commercial fishing operation as 
either an exempt or export fishery in accordance with paragraphs 
(h)(3)(iii) through (iv) and (h)(4)(ii) of this section and determine 
whether to issue the harvesting nation a comparability finding for the 
fishery in accordance with paragraph (h)(6)(ii) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (E) If the harvesting nation submits the reliable information 
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section at least 180 days 
prior to expiration of the provisional comparability finding, the 
Assistant Administrator will review that information and classify the 
fishery as either an exempt or export fishery.
    (vii) Discretionary review of comparability findings. (A) The 
Assistant Administrator may reconsider a comparability finding that it 
has issued at any time based upon information obtained by the Assistant 
Administrator including any progress report received from a harvesting 
nation; or upon request with the submission of information from the 
harvesting nation, any nation, regional fishery management 
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, industry organizations, 
academic institutions, citizens or citizen groups that the harvesting 
nation's exempt or export fishery no longer meets the applicable 
conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section. Upon receiving a 
request, the Assistant Administrator has the discretion to determine 
whether to proceed with a review or reconsideration.
    (B) After such review or reconsideration and consultation with the 
harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator shall, if the Assistant 
Administrator determines that the basis for the comparability finding 
no longer applies, terminate a comparability finding.
    (C) The Assistant Administrator shall notify in writing the 
harvesting nation

[[Page 54418]]

and publish in the Federal Register a notice of the termination and the 
specific fish and fish products that as a result are subject to import 
prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of this section.
    (9) Imposition of import prohibitions. (i) With respect to a 
harvesting nation for which the Assistant Administrator has denied or 
terminated a comparability finding for a fishery, the Assistant 
Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and 
Homeland Security, shall identify and prohibit the importation of fish 
and fish products into the United States from the harvesting nation 
caught or harvested in that fishery. Any such import prohibition shall 
become effective 30 days after the of publication of the Federal 
Register notice referenced in paragraph (h)(8)(i) of this section and 
shall only apply to fish and fish products caught or harvested in that 
fishery.
    (ii) Duration of import restrictions and removal of import 
restrictions. (A) Any import prohibition imposed pursuant to paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (9) of this section with respect to a fishery shall remain 
in effect until the Assistant Administrator issues a comparability 
finding for the fishery.
    (B) A harvesting nation with an export fishery with a comparability 
finding that expired, was denied or terminated may re-apply for a 
comparability finding at any time by submitting an application to the 
Assistant Administrator, along with documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the harvesting nation has met the conditions specified in 
paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section, including, as applicable, 
reasonable proof as to the effects on marine mammals of the commercial 
fishing technology in use in the fishery for the fish or fish products 
exported from such nation to the United States.
    (C) The Assistant Administrator shall make a determination whether 
to issue the harvesting nation that has re-applied for a comparability 
finding for the fishery within 90 days from the submission of complete 
information to the Assistant Administrator. The Assistant Administrator 
shall issue a comparability finding for the fishery for a specified 
period where the Assistant Administrator finds that the harvesting 
nation meets the applicable conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this 
section, subject to the additional consideration for a comparability 
finding in paragraph (h)(7) of this section.
    (D) Upon issuance of a comparability finding to the harvesting 
nation with respect to the fishery and notification in writing to the 
harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the 
Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall publish in the 
Federal Register a notice of the comparability finding and the removal 
of the corresponding import prohibition effective on the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.
    (iii) Certification of admissibility. (A) If fish or fish products 
are subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of 
this section, the Assistant Administrator, to avoid circumvention of 
the import prohibition, may require that the same or similar fish and 
fish products caught or harvested in another fishery of the harvesting 
nation and not subject to the prohibition be accompanied by a 
certification of admissibility by paper or electronic equivalent filed 
through the National Marine Fisheries Service message set required in 
the International Trade Data System. No certification of admissibility 
shall be required for a fish product for which it is infeasible to 
substantiate the attestation that the fish or fish products do not 
contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject 
to an import prohibition. The certification of admissibility may be in 
addition to any other applicable import documentation requirements.
    (B) The Assistant Administrator shall notify the harvesting nation 
of the fisheries and the fish and fish products to be accompanied by a 
certification of admissibility and provide the necessary documents and 
instruction.
    (C) The Assistant Administrator, in cooperation with the 
Secretaries of Treasury and Homeland Security, shall as part of the 
Federal Register notice referenced in paragraph (h)(8)(i) of this 
section, publish a list of fish and fish products, organized by 
harvesting nation, required to be accompanied by a certification of 
admissibility. Any requirement for a certification of admissibility 
shall be effective 30 days after the publication of such notice in the 
Federal Register.
    (D) For each shipment, the certification of admissibility must be 
properly completed and signed by a duly authorized official or agent of 
the harvesting nation and subject to validation by a responsible 
official(s) designated by the Assistant Administrator. The 
certification must also be signed by the importer of record and 
submitted in a format (electronic facsimile [fax], the Internet, etc.) 
specified by the Assistant Administrator.
    (iv) Intermediary nation. (A) For purposes of this paragraph 
(h)(9), and in applying the definition of an ``intermediary nation,'' 
an import into the intermediary nation occurs when the fish or fish 
product is released from a harvesting nation's customs jurisdiction and 
enters the customs jurisdiction of the intermediary nation or when the 
fish and fish products are entered into a foreign trade zone of the 
intermediary nation for processing or transshipment. For other 
purposes, ``import'' is defined in Sec.  216.3.
    (B) No fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery 
subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) of 
this section, may be imported into the United States from any 
intermediary nation.
    (C) Within 30 days of publication of the Federal Register notice 
described in paragraph (h)(8)(i) of this section specifying fish and 
fish products subject to import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) 
and (9) of this section, the Assistant Administrator shall, based on 
readily available information, identify intermediary nations that may 
import, and re-export to the United States, fish and fish products from 
a fishery subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(9)(i) of this section and notify such nations in writing that they 
are subject to action under paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(D) of this section 
with respect to the fish and fish products for which the Assistant 
Administer identified them.
    (D) Within 60 days from the date of notification, an intermediary 
nation notified pursuant to paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of this section 
must certify to the Assistant Administrator that it:
    (1) Does not import, or does not offer for import into the United 
States, fish or fish products subject to an import prohibition under 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(9)(i) of this section; or
    (2) Has procedures to reliably certify that exports of fish and 
fish products from the intermediary nation to the United States do not 
contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a fishery subject 
to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(9)(i) of this 
section.
    (E) The intermediary nation must provide documentary evidence to 
support its certification including information demonstrating that:
    (1) It has not imported in the preceding 6 months the fish and fish 
products for which it was notified under paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of 
this section; or
    (2) It maintains a tracking, verification, or other scheme to 
reliably certify on either a global, individual shipment or other 
appropriate basis that fish and fish products from the intermediary 
nation offered for import to the United States do not contain fish or 
fish products caught or harvested in

[[Page 54419]]

a fishery subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(9)(i) of this section and for which it was notified under paragraph 
(h)(9)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (F) No later than 120 days after a notification pursuant to 
paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of this section, the Assistant Administrator 
will review the documentary evidence provided by the intermediary 
nation under paragraphs (h)(9)(iv)(D) and (E) of this section and 
determine based on that information or other readily available 
information whether the intermediary nation imports, or offers to 
import into the United States, fish and fish products subject import 
prohibitions and, if so, whether the intermediary nation has procedures 
to reliably certify that exports of fish and fish products from the 
intermediary nation to the United States do not contain fish or fish 
products subject to import prohibitions under paragraphs (h)(1) and (9) 
of this section, and notify the intermediary nation of its 
determination.
    (G) If the Assistant Administrator determines that the intermediary 
nation does not have procedures to reliably certify that exports of 
fish and fish products from the intermediary nation to the United 
States do not contain fish or fish products caught or harvested in a 
fishery subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(9)(i) of this section, the Assistant Administrator, in cooperation 
with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, will file 
with the Office of the Federal Register a notice announcing the fish 
and fish products exported from the intermediary nation to the United 
States that are of the same species as, or similar to, fish or fish 
products subject to an import prohibition under paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(h)(9)(i) of this section that may not be imported into the United 
States as a result of the determination. A prohibition under this 
paragraph shall not apply to any fish or fish product for which the 
intermediary nation was not identified under paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(C) of 
this section.
    (H) The Assistant Administrator will review determinations under 
this paragraph upon the request of an intermediary nation. Such 
requests must be accompanied by specific and detailed supporting 
information or documentation indicating that a review or 
reconsideration is warranted. Based upon such information and other 
relevant information, the Assistant Administrator may determine that 
the intermediary nation should no longer be subject to an import 
prohibition under paragraph (h)(9)(iv)(G) of this section. If the 
Assistant Administrator makes such a determination, the Assistant 
Administrator, in cooperation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and 
Homeland Security, shall lift the import prohibition under this 
paragraph and publish notification of such action in the Federal 
Register.
    (10) Progress report for harvesting nations with export fisheries. 
(i) A harvesting nation shall submit, with respect to an exempt or 
export fishery, a progress report to the Assistant Administrator 
documenting actions taken to:
    (A) Develop, adopt and implement its regulatory program; and
    (B) Meet the conditions in paragraph (h)(6)(iii) of this section, 
including with respect to reducing or maintaining incidental mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals below the bycatch limit for its 
fisheries.
    (ii) The progress report should include the methods the harvesting 
nation is using to obtain information in support of a comparability 
finding and a certification by the harvesting nation of the accuracy 
and authenticity of the information contained in the progress report.
    (iii) The first progress report will be due two years prior to the 
end of exemption period and every four years thereafter on or before 
July 31.
    (iv) The Assistant Administrator may review the progress report to 
monitor progress made by a harvesting nation in developing its 
regulatory program or to reconsider a comparability finding in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(8)(vi) of this section.
    (11) International cooperation and assistance. Consistent with the 
authority granted under Marine Mammal Protection Act at 16 U.S.C. 1378 
and the availability of funds, the Assistant Administrator may:
    (i) Provide appropriate assistance to harvesting nations identified 
by the Assistant Administrator under paragraph (h)(5) of this section 
with respect to the financial or technical means to develop and 
implement the requirements of this section;
    (ii) Undertake, where appropriate, cooperative research on marine 
mammal assessments for abundance, methods to estimate incidental 
mortality and serious injury and technologies and techniques to reduce 
marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury in export 
fisheries;
    (iii) Encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the voluntary 
transfer of appropriate technology on mutually agreed terms to assist 
harvesting nations in qualifying for a comparability finding under 
paragraph (h)(6) of this section; and
    (iv) Initiate, through the Secretary of State, negotiations for the 
development of bilateral or multinational agreements with harvesting 
nations to conserve marine mammals and reduce the incidental mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial 
fishing operations.
    (12) Consistency with international obligations. The Assistant 
Administrator shall ensure, in consultation with the Department of 
State and the Office of the United States Trade Representative that any 
action taken under this section, including any action to deny a 
comparability finding or to prohibit imports, is consistent with the 
international obligations of the United States, including under the 
World Trade Organization Agreement.

[FR Doc. 2016-19158 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P