Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act; Final 2020 List of Foreign Fisheries, 63527-63543 [2020-22290]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 196 (Thursday, October 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63527-63543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Docket No. 201001-0262; RTID 0648-XA338]


Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act; Final 2020 List of Foreign Fisheries

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

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is publishing its final 2020 List of Foreign Fisheries 
(LOFF), as required by the regulation implementing the Fish and Fish 
Product Import Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). 
The final 2020 LOFF reflects new information received during the 
comment period on interactions between commercial fisheries exporting 
fish and fish products to the United States and marine mammals and 
updates and revises the draft 2020 LOFF. NMFS classified commercial 
fisheries in this final 2020 LOFF into one of two categories, either 
``export'' or ``exempt,'' based upon frequency and likelihood of 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals likely to 
occur incidental to each fishery. The classification of a fishery on 
the final 2020 LOFF determines which regulatory requirements will be 
applicable to that fishery for it to receive a Comparability Finding 
necessary to export fish and fish products to the United States from 
that fishery. The final 2020 LOFF can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Young, NMFS IASI at 
[email protected], [email protected], or 301-427-8383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In August 2016, NMFS published a final rule 
(81 FR 54390; August 15, 2016) implementing the fish and fish product 
import provisions (section 101(a)(2)) of the MMPA (hereafter referred 
to as the MMPA Import Provisions Rule). This rule established 
conditions for evaluating a harvesting nation's regulatory programs to 
address incidental and intentional mortality and serious injury of 
marine mammals in its fisheries producing fish and fish products 
exported to the United States. Specifically, fish or fish products 
cannot be imported into the United States from commercial fishing 
operations that result in the incidental mortality or serious injury of 
marine mammals in excess of United States standards. The MMPA Import 
Provisions Rule established an initial five-year exemption period 
during which the import prohibitions do not apply. The exemption period 
allows time for harvesting nations to develop regulatory programs to 
mitigate marine mammal bycatch in their respective fisheries.
    After the exemption period, fish and fish products identified by 
the Assistant Administrator as from export and exempt fisheries in the 
LOFF can only be imported into the United States if the harvesting 
nation has applied for and received a Comparability Finding from NMFS. 
The 2016 final rule established procedures that a harvesting nation 
must follow and conditions it must meet to receive a Comparability 
Finding for a fishery. The rule also established provisions for 
intermediary nations to ensure that such nations do not import and re-
export to the United States fish or fish products that are subject to 
an import prohibition.
    This final 2020 LOFF (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries) makes updates to the 
final 2017 LOFF, which was published on March 16, 2018 (83 FR 11703) 
and the draft 2020 LOFF, which was published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 
15116).

What is the List of Foreign Fisheries?

    Based on information provided by nations, industry, the public, and 
other readily available sources, NMFS identified nations with 
commercial fishing operations that export fish and fish products to the 
United States and classified each of those fisheries based on their 
frequency of marine mammal interactions as either ``exempt'' or 
``export'' fisheries (see Definitions below). The entire list of these 
export and exempt fisheries, organized by nation (or economy), 
constitutes the LOFF.

Why is the LOFF important?

    Under the MMPA, the United States prohibits imports of commercial 
fish or fish products caught in commercial fishing operations resulting 
in the incidental killing or serious injury (bycatch) of marine mammals 
in excess of United States standards (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)). NMFS 
published regulations implementing these statutory requirements of the 
MMPA in August 2016 (81 FR 54390; August 15, 2016) (MMPA Import 
Provisions Rule). The regulations apply to any foreign nation with 
fisheries exporting fish and fish products to the United States, either 
directly or through an intermediary nation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With respect to all references to ``nation'' or ``nations'' 
in the rule, it should be noted that the Taiwan Relations Act of 
1979, Public Law 96-8, Section 4(b)(1), provides that [w]henever the 
laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, 
nations, states, governments, territories or similar entities, such 
terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to 
Taiwan. 22 U.S.C. 3303(b)(1). This is consistent with the United 
States' one-China policy, under which the United States has 
maintained unofficial relations with Taiwan since 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LOFF lists foreign commercial fisheries that export fish and 
fish products to the United States and that have been classified as 
either ``export'' or ``exempt'' based on the frequency and likelihood 
of interactions or incidental mortality and serious injury of a marine 
mammal. All fisheries that export to the United States must be included 
on the LOFF by January 1, 2022. A harvesting nation must apply for and 
receive a Comparability Finding for each of its export and exempt 
fisheries on the LOFF to continue to export fish and fish products to 
the United States from those fisheries beginning January 1, 2022.

What do the classifications of ``exempt fishery'' and ``export 
fishery'' mean?

    The classifications of ``exempt fishery'' or ``export fishery'' 
determine the criteria that a nation's fishery must meet to receive a 
Comparability Finding for that fishery. A Comparability Finding is 
required for both exempt and export fisheries, but the criteria for 
exempt and export fisheries differ.
    For an exempt fishery, the criteria to receive a Comparability 
Finding are limited to conditions related only to the prohibition of 
intentional killing or injury of marine mammals (see 50 CFR 
216.24(h)(6)(iii)(A)). For an export fishery, the criteria to receive a 
Comparability Finding include the conditions related to the prohibition 
of intentional killing or injury of marine mammals (see 50 CFR 
216.24(h)(6)(iii)(A)) and the requirement to develop and maintain 
regulatory programs comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory 
program for reducing incidental marine mammal bycatch (see 50 CFR 
216.24(h)(6)). The definitions of ``exempt fishery'' and ``export 
fishery'' are stated in the Definitions below.

[[Page 63528]]

What type of fisheries are included in the List of Foreign Fisheries?

    The LOFF contains only those commercial fishing operations 
authorized by the harvesting nation to fish and export fish and fish 
products to the United States. 50 CFR 18.3 defines ``commercial fishing 
operation'' as the lawful harvesting of fish from the marine 
environment for profit as part of an on-going business enterprise. This 
does not include sport-fishing activities, whether or not carried out 
by charter boat or otherwise, and whether or not the fish caught are 
subsequently sold. At 50 CFR 229.2, ``commercial fishing operation'' is 
defined as the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish 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 harvested. The term 
includes licensed commercial passenger fishing vessel (as defined in 
section 216.3 of 50 CFR 216) activities and aquaculture activities. Per 
the application of these two definitions, the LOFF contains export and 
exempt fisheries that are engaged in the lawful and authorized 
commercial harvest of fish from the marine environment. The term 
``commercial fishing operation'' is used in the definitions of exempt 
fishery and export fishery (see Definitions below).

How did NMFS classify a fishery if a harvesting nation did not provide 
information?

    Information on the frequency or likelihood of interactions or 
bycatch in most foreign fisheries was lacking or incomplete. Absent 
such information, NMFS used readily available information, noted below, 
to classify fisheries, which included drawing analogies to similar U.S. 
fisheries and gear types interacting with similar marine mammal stocks. 
Where no analogous fishery or fishery information existed, NMFS 
classified the commercial fishing operation as an export fishery until 
information becomes available to properly classify the fishery. 
Henceforth, in the year prior to the year in which a determination is 
required on a Comparability Finding application (e.g., 2020 and 2024), 
NMFS will revise the LOFF. When revising the LOFF, NMFS may reclassify 
a fishery if a harvesting nation provides reliable information to 
reclassify the fishery or such information is readily available to NMFS 
(e.g., during the comment periods, consultations, or in Progress 
Reports).

Frequently Asked Questions About the LOFF and the MMPA Import 
Provisions Definitions Within the MMPA Import Provisions

What is a ``Comparability Finding?''

    A Comparability Finding is a finding by NMFS that the harvesting 
nation has implemented a regulatory program for an export or exempt 
fishery that has met the applicable conditions specified in the 
regulations (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)) subject to the additional 
considerations for Comparability Findings set out in the regulations. A 
Comparability Finding is required for a nation to export fish and fish 
products to the United States. To receive a Comparability Finding for 
an export fishery, the harvesting nation must maintain a regulatory 
program with respect to that fishery that is comparable in 
effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program for reducing incidental 
marine mammal bycatch. This requirement may be met by developing, 
implementing, and maintaining a regulatory program that includes 
measures that are comparable, or that effectively achieve comparable 
results to the regulatory program under which the analogous U.S. 
fishery operates.

What is the definition of an ``export fishery?''

    The definition of an export fishery can be found in the 
implementing regulations for section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA (see 50 CFR 
216.3). NMFS considers export fisheries to be functionally equivalent 
to Category I and II fisheries under the U.S. regulatory program (see 
definitions at 50 CFR 229.2).
    NMFS defines ``export fishery'' as 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 
that has more than a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals in the course of its commercial 
fishing operations.
    Where reliable information on the frequency of incidental mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals caused by the commercial fishing 
operation is not provided by the harvesting nation, the Assistant 
Administrator may determine the likelihood of incidental mortality and 
serious injury as more than remote by evaluating information concerning 
factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter 
marine mammals, target fish species, seasons and areas fished, 
qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the 
species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or other 
factors.
    Commercial fishing operations not specifically identified in the 
current LOFF as either exempt or export fisheries are deemed to be 
export fisheries until a revised LOFF is posted, unless the harvesting 
nation provides the Assistant Administrator with information to 
properly classify a foreign commercial fishing operation not on the 
LOFF. To properly classify the foreign commercial fishing operation, 
the Assistant Administrator may also request additional information 
from the harvesting nation, as well as consider other relevant 
information about such commercial fishing operations and the frequency 
of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals.

What is the definition of an ``exempt fishery?''

    The definition of exempt fishery can be found in the implementing 
regulations for section 101(a)(2) of the MMPA (see 50 CFR 216.3). NMFS 
considers ``exempt'' fisheries to be functionally equivalent to 
Category III fisheries under the U.S. regulatory program (see 
definitions at 50 CFR 229.2).
    NMFS defines an exempt fishery as 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 
that has 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 ten percent of any marine mammal stock's bycatch 
limit, yet that fishery by itself removes one 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 such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods to deter 
marine

[[Page 63529]]

mammals, target fish species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative 
data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, the species and 
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.

Developing the 2020 List of Foreign Fisheries

How is the list of foreign fisheries organized?

    NMFS organized the LOFF by harvesting nation (or economy). The LOFF 
may include ``exempt fisheries'' and ``export fisheries'' for each 
harvesting nation. Each fishery is defined by target species, 
geographic location of harvest, gear-type or a combination thereof. 
Where known, the LOFF also includes a list of the marine mammals that 
co-occur with the fishery, a list of marine mammals that interact 
(e.g., depredate the fishing gear, are killed or injured in, or are 
released from the fishery) with each commercial fishing operation, and 
numerical estimates of the incidental mortality and serious injury of 
marine mammals in each commercial fishing operation.

What sources of information did NMFS use to classify the commercial 
fisheries included in the LOFF?

    NMFS reviewed and considered documentation provided by nations 
during the development of the 2017 LOFF, the draft 2020 LOFF, and the 
2019 Progress Report. NMFS also reviewed and considered the information 
provided by the public and other available sources of information, 
including, but not limited to: Fishing vessel records; reports of on-
board fishery observers; information from off-loading facilities, port-
side government officials, enforcement entities and documents, 
transshipment vessel workers and fish importers; government vessel 
registries; RFMO or intergovernmental agreement documents, reports, 
national reports, and statistical document programs; appropriate catch 
certification programs; Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 
documents and profiles; and published literature and reports on 
commercial fishing operations with intentional or incidental mortality 
and serious injury of marine mammals. NMFS has used the available 
information to classify each fishery as ``export'' or ``exempt'' to 
develop the LOFF.

How did NMFS determine which species or stocks are included as 
incidentally or intentionally killed or seriously injured in a fishery?

    The LOFF includes a column consisting of a list of marine mammals 
that co-occur with the commercial fisheries, that is, the distribution 
of marine mammals that overlaps with the distribution of commercial 
fishing activity. The marine mammals that co-occur with a fishery may 
or may not interact with or be incidentally or intentionally killed or 
injured in the fishery. The LOFF also includes a list of marine mammal 
species and/or stocks incidentally or intentionally killed or injured 
in a commercial fishing operation. The list of species and/or stocks 
incidentally or intentionally killed or injured includes ``serious'' 
and ``non-serious'' documented injuries and interactions with fishing 
gear, including interactions such as depredation.
    NMFS reviewed information submitted by nations (for inclusion in 
the 2017 LOFF, draft 2020 LOFF, and in their 2019 Progress Report) and 
readily available scientific information including co-occurrence models 
demonstrating distributional overlap of commercial fishing operations 
and marine mammals to determine which species or stocks to include as 
incidentally or intentionally killed or injured in or interacting with 
a fishery. NMFS also reviewed, when available, injury determination 
reports, bycatch estimation reports, observer data, logbook data, 
disentanglement network data, fisher self-reports, and the information 
referenced in the definition of exempt and export fishery (see 
Definitions above or 50 CFR 216.3).

How often will NMFS revise the list of foreign fisheries?

    NMFS will re-evaluate foreign commercial fishing operations and 
publish in the Federal Register the year prior to the expiration of the 
exemption period or previously issued Comparability Findings (e.g., 
this year and again in 2024) a notice of availability of the draft LOFF 
for public comment and a notice of availability of the final revised 
LOFF. NMFS will revise the final LOFF, as appropriate, and publish a 
notice of availability in the Federal Register every four years 
thereafter. In revising the list, NMFS may reclassify a fishery if new, 
substantive information indicates the need to re-examine and possibly 
reclassify a fishery. After January 1, 2022, all fisheries exporting 
products to the United States must be on the LOFF and have a 
Comparability Finding (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)(1)).
    After publication of the LOFF, if a nation wishes to commence 
exporting fish and fish products to the United States from a fishery 
not currently included in the LOFF, that fishery will be classified as 
an export fishery until the next LOFF is published and will be provided 
a provisional Comparability Finding for a period not to exceed twelve 
months. If a harvesting nation can provide 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. The provisions for new 
entrants are discussed in the regulations implementing section 
101(a)(2) of the MMPA (see 50 CFR 216.24(h)(8)(vi)).

How can a classification be changed?

    To change a fishery's classification, nations or other interested 
stakeholders must provide observer data, logbook summaries (preferably 
over a five-year period), or reports that specifically indicate the 
presence or absence of marine mammal interactions, quantify such 
interactions wherever possible, provide additional information on the 
location and operation of the fishery, details about the gear type and 
how it is used, maps showing the distribution of marine mammals and the 
operational area of the fishery, information regarding marine mammal 
populations and the biological impact of that fishery on those 
populations, and/or any other documentation that clearly demonstrates 
that a fishery is either an export or exempt fishery. Data from 
independent onboard observer programs documenting marine mammal 
interaction and bycatch is preferable and is given higher consideration 
than self-reports, logbooks, fishermen interviews, or sales tickets or 
dockside interviews. Such data can be summarized and averaged over at 
least a five-year period and include information on the observer 
program including the percent coverage, number of vessels, and sets or 
hauls observed. Nations should also indicate whether bycatch estimates 
from observer data are observed minimum counts or extrapolated 
estimates for the entire fishery. Nations submitting logbook 
information should include details about the reporting system, 
including examples of forms and requirements for reporting. Nations may 
make formal

[[Page 63530]]

requests to NMFS to reconsider a fishy classification.

Classification Criteria, Rationale, and Process Used To Classify 
Fisheries

Process When Incidental Mortality and Serious Injury Estimates and 
Bycatch Limits Are Available

    If estimates of the total incidental mortality and serious injury 
were available and a bycatch limit calculated for a marine mammal 
stock, NMFS used the quantitative and tiered analysis to classify 
foreign commercial fishing operations as export or exempt fisheries 
under the category definition within 50 CFR 229.2 and the procedures 
used to categorize U.S. fisheries as Category I, II, or III, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries.

Process When Only Incidental Mortality and Serious Injury Estimates 
Were Available

    For most commercial fisheries, NMFS is still lacking detail 
regarding marine mammal interactions and/or lacking quantitative 
information on the frequency of interactions. Where nations provided 
estimates of bycatch or NMFS found estimates of bycatch in published 
literature, national reports, or through other readily available 
sources, NMFS classified the fishery as an export fishery if the 
information indicated that there was a likelihood that the mortality 
and serious injury was more than remote.

Alternative Approaches When Estimates of Marine Mammal Bycatch Are 
Unavailable

    As bycatch estimates are lacking for most fisheries, NMFS relied on 
three considerations to assess the likelihood of bycatch or interaction 
with marine mammals, including: (1) Co-occurrence, the spatial and 
seasonal distribution and overlap of marine mammals and fishing 
operations as a measure of risk (Komoroske & Lewison 2015; FAO 2010; 
Watson et al., 2006; Read et al., 2006; Reeves et al., 2004); (2) 
analogous gear, evaluation of records of bycatch and assessment of 
risk, where such information exists, in analogous U.S. fisheries (MMPA 
List of Fisheries found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/list-fisheries-2019) and international fisheries or gear types; and (3) 
overarching classifications, evaluation of gears and fishing operations 
and their risk of marine mammal bycatch (see section below for further 
discussion). NMFS also evaluated other relevant information including, 
but not limited to, information on fishing techniques, gear used, 
methods used to deter marine mammals, target fish species, and seasons 
and areas fished; qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports; 
stranding data; and information on the species and distribution of 
marine mammals in the area, or other factors. Published scientific 
literature provides numerous risk assessments of marine mammal bycatch 
in fisheries, routinely using these approaches to estimate marine 
mammal mortality rates, identify information gaps, set priorities for 
conservation, and transfer technology for deterring marine mammals from 
gear and catch. Findings from the most recent publications cited in 
this Federal Register notice often demonstrate levels of risk by 
location, season, fishery, and gear.

Classification in the Absence of Information

    When no analogous gear, fishery, or fishery information existed, or 
insufficient information was provided by the nation and information was 
not readily available, NMFS classified the commercial fishing operation 
as an export fishery per the definition of ``export fishery'' at 50 CFR 
216.3. These fishing operations will remain classified as export 
fisheries until the harvesting nation provides the reliable information 
necessary to classify properly the fishery or, in the course of 
revising the LOFF, such information becomes readily available to NMFS.

Global Classifications for Some Fishing Gear Types

    Due to a lack of information about marine mammal bycatch, NMFS used 
gear types to classify fisheries as either export or exempt. The 
detailed rationale for these classifications by gear type were provided 
in the Federal Register notice for the draft 2017 LOFF (82 FR 39762; 
August 22, 2017) and are summarized here. In the absence of specific 
information showing a remote likelihood of marine mammal bycatch in a 
particular fishery, NMFS classified fisheries using these gear types as 
export. Exceptions to those classifications are included in the 
discussion below.
    NMFS classified as export all trap and pot fisheries because the 
risk of entanglement in float/buoy lines and groundlines is more than 
remote, especially in areas of co-occurrence with large whales. While 
many nations assert that marine mammals cannot enter the trap and 
become entangled, the risk is not from the trap but from the surface 
buoy line and the groundlines (lines that connect the traps). These 
lines represent an entanglement risk to large whales and some small 
cetaceans. However, NMFS classified as exempt trap and pot fisheries 
operating in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean due to the low co-
occurrence with large whales in this region and an analogous U.S. 
Category III mixed species and lobster trap/pot fishery operating in 
the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. NMFS classifies as exempt small-scale 
fish, crab, and lobster pot fisheries using mitigation strategies to 
prevent large whale entanglements, including seasonal closures during 
migration periods, ropeless fishing, and vertical line acoustic release 
technology.
    NMFS classified as export longline gear and troll line fisheries 
because the likelihood of marine mammal bycatch is more than remote. 
However, NMFS classified as exempt longline and troll fisheries with 
demonstrated bycatch rates that are less than remote or the fishery is 
analogous (by area, gear type, and target species) to U.S. Category III 
fishery operating in the area where the fishery occurs. The 
entanglement rates from marine mammals depredating longline gear is 
largely unknown. NMFS classifies as exempt snapper/grouper bottom-set 
longline fisheries operating in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean 
because they are analogous to U.S. Category III bottom-set longline 
gear operating in these areas. NMFS also classifies as exempt longline 
fisheries using a cachalotera system (e.g., system which protects bait 
and catch from marine mammal depredation), which prevents and, in some 
cases, eliminates marine mammal hook depredation and entanglement.
    NMFS uniformly classified as export all gillnet, driftnet, set net, 
fyke net, trammel net, and pound net fisheries because the likelihood 
of marine mammal bycatch in this gear type is more than remote. Few 
nations provided evidence that the likelihood of marine mammal bycatch 
in these gillnet and set net fisheries was less than remote. Those that 
did, demonstrated that the gillnet fishing area of operation did not 
overlap with marine mammal habitat.
    NMFS classified purse seine fisheries as export, unless the fishery 
is operating under an RFMO that has implemented conservation and 
management measures prohibiting the intentional encirclement of marine 
mammals by a purse seine. In those instances, NMFS classifies the purse 
seine fisheries as exempt because the evidence suggests that, where 
purse seine vessels do not intentionally set on marine mammals, the 
likelihood of marine mammal bycatch is generally

[[Page 63531]]

remote. However, if there is documentary evidence that a nation's purse 
seine fishery continues to incidentally kill or injure marine mammals 
despite such a prohibition, NMFS classified the fishery as an export 
fishery. Similarly, if any nation provided evidence that it had adopted 
and implemented a regulatory measure prohibiting the intentional 
encirclement of marine mammals by a purse seine vessel, that fishery 
would be designated as exempt, absent evidence that it continued to 
incidentally kill or injure marine mammals.
    NMFS classified as export all trawl fisheries, including bream 
trawls, pair trawls, and otter trawls, because the likelihood of marine 
mammal bycatch in this gear type is more than remote, and this gear 
type often co-occurs with marine mammal stocks. However, the krill 
trawl fishery operating under the Commission for the Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in subareas 48.1-4 is 
classified as exempt due to the conservation and management measures 
requiring marine mammal excluding devices, observer coverage and 
reporting requirements, and because total estimated marine mammal 
mortalities are less than ten percent of the bycatch limit/PBR for 
these pinniped stocks that interact with that fishery.
    There are several gear types that NMFS classified as exempt because 
they are highly selective, have a remote likelihood of marine mammal 
bycatch, or have analogous U.S. Category III fisheries. These gear 
types are: hand collection, diving, manual extraction, hand lines, hook 
and line, jigs, dredges, clam rakes, beach-operated hauling nets, ring 
nets, beach seines, small lift nets, cast nets, small bamboo weir, and 
floating mats for roe collection.
    NMFS classified Danish seine fisheries as exempt based on the 
remote likelihood of marine mammal bycatch because of a lack of 
documented interactions with marine mammals. The exception is any 
Danish seine fisheries with documentary evidence of marine mammal 
interactions, which NMFS classified as export.
    Finally, NMFS classified as exempt most forms of aquaculture, 
including lines and floating cages, unless documentary evidence 
indicates marine mammal interactions or entanglement, particularly of 
large whale entanglement in aquaculture seaweed or shellfish lines, or 
in cases where nations permit aquaculture facilities to intentionally 
kill or injure marine mammals.

Overview of the Final 2020 LOFF and the Response by Nations

    The 2020 final LOFF is composed of 953 exempt fisheries and 1852 
export fisheries from 131 nations (or economies). Eighty-five nations 
submitted updates to their draft 2020 LOFF, which NMFS used to create 
the final 2020 LOFF. The following nations are predominantly 
intermediary nations: Aruba, Belarus, Monaco, and Switzerland.
    The 2017 LOFF, the draft 2020 LOFF, the final 2020 LOFF, as well as 
a list of intermediary nations (or economies) and their associated 
products and sources of those products, and a list of fisheries and 
nations where the rule does not apply, can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.

Nations Failing To Respond

    More than 20 nations (or economies) \2\ failed to submit updates to 
their 2017 LOFF entries, their 2019 Progress Report and the Draft 2020 
LOFF. These nations include: Bahrain, British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, 
Cape Verde, Egypt, Haiti, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Libya, Mauritania, 
Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, Romania, Solomon Islands, South Africa, 
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turks and Caicos 
Islands, and Venezuela. These nations are not on a positive trajectory 
toward receiving Comparability Findings for their commercial fisheries 
and face a risk of trade restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The terms ``nation'' or ``harvesting nation'' includes 
foreign countries, nations, states, governments, territories, 
economies, or similar entities that have laws governing the 
fisheries operating under their control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMFS was able to confirm that approximately 65 nations are not 
exporting or do not intend to export fish or fish products to the 
United States in the coming years: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, 
Angola, Anguilla, Azerbaijan, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cayman 
Islands, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, East 
Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gaza Strip, 
Georgia, Gibraltar, Guadeloupe, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kosovo, Kuwait, 
Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, 
Martinique, Mongolia, Monserrat, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands 
Antilles, Niger, Niue, North Macedonia, North Korea, Paraguay, Qatar, 
San Marino, Serbia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tokelau, 
Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, West Bank, Western Sahara, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
    In the course of updating the draft2020 LOFF, NMFS added and/or re-
confirmed that the following nations were exporting to the United 
States to identify if they should be included on the LOFF and, if so, 
how to list their fisheries: Albania, Aruba, Belarus, Jordan, Libya, 
Lithuania, Slovakia, Somalia, St. Lucia, Togo, and Yemen. NMFS 
continues to work with Burundi, British Virgin Islands, Cambodia, 
French Guiana, Kazakhstan, Laos, Moldova, and Rwanda.
    NMFS urges nations to examine their exports to the United States 
over the last two decades and include all fisheries or processors and 
processed products which have, are, or in the future may be the source 
of fish and fish products exported to the United States. To ensure that 
no fisheries or processed products are overlooked in this process, 
nations should be as inclusive as possible. Nations or other entities 
should provide all the documentation and applicable references 
necessary to support any proposed modifications to the fisheries on the 
LOFF. If any nation on these lists intends to export fish and fish 
products to the United States, they should contact NMFS to ensure their 
fisheries are on the LOFF and that they apply for and receive a 
Comparability Finding.

General Changes From the Draft 2020 LOFF

Nations That Did Not Update Their Draft 2020 LOFF

    Approximately 55 nations (or economies) did not update the 
information in their LOFF. These nations (or economies) include: 
Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, British Virgin 
Islands, Brunei, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, 
Egypt, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Israel, Ivory Coast, 
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, 
Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, 
Papua New Guinea, Romania, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, 
Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, 
Tunisia, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, 
Vanuatu, and Yemen. As a result, the fishery classifications for these 
nations (or economies) for the most part remain unchanged from the 
draft2020 LOFF. It is uncertain what impact disruptions to government 
services or other extenuating

[[Page 63532]]

circumstances played in a nation's ability or failure to submit updates 
to its LOFF.

Updates to the Draft 2020 LOFF

    Nations updated their draft2020 LOFF through the NMFS International 
Affairs Information Capture and Reporting System (IAICRS). The IAICRS 
enables NMFS to achieve greater consistency and standardization in the 
reporting of target species, gear types, area of operation, and marine 
mammal interactions. Nations were instructed to revise their fisheries 
information to reflect their fishery management regime. Throughout the 
exemption period, harvesting nations continued to update and refine 
their LOFF. These modifications continue to improve the quantity, 
quality, consistency, and accuracy of the final 2020 LOFF. A record of 
all modifications are retained within the IAICRS.
    Harvesting nations undertook the following modifications:
     Linked exported seafood products to specific fisheries and 
identified the target (and associated non-target) species of those 
fisheries;
     aggregated multi-species fisheries into one fishery, as 
appropriate;
     updated gear types based on the FAO definitions of fishing 
gear, grouped by categories, in accordance with the FAO-recommended 
classification system, the International Standard Statistical 
Classification of Fishing Gear (ISSCFG);
     updated the area of operation using the FAO major fishing 
areas and subareas, and the nation's management areas within their EEZ 
within those FAO fishing subareas;
     eliminated fisheries that were solely for domestic 
consumption and added fisheries that export fish and fish products or 
intend in the future to export such products to the United States;
     updated their marine mammal abundance estimates;
     updated their marine mammal bycatch limits;
     updated their marine mammal bycatch estimates for some of 
their fisheries on the LOFF, including adding additional years of data 
(e.g., in accordance with NMFS' recommendation to include at least five 
years bycatch data); and
     updated bycatch estimates including information on the 
number of marine mammals killed, injured, and released alive in the 
fishery.
    NMFS maintains that the fisheries on the LOFF should reflect the 
commercial fisheries authorized by the harvesting nation, according to 
their fishery management system, to commercially fish and export fish 
and fish products to the United States. A list of commercial fisheries 
that were deleted from or added to the LOFF and modifications to the 
list of marine mammals that interact with fisheries that were retained 
on the LOFF can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.
    After harvesting nations revised the LOFF, NMFS reviewed fisheries 
and identified gear types indicated in a fishery that should be 
classified as an export fishery rather than as an exempt fishery, or 
vice versa. NMFS reclassified such fisheries from export to exempt or 
from exempt to export, as appropriate. A list of commercial fisheries 
with revised classifications can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.
    Finally, NMFS requested that nations update their list of marine 
mammals that co-occur with the fishery and specifically identify which 
marine mammals co-occur or overlap with commercial fishing operations 
from those that potentially or do interact with the fishery. This 
resulted in nations (such as Greenland, Turkey, and Cook Islands) 
revising their marine mammal lists to remove out-of-habitat marine 
mammals (i.e., marine mammal species incorrectly specified as being 
associated with a fishery when those species do not, in fact, inhabit 
that water body), specifying previously unspecified marine mammal 
species (i.e., changing from a designation of ``whale unspecified'' to 
an indication of a specific species), and removing species that may be 
distributed in or migrate through a nation's waters but those 
distributions do not overlap with the operation area of the fishery. 
Likewise, nations added to their lists of marine mammals that co-occur 
with their commercial fishing operations.
    The final 2020 LOFF is the last LOFF prior to the deadline for 
submission of Comparability Finding applications by nations. The 2020 
LOFF will be the foundation for all responses that nations must provide 
as part of their Comparability Finding application.

Nation-Specific Modifications Made to the Draft 2020 LOFF

    Several nations undertook significant revisions to their LOFF. 
These revisions include analysis of fishery bycatch compared to the 
bycatch limit to demonstrate a remote likelihood of bycatch, 
comparative analysis of fisheries with analogous U.S. domestic 
fisheries, and modification to their list of co-occurring marine 
mammals. Following is a summary of those changes. The changes to each 
fishery can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.

Canada

    Canadian net pen finfish aquaculture facilities without a history 
of marine mammal incidental or intentional mortality were reclassified 
as exempt fisheries. The reclassification was based on a comparison to 
U.S. salmon aquaculture operations. The U.S. salmon net pen aquaculture 
facilities are classified as Category III. Canadian net pen aquaculture 
is known to have an equally low likelihood of marine mammal 
interactions, and intentional killing of marine mammals has recently 
been banned in Canada. The Minister of the Department of Fisheries and 
Oceans Canada (DFO) notified Canadian aquaculture operators on March 
22, 2019, that the DFO would cease to authorize the lethal removal of 
nuisance seals effective immediately. At the same time, the DFO 
notified industry of its intention to prohibit this activity in 
regulation prior to 2022. Additionally, the Canadian Industry Alliance 
(CAIA) stated their members' commitment to ``no intentional mammal kill 
practices in [our] seafood farming operations within Canada,'' as well 
as their commitment to ``non-lethal and non-acoustic deterrence 
methods'' for marine mammals. The DFO has initiated the regulatory 
process to amend the Marine Mammal Regulations (MMR) and the Pacific 
Aquaculture Regulations (PAR) to remove regulatory provisions allowing 
aquaculture operators to use lethal force on marine mammals, with the 
exception of cases where there is an imminent threat to human life or 
humane dispatch of a seriously injured animal.
    Canada also has regulatory mechanisms in place that require the 
immediate notification of marine mammal mortality or serious injury by 
aquaculture operators. The MMR, which apply on the east coast, and the 
PAR Conditions of License in British Columbia both stipulate that the 
DFO must be immediately notified of marine mammal mortalities. 
Additionally, aquaculture operators are required under Marine Mammal 
Management Plans or Farm Management Plans to have marine mammal 
mitigation measures in place. These plans can describe non-lethal 
marine mammal deterrence methods, such as anti-predatory netting. 
Additionally, the DFO has undertaken a study of marine

[[Page 63533]]

mammal deterrence methods and identified humane and effective 
deterrence methods.
    Additionally, NMFS reclassified as exempt Canadian purse seine, 
tuck seine and bar seine fisheries. As stated in the 2020 draft LOFF 
(85 FR 15116, March 17, 2020), if any nation demonstrated that it had 
implemented a measure prohibiting the intentional encirclement of 
marine mammals by a purse seine vessel, that fishery would be 
designated as exempt, absent evidence that it continued to incidentally 
kill or injure marine mammals. In 2019, Canada implemented a measure 
under conditions of licenses prohibiting the encirclement of marine 
mammals in Atlantic purse seine, tuck seine, and bar seine fisheries. 
These fisheries operate in the Atlantic Regions and have a remote 
likelihood of marine mammal bycatch, as determined based on fishery 
monitoring (>=5 percent observer coverage and/or >=5 percent electronic 
monitoring). These fisheries have either no documented marine mammal 
bycatch over at least five fishing seasons, or individual bycatch 
levels <1 percent of bycatch limit and cumulative fishery bycatch 
levels <10 percent of the bycatch limit; prohibit intentional killing 
of marine mammals; have mandatory reporting of marine mammal 
interactions; and are analogous with U.S. Category III fisheries.
    NMFS also reclassified several other fisheries based on their 
having a remote likelihood of marine mammal bycatch and being analogous 
to U.S. Category III fisheries. The fisheries that were reclassified 
can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.

Chile

    Chile's LOFF had an exhaustive list of marine mammal populations 
identified as co-occurring with its fisheries. Chile's initial approach 
was to use the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 
data on geographic distribution to identify all marine mammals in 
Chilean waters regardless of whether they co-occurred with the fishery 
listed on the LOFF. After NMFS's technical consultations with Chile, 
Chile revised the list to reflect only marine mammal populations that 
actually co-occur or interact with its fisheries on the LOFF. Chile 
held workshops with marine mammal experts and reviewed the scientific 
literature to identify, on a precautionary basis, marine mammal species 
or stocks whose distribution overlaps with areas where fishing 
operations occur or that have some type of direct interaction with 
fisheries on the LOFF.

Description of the Columns on the LOFF

    The final 2020 LOFF is again organized by nation, and has listed 
the exempt and export fisheries for each nation. This list is organized 
by columns contains the following information. ``Target Species or 
Product'' is a list of the target species and the non-target species 
associated with that exempt or export fishery. For standardization 
purposes, this list includes common and scientific names for the 
fishery's target and non-target species.
    ``Gear Type'' is the list of fishing gears used to harvest the 
target species. As previously discussed, the gears are designated 
according to the FAO definitions of fishing gear and are grouped by 
categories in accordance with the FAO-recommended ISSCFG classification 
system.
    ``Number of Vessels/Licenses/Participants, Aquaculture Facilities'' 
is an estimate of the number of vessels authorized to fish in this 
fishery, the number of fishing permits or licenses issued by the nation 
for vessels, or the number of participants authorized to legally fish 
or operate in this fishery. In the case of aquaculture, it is the 
number of facilities authorized by the nation to operate aquaculture 
operations.
    ``Area of Operation'' is the FAO global fishing area and sub-
regional statistical area or division where the fishery operates. 
Nations may have also included fishery management areas specific to 
their laws and management structure with the FAO area, division, or 
subarea.
    ``Marine Mammal Interactions or Co-occurrence by Group, Species or 
Stock'' is a listing of marine mammal species or stocks of known marine 
mammals whose distribution overlaps the area of operation of the 
fishery. This list includes the marine mammal species/stock that may be 
found in or migrate through a nation's waters, specifically those 
marine mammals that have a regular and significant co-occurrence with 
this fishery, depredate on bait or catch, are captured and released 
alive, or are killed or injured in the fishery. Co-occurrence data is 
useful to develop risk assessment models in the absence of bycatch 
estimates.
    ``Marine Mammal Bycatch Estimates'' are the marine mammal species/
stocks and the average annual bycatch estimate for that species as 
provided by the harvesting nation. This list is likely to be a subset 
of the marine mammal species/stocks listed in the ``Marine Mammal 
Interactions or Co-occurrence by Group, Species or Stock'' column.
    ``RFMO'' indicates that the fishery is operating under the 
jurisdiction of, or adhering to the management measures of, one or 
several regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) or 
arrangements.

List of Intermediary Nations and Products for Nations That Are 
Processing Fish and Fish Products

    For the purposes of identifying intermediary nations, the list of 
intermediary nations and products include instances where a nation 
sources raw material from another nation for processing and re-export 
to the United States, or if the nation is both the harvester and 
processor of the raw material, or if the fish and fish product is 
harvested or processed elsewhere and transshipped through that nation's 
jurisdiction. In addition, the intermediary nation list also identifies 
whether the specific fish or fish product was harvested in the nation's 
waters under an ``Access/License/Charter Agreement or Bilateral/
Permitting Agreement.'' Nations have indicated whether the product was 
harvested by another nation operating under an agreement, and have 
indicated which nations are actively fishing in its waters for the 
listed product. If the product was not harvested in a nation's waters, 
but rather was imported into a nation from another nation for the 
purposes of processing, that nation indicated which nations provided 
the product or raw material. If the product was transshipped through a 
nation's border (i.e., transport only, with no value added), thus 
changing the product's origin so that it becomes a product of the 
nation through which it is transshipped, that nation indicated that it 
is solely transshipping the product. If a nation is performing some 
form of value-added processing of the product, then the nation did not 
indicate that it is solely transshipping. Finally, if a nation is also 
the harvester of this product, that nation indicated that it is 
sourcing this product from other nations and possibly co-mingling the 
product with product from its own active-harvest fisheries already on 
the LOFF. The current list of intermediary products is at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries.

The List of Fisheries Listed in ``Rule Does Not Apply''

    The MMPA Import Provisions do not apply to any land-based or 
freshwater aquaculture operations, as these

[[Page 63534]]

commercial fishing operations do not occur in marine mammal habitat. 
Nevertheless, NMFS is aiming to account for all fish and fish products 
exported by a nation to the United States in one of three categories: 
(1) LOFF (exempt and export fisheries); (2) Intermediary (processed or 
transshipped products); (3) Rule Does Not Apply (freshwater and inland 
fisheries/aquaculture). Fisheries that occur solely in fresh water 
outside any marine mammal habitat, and inland aquaculture operations, 
are exempt from this rule and are listed in the ``Rule Does Not Apply'' 
list.

Response to Comments

    NMFS received ten comment letters on the draft 2020 LOFF (85 FR 
15116; March 17, 2020). Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
and an industry group submitted comments, which are summarized below. 
Nations provided either comments or substantive changes in the form of 
updates to their LOFF through the IAICRS, those updates are summarized 
above.
    Several comments received were not germane to the draft LOFF and 
are not addressed in this section. These comments include references to 
actions outside the scope of the statutory mandate or actions covered 
under other rulemakings. Generally, comments from industry and the 
environmental community were supportive of NMFS's ongoing 
implementation of the MMPA Import Provisions. Both sectors recognize 
that the MMPA Import Provisions provide a mechanism to level the 
playing field for U.S. fishermen while improving fishing practices and 
the status of marine mammal populations worldwide. Animal Welfare 
Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, International Fund for 
Animal Welfare, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Whale and 
Dolphin Conservation (hereafter referred to as non-governmental 
organizations or NGOs) submitted extensive comments, which are 
summarized and responded to below. Comments received on the draft 2020 
LOFF are available for review at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket ID NOAA-NMFS-2020-0001.

General Comments

Legal Comments on the MMPA Import Provisions Rule and the Protocol for 
LOFF Treatment of Fish and Fish Products From Commercial Fishing 
Operations Not Identified in the LOFF
    Comment 1: NGOs commented that NMFS should provide clarity to 
exporters, importers, and the public that imports from commercial 
fishing operations not identified in the final LOFF as either exempt or 
export fisheries will be classified as an export fishery 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 (50 CFR 
216.3, defining ``export fishery''). As such, fish and fish products 
entering the United States from such fisheries must have a valid 
Comparability Finding, be accompanied by a Certificate of 
Admissibility, or be accompanied by other documentation required by 
NMFS indicating that the fish or fish products were not caught or 
harvested in a fishery subject to an import prohibition (Id. Sec.  
216.24(h)(i)-(iii)). Otherwise, such fish and fish products will be 
banned from entry into the United States pursuant to Section 101(a)(2) 
of the MMPA. Without such a Comparability Finding (or Certificate of 
Admissibility or other documentation), there is no reasonable proof 
that imports are meeting U.S. standards and such imports must be barred 
from entry.
    Response: The MMPA Import Provisions Rule (50 CFR 216.24(h)) 
clearly provides that all fisheries that export to the United States 
must be on the LOFF. It is equally clear that a harvesting nation must 
apply for and receive a Comparability Finding for each of its export 
and exempt fisheries on the LOFF to continue to export fish and fish 
products from those fisheries to the United States. For purposes 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. 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 that was caught or harvested in a fishery that 
does not have a valid Comparability Finding in effect at the time of 
import.
    NMFS disagrees with these NGO commenters that a Certification of 
Admissibility must accompany each shipment from a nation. A 
Certification of Admissibility may only be required in situations where 
fish or fish products are subject to an import prohibition and the 
Assistant Administrator, to avoid circumvention of the import 
prohibition, requires 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 (50 CFR 216.24 (h)(9)(iii)).
Evaluating a Nation's Progress in Reducing Bycatch
    Comment 2: NGOs commented that NMFS should strongly urge nations to 
demonstrate in their Comparability Finding applications that they meet 
all conditions established in Section (h)(6)(iii) of the regulations. 
For fisheries operating in their own EEZs, this includes prohibiting 
intentional mortality, conducting marine mammal stock assessments, 
maintaining a fisheries register, requiring bycatch reduction, 
conducting monitoring, and proving that bycatch does not exceed PBR (or 
a comparable scientific metric) (50 CFR 216.24(h)(6)(iii)).
    Response: For any nation applying to receive a Comparability 
Finding for a fishery, NMFS must determine that the harvesting nation 
maintains a regulatory program with respect to the fishery that is 
comparable in effectiveness to the U.S. regulatory program regarding 
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). The 
term ``comparable in effectiveness'' 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 different 
program that achieves the same results. NMFS does not require that 
every nation implement every element outlined in 50 CFR 216.24 
(h)(6)(iii). For example, if a particular fishery with high bycatch 
switches to non-entangling gear and can demonstrate that it has 
virtually eliminated its bycatch, that action can be considered 
comparable in effectiveness. Likewise, if a nation chooses to eliminate 
its bycatch by implementing time or area-based closures and can 
demonstrate the effectiveness of such closures, that regulatory program 
may be considered comparable in effectiveness. When making this 
determination, NMFS evaluates a harvesting nation's implementation of 
bycatch mitigation measures that will result in clear and significant 
bycatch reductions.
    Comment 3: NGOs reiterated their concern with 50 CFR 216.24 (h)(7) 
of the MMPA Import Provisions Rule, which allows NMFS to make several

[[Page 63535]]

considerations in determining whether a nation's regulatory program is 
comparable. These considerations include the progress a foreign 
exporter has made in achieving its bycatch objectives, the likelihood a 
nation's regulations will reduce bycatch, and the extent to which the 
harvesting nation has successfully implemented bycatch measures (50 CFR 
216.24(h)(7)(ii), (iii)). The commenters express concern that these 
considerations would give NMFS flexibility in determining whether 
nations' bycatch programs are comparable to the U.S. program, even if 
nations exceed PBR or a similar bycatch limit. They maintain that the 
MMPA Import Provisions require that NMFS shall ban fish imports if 
exporting fisheries' serious injury and mortality (SI/M) exceeds United 
States standards (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)). The commenters claim the MMPA 
does not allow nations with fisheries with unknown or declining bycatch 
or bycatch in excess of PBR to enter the United States. They assert 
that NMFS has no statutory authority to deem nations comparable for 
half-measures taken or for mere improvement and that NMFS must require 
nations to meet U.S. bycatch standards.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that there will be situations, similar to 
those encountered in our domestic fisheries, where Comparability 
Finding 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 reduce marine mammal bycatch 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)). NMFS cannot establish a standard for other nations that 
is more rigorous than the U.S. regulatory standard under which we 
operate.
    Comment 4: NGO commenters state that NMFS must treat nations 
equally to ensure fairness but also to ensure any import bans will 
withstand a potential challenge under the World Trade Organization 
(``WTO''). NMFS must apply the same protective and statutorily required 
standard for all nations.
    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 the MMPA Import Provisions Rule, 
including this final LOFF, will be in accordance with U.S. obligations 
under the WTO and other applicable international law. 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.
Marine Mammal Mortality
    Comment 5: NGOs requested that NMFS clarify how many years of 
mortality data may be used to calculate the ``Annual Average Mortality 
Estimate'' for each stock in a fishery. To ensure consistency for 
reporting, the commenters urged NMFS to recommend to nations that they 
use a five-year average unless a nation demonstrates that data quantity 
and quality for a particular fishery justifies a different average.
    Response: NMFS uses the Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment 
Reports Pursuant to Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(NMFS 2016) when advising nations on the development of their 
regulatory plans. The commenters should note that in the Federal 
Register notice (85 FR 15116 at 15119, March 17, 2020) under the 
section entitled ``Instructions to Nations Reviewing the Draft 2020 
LOFF and Actions Needed by Nations,'' nations are requested to update 
their marine mammal bycatch estimates for each fishery on the LOFF, 
including adding additional years of data (e.g., at least five years). 
IAICRS makes clear that we are requesting that the nation provide at 
least five years of data. The availability of bycatch data or estimates 
varies greatly over 129 nations and, just like within the United 
States, is a function of the bycatch monitoring or reporting program.
Basis for Exempt and Export Determinations
    Comment 6: NGOs state that NMFS should disclose the basis for its 
determinations of whether a fishery is exempt or export. They stated 
that, unlike NMFS's draft and final 2017 LOFFs, the 2020 draft LOFF 
does not contain either references or detailed information and a few 
other critical categories (rationale, company name, etc.). The 
commenters state that this transparency is critical for the public to 
understand the decisions being made, whether the decisions are 
consistent, and whether they have sufficient support as is required 
under the Administrative Procedure Act (see Ctr. for Biological 
Diversity v. Kempthorne, 466 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) ``It is 
insufficient for requisite determinations to be lurking in the 
administrative record yet be unidentified in the decision itself.'').
    Response: The draft 2017 LOFF and final 2017 LOFF contained a 
summary of the information used to support the designations or 
identification of fisheries (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/list-foreign-fisheries). The draft 2017 
LOFF (82 FR 39762, August 22, 2017), the final 2017 LOFF (83 FR 11703, 
March 16, 2018), the draft 2020 LOFF (85 FR 15116 at 15119, March 17, 
2020), and this document explain the basis for the classification of 
the exempt and export fisheries in a clear and transparent manner. 
Additionally, the draft 2017 and final 2017 LOFF contained a ``Detailed 
Information'' column which served as a catch-all for information that 
did not fit within the confines of the excel format, or contained 
references used in identifying fisheries from non-responsive nations. 
The move to IAICRS allowed for a level of consistency in data capture 
that was not available in the 2017 format to capture this information 
in the relevant columns published in the 2020 LOFF versions.
    Comment 7: The NGOs cite NMFS' stock assessment guidance to assert 
that logbook data alone should not be used as a basis for exempting a 
fishery from regulatory requirements. The commenters seek to understand 
the quality and level of statistical rigor of the data that nations are 
reporting, and they further assert a nation's report of no or 
insignificant bycatch based on logbook data alone should not be a basis 
for classifying a fishery as exempt, particularly if there is any 
evidence of bycatch in similar gear types.

[[Page 63536]]

    Response: The Federal Register notices previously published for 
each LOFF clearly state that if estimates of the total incidental 
mortality and serious injury were available and a bycatch limit was 
calculated for a marine mammal stock, NMFS used the quantitative and 
tiered analysis to classify foreign commercial fishing operations as 
export or exempt fisheries under the category definition within 50 CFR 
229.2 and the procedures used to categorize U.S. fisheries as Category 
I, II, or III, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-protection-act-list-fisheries (85 FR 
15116 at 15119, March 17, 2020). However, NMFS has only been able to 
use that process for one fishery, the krill trawl fishery operating 
under CCAMLR in the Antarctic Peninsula region. Norway provided 
evidence that the bycatch limit for Antarctic fur seals in this region 
has been calculated at 88,200 individuals and the estimated incidental 
mortality and serious injury for these krill fisheries operating in the 
CCAMLR Convention Area is less than ten percent of the bycatch limit, 
making these fisheries exempt (83 FR 11703, March 16, 2018).
    As NMFS has reiterated in previous notices and this Federal 
Register notice, the lack of information about marine mammal bycatch 
(including bycatch limits derived from logbooks), requires that NMFS 
use gear types to classify fisheries as either export or exempt. The 
detailed rationales for these classifications by gear type were 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the draft 2017 LOFF (82 FR 
39762; August 22, 2017) and are summarized above in this notice. In the 
absence of specific information showing a remote likelihood of marine 
mammal bycatch in a particular fishery, NMFS classified fisheries using 
these gear types as export. Exceptions to those classifications are 
discussed above.

Comments on Nations Listed as Not Exporting to the United States

    Comment 8: The NGOs note that the Federal Register notice for the 
draft 2020 LOFF lists 72 nations that have no record of exporting fish 
and fish products to the United States (85 FR 15118; March 17, 2020). 
However, they claim that their review of import data, from both NOAA's 
Foreign Fishery Trade Data database and the commercial subscription 
Panjiva database (https://panjiva.com/), demonstrates that several of 
the listed nations do export fish to the United States. They state that 
NMFS must include each of these exporting nations on the LOFF and 
should conduct a 20-year review of these databases to ensure the LOFF 
is correct.
    Response: In preparing the LOFF and engaging in technical 
consultations, NMFS periodically conducts a 20-year review of is 
Foreign Fishery Trade Data and continues to monitor seafood supply 
chains. NMFS continues to work with other U.S. trade programs, offices, 
and partner agencies to confirm trade data is accurate and verify 
active seafood import streams. NMFS routinely verifies exports to the 
United States as part of its ongoing consultations with nations as well 
as with relevant RFMOs. In the course of import verification, if NMFS 
identifies a nation not previously on the LOFF as newly exporting 
seafood products, NMFS reviews and confirms that the trade data is 
accurate. Then, NMFS consults with the nation on whether the product 
falls under the MMPA and adds that product to the LOFF as appropriate.
    Comment 9: The NGOs highlight the MMPA Import Provisions Rule 
allowance of a one-year, provisional Comparability Finding for a 
fishery not listed on the LOFF if it is the source of new exports to 
the United States (50 CFR 216.24(h)(8)(vi)). They assert, however, any 
fish product that has in the past been exported to the United States 
cannot qualify as a ``new export,'' and NMFS cannot grant a one-year 
provisional Comparability Finding for the fishery. They further assert 
that NMFS must instead deny imports until the nation demonstrates 
comparability.
    Response: NMFS disagrees because seafood supply chains are 
constantly changing. Moreover, vessels change flags, and fisheries are 
closed or halted for management purposes, while other fisheries 
commence on an experimental basis. The commenters' interpretation of a 
``new export'' is unduly restrictive. Products that have not been 
exported to the United States for several years due to fishery closures 
or changes in patterns in trade should be considered ``new exports,'' 
especially if they are under a new fishery management regime. As soon 
as NMFS becomes aware of new sources of fish product imports, NMFS will 
notify the exporting nations and begin consultations to characterize 
the production methods and supply chain. Absent information to make an 
informed decision, imposing a trade restriction from the outset could 
unduly constrain otherwise admissible products. In addition, it would 
be difficult to work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
impose embargoes and/or documentation requirements without knowing the 
details of the supply chain. Imprecise instructions to CBP could 
disrupt legitimate trade. It is anticipated that such ``new export'' 
situations would not involve significant trade volumes and could be 
addressed in a short time frame through a consultative process.
    Comment 10: The NGOs stated they reviewed NOAA's Foreign Fishery 
Trade Data for all 72 listed nations that are not on the LOFF due to 
lack of exports to find any imports of fish or fish products over the 
last 10 years (from 2010 to 2020). Their review identified 27 of these 
nations that exported fish or fish products during this period. They 
urged NMFS to contact the nations listed below that have exported and 
inform them that they must apply for a Comparability Finding for any 
fishery by March 2021, if they wish to export their product after 
January 1, 2022. The nations are: (1) Afghanistan; (2) Anguilla; (3) 
Aruba; (4) Bolivia; (5) Bosnia and Herzegovina; (6) Cura[ccedil]ao; (7) 
Burundi; (8) Cayman Islands; (9) Congo (Kinshasa); (10) Djibouti; (11) 
Gabon; (12) Georgia; (13) Gibraltar; (14) Guinea-Bissau; (15) French 
Guinea; (16) Kyrgyzstan; (17) Laos; (18) Lebanon; (19) Marshall 
Islands; (20) Martinique; (21) Niue; (22) Palau; (23) Serbia; (24) Sint 
Maarten (25) Tokelau; (26) Uzbekistan; (27) Zambia.
    Response: As previously described, NMFS continues to verify trade 
data and consult with nations, including those with potentially newly 
identified imports. The LOFF reflects a nation's fisheries management 
authorities and its organization. In cases where an economy is a 
territory or otherwise grouped with another nation, we have seen 
misreporting due to issuing authorities that might be based in one 
jurisdictional area but are validating fish imports produced from 
another jurisdictional area. Following are NMFS's findings for the 27 
nations identified by the NGO commenters. NMFS confirmed either data 
entry errors or country code error for: Bolivia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Cayman Islands, Djibouti, Gabon, Georgia, Gibraltar, 
Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan, Martinique, Lebanon, Niue, Serbia, Tokelau, 
Uzbekistan, and Zambia. These errors can result in fish and fish 
products being identified as originating in a particular nation that 
does not export that product. NMFS is in consultation with, and is 
awaiting a response from, Burundi, Laos, and French Guiana regarding 
their export status (e.g., harvesting nation, processing nation or 
both). The commenters should note that Marshall Islands and Palau are 
on both the 2017 and the 2020 LOFF. Based on NMFS consultations, we 
added Aruba to the 2020 LOFF. Finally, NMFS confirmed

[[Page 63537]]

that Afghanistan, Anguilla, Congo (Kinshasa), Cura[ccedil]ao, and Saint 
Maarten have no imports and do not intend to export seafood products to 
the United States.

Comments Regarding Classification of Certain Gear Types

Gillnet Fisheries
    Comment 11: The NGOs assert that NMFS must presume all gillnet 
fisheries are export fisheries in the absence of specific information 
fully documenting that a particular fishery has had no bycatch for at 
least a five-year period, based on robust monitoring by observers or by 
tamper evident or tamper proof electronic monitoring (EM) systems that 
have been demonstrated to be effective at detecting bycatch. They also 
stated that as a general rule ``it is reasonable to assume that where 
fisheries coincide with coastally-distributed cetaceans, bycatch, 
however poorly documented, will occur.'' The commenters also asserted 
that even gillnet fisheries that are implementing mitigation techniques 
may not be addressing the problem sufficiently to be classified as 
exempt.
    Response: NMFS agrees. It is precisely for this reason that NMFS 
uses co-occurrence information, analogous fisheries in the United 
States, and all available information, and has designated all gillnet 
fisheries as export fisheries as the default classification. Only three 
Canadian gillnet fisheries are classified as exempt after extensive 
consultation with Canada about the nature of these fisheries. The 
exempt classification is due to their location (inshore or near-shore 
estuaries), and the documented lack of co-occurrence with marine mammal 
populations in the region. The Federal Register notices for the 2017 
LOFF and the draft 2020 LOFF make clear that nations wishing to 
challenge this designation must provide sufficient observer or logbook 
data that refutes this determination and that clearly demonstrates that 
a gillnet fishery poses a remote likelihood of incidental mortality and 
serious injury to marine mammals.
Trap/Pot Fisheries
    Comment 12: The NGOs stated that NMFS must presume that all trap/
pot fisheries in habitats of large whales are export fisheries in the 
absence of specific information fully documenting that a particular 
fishery has had no bycatch for at least a five-year period, based on 
robust monitoring by observers or electronic monitoring. The commenters 
asserted that trap/pot fisheries that use vertical lines to mark gear 
are responsible for baleen whale bycatch, and that it is difficult to 
estimate bycatch of large whales in trap/pot gear, as larger whales can 
carry gear long distances and, as a result, serious injury and 
mortality in trap/pot gear goes undetected.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has classified all pot/trap fisheries as 
export fisheries, with the exception of those analogous to U.S. 
Category III trap/pot fisheries such as the Caribbean mixed species 
trap/pot and the Caribbean spiny lobster trap/pot.
Longline Fisheries
    Comment 13: The NGOs assert that marine mammals are often entangled 
or hooked in longline gear, and subject to suffering, serious injury, 
and mortality and serious injury as a result of the interactions. 
Accordingly, NMFS must presume all longline fisheries are export 
fisheries in the absence of specific information fully documenting that 
a particular fishery has had no bycatch for at least a five-year 
period, based on robust monitoring by observers or electronic 
monitoring.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The commenters should note that the Federal 
Register notice for the 2020 draft LOFF classifies longline gear and 
troll line fisheries as export fisheries because the likelihood of 
marine mammal bycatch is more than remote. However, NMFS classified as 
exempt longline and troll fisheries with a remote likelihood of bycatch 
or where the fishery is analogous (by area, gear type, and target 
species) to U.S. Category III fishery operating in the area where the 
fishery occurs. NMFS classifies as exempt snapper/grouper bottom-set 
longline fisheries operating in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean 
because they are analogous to U.S. Category III bottom-set longline 
gear operating in these areas. NMFS also classifies longline fisheries 
using a cachalotera system as exempt, because the chachalotera system 
prevents, and in some cases eliminates, marine mammal hook depredation 
and entanglement.
Purse Seine Fisheries
    Comment 14: NGOs state that NMFS must presume that all purse seine 
fisheries are export fisheries in the absence of specific information 
fully documenting that a particular fishery has had no bycatch for at 
least a five-year period, based on robust monitoring by observers or 
electronic monitoring.
    Response: NMFS has classified purse seine fisheries as export 
fisheries, unless the fishery is operating under RFMO conservation and 
management measures or national regulations (comparable to those of the 
United States) prohibiting the intentional encirclement of marine 
mammals by a purse seine. In those instances, NMFS classifies the purse 
seine fisheries as exempt because the evidence suggests that where 
purse seine vessels do not intentionally set on marine mammals, the 
likelihood of marine mammal bycatch is generally remote. Exceptions 
include where a fishery is operating under a regulated non-encirclement 
provision and there is documentary evidence that such a provision is 
not being enforced. Fisheries of nations that are not enforcing non-
encirclement provisions are classified as export fisheries.
Trawl Fisheries
    Comment 15: NGOs assert that NMFS must presume that all trawl 
fisheries are export fisheries in the absence of specific information 
fully documenting that a particular fishery has had no bycatch for at 
least a five-year period based on robust monitoring by observers or 
electronic monitoring because, in the case of small cetaceans, 
mitigation is difficult as no reliably effective technical solutions to 
reduce small cetacean bycatch in trawl nets are available.
    Response: NMFS classified as export all trawl fisheries, including 
beam trawls, pair trawls, and otter trawls, because the marine mammal 
bycatch in this gear type is more than remote and this gear type often 
co-occurs with marine mammal stocks. There are some exceptions to this, 
including some shellfish trawls and dredges classified as exempt due to 
the remote likelihood of interaction with marine mammals and analogous 
U.S. Category III fisheries, such as the: Atlantic shellfish bottom 
trawl, Gulf of Maine sea urchin dredge, Gulf of Maine mussel dredge, 
Gulf of Maine sea scallop dredge, U.S. Mid-Atlantic sea scallop dredge, 
Mid-Atlantic blue crab dredge, Mid-Atlantic soft-shell clam dredge, 
Mid-Atlantic whelk dredge, U.S. Mid-Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico oyster 
dredge, and the New England and Mid-Atlantic offshore surf clam/quahog 
dredge. Additionally, the trawl fisheries operating under CCAMLR for 
toothfish, mackerel icefish, and krill are classified as exempt due to 
the conservation and management measures requiring marine mammal 
excluding devices and because levels of marine mammal mortalities are 
less than ten percent of the bycatch limit/PBR for marine mammal stocks 
that interact with these fisheries.
Other Gear
    Comment 16: NGOs raised concern with NMFS classifying several gear

[[Page 63538]]

types as exempt because the gear is highly selective or has a remote 
likelihood of bycatch, specifically handline gear and pole-and-line 
gear used in tuna fisheries, citing both gear types as having dolphin 
bycatch. The commenters also challenged the exempt classification for 
aquaculture and tuna fishing using fish aggregating devices (FADs), 
citing instances of entanglement.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed the gear types cited by the commenters. 
However, individual instances of entanglement and mortality or 
entanglement and release are, by themselves, insufficient to justify 
reclassifying a fishery as an export fishery. Exempt fisheries are not 
required to have zero bycatch. An 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. The fisheries the commenters cite are 
analogous to Category III fisheries in the United States. Moreover, all 
exempt and export fisheries are required to report marine mammal 
incidental mortality and serious injury. In the event that NMFS 
determines that an exempt fishery has more than a remote likelihood of 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations, that fishery will be reclassified as 
export fishery.

Comments on Specific Nation Bycatch

    Comment 17: The NGOs provided charts for each nation within the 
Draft 2020 LOFF ``Comments on Specific Nation Bycatch.'' The charts 
list products from particular nation's fisheries that the NGOs believe 
are imported into the United States.
    Response: The fish and fish product information provided by the 
commenters lack a reference to specific trade documentation for either 
the exporting nation or the United States as the importing nation. NMFS 
assumes that the commenters used United States trade data and attempted 
(based on unspecified assumptions) to link such products to fisheries 
either on, or omitted from, the LOFF as the source of those fish and 
fish products. NMFS has taken a more rigorous approach to identify the 
source fisheries for fish and fish products. NMFS has worked with 
nations to identify the target and associated non-target species for 
each fishery listed on the LOFF. NMFS provided nations with a list of 
fish and fish product descriptions and requested that nations identify 
whether they were the harvester, processor, or both for that product. 
This action required nations to investigate their seafood supply chains 
to provide this information. For harvesting nations, NMFS requested 
that they identify the fishery or fisheries that were the source of 
that product.
Mexico
    Comment 18: The NGOs provide information about the unauthorized use 
of other gear types within the hand lines fishery and the hand operated 
pole-and-line fishery for Pacific sierra and Gulf weakfish.
    Response: The LOFF contains only those commercial fishing 
operations authorized by the harvesting nation to fish and export fish 
and fish products to the United States. 50 CFR 18.3 defines a 
commercial fishing operation as the lawful harvesting of fish from the 
marine environment for profit as part of an on-going business 
enterprise. This does not include sport-fishing activities, whether or 
not they are carried out by charter boat or otherwise, or whether or 
not the fish so caught are subsequently sold. Regulations at 50 CFR 
229.2 also define a commercial fishing operation as the catching, 
taking, or harvesting of fish 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 harvested. The term includes licensed 
commercial passenger fishing vessel activities (as defined in section 
216.3 of 50 CFR 216) and aquaculture activities. Per the application of 
these two definitions, the LOFF contains export and exempt fisheries 
that are engaged in the lawful and authorized commercial harvest of 
fish from the marine environment. Additionally, fish and fish products 
from nations that do not seek to include unauthorized fisheries under 
the LOFF or that do not seek a Comparability Finding for an 
unauthorized fishery and products from a fishery without a 
Comparability Finding, are inadmissible under the MMPA Import 
Provisions.
    Comment 19: NGOs identified the following fisheries as being 
omitted from Mexico's LOFF: Bigeye croaker/chano gillnet; sole gillnet; 
California halibut bottom set gillnets; rooster hind bottom set 
gillnets; Pacific jack mackerel; yellowfin tuna purse seine; and 
herring purse seine.
    Response: NMFS investigated and determined that the species listed 
above are included on the LOFF and harvested either with the gear types 
listed or other gear types. Fish can be harvested with an array of 
authorized gear types, but not all authorized gear types are used to 
harvest fish that are exported to the United States. Generally, larger 
industrial fleets using purse seine, longline, and trawl gear export 
fish and fish products, while artisanal or small-scale fleets use 
gillnets to harvest fish for domestic consumption. NMFS worked with 
nations to identify the commercially authorized fisheries and their 
associated gear types that are the source of fish and fish products 
exported to the United States. While NMFS will continue to update and 
revise the LOFF in consultation with nations, commenters should not 
assume that all commercial fishing operations operating within a nation 
export fish and fish products to the United States and should, 
therefore, be included on the LOFF. Fish and fish products harvested by 
fisheries and retained for domestic consumption are not included on the 
LOFF.
Peru
    Comment 20: NGOs identified two shark longline fisheries with 
marine mammal interactions, and cited instances where small cetacean 
meat was used as bait. They also noted that a shark driftnet fishery 
had interactions with several marine mammal species. Additionally, the 
commenters listed three fisheries, which they acknowledge have no 
record of exports to the United States, as being omitted from the LOFF 
(porbeagle longlines, Peruvian weakfish purse seines, red mullet 
gillnets).
    Response: The LOFF for Peru includes shark fisheries using 
driftnets, longlines, and gillnets. Each fishery is listed as 
interacting with marine mammals. Peru continues to investigate and 
quantify its marine mammal bycatch in its fisheries. With regard to the 
use of small cetaceans for bait, Peru's laws prohibit the intentional 
killing, sale, or consumption of marine mammals. When documentary 
evidence indicates that a nation is not effectively enforcing its 
regulatory measures related to the intentional or incidental mortality 
or serious injury of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing 
operations, NMFS will use the MMPA Import Provisions to consult and 
possibly reconsider any Comparability Finding. Regarding the three 
fisheries claimed to be missing from the LOFF, we note that these 
fisheries are not on the LOFF because fisheries that do not export 
products to the United States are not included on the LOFF.
    Comment 21: NGOs noted a fishery for rays, flounder, lobster, and 
smooth hound caught with bottom set nets was omitted from the LOFF for 
Peru.

[[Page 63539]]

    Response: Currently, rays are on the LOFF for Peru as an export 
fishery, as rays are caught in the shark driftnet fishery. Lobster is 
on the intermediary product list. Flounder have not been exported to 
the United States since 2005, and, therefore, are not included on the 
LOFF. Nevertheless, NMFS will consult with Peru regarding this fishery.
Ecuador
    Comment 22: NGOs stated that the issue of marine mammal-baited FADs 
has recently emerged as a threat to the conservation of marine mammals 
in Ecuador and should be addressed. Incidentally captured, killed, or 
otherwise retrieved cetaceans and pinnipeds have been used as bait for 
improvised FADs. Approximately a fifth of dead marine mammals found 
stranded along Ecuador's beaches were associated with FADs over the 
period 2001 to 2017 (Castro et. al. 2020).
    Response: Similar to Peru's laws, Ecuador's laws prohibit the 
intentional killing, sale, or consumption of marine mammals. When 
documentary evidence indicates that a nation is not effectively 
enforcing its regulatory measures related to the intentional or 
incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in the course 
of commercial fishing operations, NMFS will use the MMPA Import 
Provisions to consult and possibly reconsider any Comparability 
Finding. Nevertheless, NMFS will consult with Ecuador regarding this 
fishery.
    Comment 23: NGOs claim that shark, tuna, marlin, and bonito gillnet 
fisheries and a longline fishery for sharks were not included in the 
LOFF for Ecuador, and that, for some fisheries on the LOFF, 
interactions with certain marine mammal species are missing, such as 
sperm whale, bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin, pilot whales, and 
humpback whales.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. On the LOFF for Ecuador there is a multi-
species large pelagic gillnet fishery that includes tuna, marlin, 
bonito, swordfish, and sharks. There is also a longline fishery for 
these target species, including sharks. The species recorded as co-
occurring or interacting with this fishery include all of the species 
the commenters assert as being omitted. The list includes: Common 
bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin, saddleback dolphin, dusky dolphin, 
humpback whale, killer whale/orca, offshore pantropical spotted 
dolphin, pygmy sperm whale, sea lion unspecified, sperm whale, and 
pilot whale unspecified.
India
    Comment 24: NGOs highlight the significant bycatch in gillnets for 
tuna and tuna-like species of spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), 
Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus), long-beaked common 
dolphin (Delphinus capensis), Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin (Sousa 
chinensis), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), and dolphins 
unspecified.
    Response: NMFS is aware of this bycatch and recent literature that 
further elaborates on the extent of gillnet bycatch in Indian Ocean 
tuna fisheries. India indicated that there is no interaction, 
mortality, or injury in its tuna gillnet fisheries with the cetaceans 
listed as co-occurring with that fishery. In this case, NMFS has 
documentary evidence to the contrary and will be consulting with India 
to modify the LOFF where necessary in advance of issuing a 
Comparability Finding. Additionally, commenters should note that in 
2016, NMFS issued a determination, under the Dolphin Protection 
Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), of regular and significant mortality 
and serious injury of dolphins in gillnet fisheries harvesting tuna by 
vessels flagged under the Government of India (81 FR 66625, September 
28, 2016). NMFS' determinations under the DPCIA are based on review of 
scientific information and, when available, documentary evidence 
submitted by the relevant government. The NMFS 2016 determination 
triggered additional documentation requirements for tuna product from 
those fisheries that is exported to or offered for sale in the United 
States. Such tuna must be accompanied by a written statement executed 
by an observer participating in a national or international program 
acceptable to NMFS, in addition to a statement by the captain of the 
vessel that certifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured 
in the sets or other gear deployments in which the tuna were caught and 
that contains certain other required information regarding dolphin 
interactions and segregation of tuna.
    Comment 25: NGOs identified sardine purse seine fisheries 
interacting with finless porpoise, and identified four shore seine 
fisheries for scad, sardine, snapper, mackerel, frigate tuna, and 
Indian prawn as also interacting with finless porpoise.
    Response: On the LOFF for India, sardines are harvested by purse 
seines and gillnets, both of which are listed as interacting with 
finless porpoise. Regarding the shore seine fisheries, these fisheries 
are likely small-scale fisheries, and the products harvested by this 
gear-type are typically retained for domestic consumption. Fisheries 
only harvesting fish and fish products that are retained for domestic 
consumption are not on the LOFF. All species harvested by shore seines 
can be found on the LOFF as they are also harvested by other gear types 
in fisheries that do export products. Scad are found on the LOFF as 
``Carangids nei'' and are listed as being caught by handlines, 
longlines, and gillnet gears, and listed as interacting with finless 
porpoise.
Spain
    Comment 26: NGOs state that all aquaculture in Spain is based on 
stocking net pens with fish obtained from wild-capture harvest. The 
majority of captured tunas are fattened over time in the farming 
operation. These tuna are initially captured by purse seine, which 
represent more than 90 percent of the Mediterranean catches. Most of 
the catch is obtained through purse seine fishing on FADs, followed by 
capture with longlines. Farmed tuna is fed sardine (Pilchardus spp.), 
Sardinela or alacha (Sardinella spp), horse mackerel (Trachurus 
trachurus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), starling (Scomber japonicus), 
and cephalopods, and NMFS must consider whether these fisheries for the 
feed inputs to tuna farms have interactions with marine mammals.
    Response: Purse seine and longline fisheries in the Mediterranean 
operating under ICCAT for tuna and tuna-like species, including bluefin 
tuna, are included as export fisheries. The MMPA Import Provisions 
clearly state that the Secretary of the Treasury shall ban the 
importation of commercial fish or products from fish which have been 
caught (emphasis added) with commercial fishing technology which 
results in the incidental kill or incidental serious injury of ocean 
mammals in excess of United States standards. This provision of the 
MMPA does not give NMFS the authority to regulate feed used in 
aquaculture facilities by means of trade restrictions on the end 
products from those facilities.
United Kingdom
    Comment 27: NGOs noted that the longline fisheries in the SW 
Atlantic fall under CCAMLR monitoring and stated that it is not clear 
why the Falklands longline fishery for toothfish is an exempt fishery, 
whereas the United Kingdom South Georgia longline fishery for toothfish 
is an export fishery. Marine mammal mortality in the United Kingdom 
South Georgia fishery is rare

[[Page 63540]]

(four incidents reported since 2007), but there is no reason to think 
the Falklands fishery would necessarily have a lower risk.
    Response: NMFS reviewed the toothfish fisheries operating under 
CCAMLR and moved those fisheries to the exempt category, because those 
fisheries have a remote likelihood of, or no known documented evidence 
of, interacting with marine mammals. The toothfish fisheries operating 
under CCAMLR that remain on the export list are those fisheries with a 
documented history of marine mammal interaction or an unknown level of 
marine mammal interaction if the nation failed to provide such 
information. NMFS will revisit these fisheries, particularly the United 
Kingdom South Georgia Island toothfish longline fisheries, at the time 
of application for the Comparability Finding and review information 
provided by nations on the interaction levels between marine mammals 
and these fisheries and re-assess the status of these fisheries at that 
time.
    Fisheries for toothfish not listed as operating within the CCAMLR 
Convention Area and being subject to the conservation measures of 
CCAMLR, are evaluated based on the nation's regulatory program in place 
for that fishery. Many nations have implemented observer requirements 
and adhere to CCAMLR conservation and management measures and catch 
documentation requirements for all toothfish catch, regardless of 
whether the catch is from the Convention Area or that nation's 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Regarding the United Kingdom South 
Georgia Island fishery, this fishery is not recorded as operating 
within the CCAMLR area and the area of operation provided for this 
fishery does not fully correspond to South Georgia Island. NMFS will 
follow up with the United Kingdom to make sure this fishery is recorded 
correctly for the purposes of a Comparability Finding.
    Comment 28: In the Atlantic halibut gillnet fishery and turbot 
trammel net fishery, NGOs noted that estimates of bycatch are given but 
the number of vessels is not given. The commenters assert that, to 
estimate bycatch, the number of vessels must have been estimated. They 
also assert there are other fisheries affecting the same cetacean 
populations that need to be taken into account; therefore, it is 
important to correctly identify the vessels involved with this fishery. 
Similarly, the commenters note that, in the Atlantic cod fishery and 
the herring sardine gillnet fishery, the number of vessels is given but 
bycatch is unknown; however, with the current data, it should be 
possible to provide some estimates based on the observed bycatch rates 
and days at sea.
    Response: The commenters will note that, in the 2020 final LOFF, 
the United Kingdom updated or provided vessel numbers for the 
multispecies demersal gillnet fishery. Further, this comment provides 
conflicting information. The commenters state that, in order to 
estimate bycatch, vessel numbers must be known, but in the Atlantic cod 
gillnet fishery the commenters acknowledge that bycatch estimates could 
be derived from other units of effort, including days at sea. The 
latter is correct: the number of vessels is not required to estimate 
total bycatch so long as there is some unit of effort that reflects 
fishing effort in the fishery. The United Kingdom continues to update 
its bycatch estimates, including estimates of total bycatch from 
observed fisheries.
    Comment 29: The NGOs note that, in the seabass bottom pair trawl 
fishery, stranding data identify a potential population level impact 
for common dolphin in this fishery, in combination with other fisheries 
in the region.
    Response: NMFS agrees, and is in continuing discussions on this 
matter with nations.
Norway
    Comment 30: NGOs note that the blue swimming crab, European 
lobster, and Norwegian lobster pot/trap fisheries pose an entanglement 
risk to large whales, and that humpback whales, specifically, should be 
listed as interacting with the Norwegian lobster pot/trap fishery. The 
commenters also state that the zero reported entanglement rates are not 
reliable, given recent studies which report large whale entanglement.
    Response: Minke and humpback whales are included as having a co-
occurrence risk in all three fisheries. Fin whales are included in all 
of these fisheries but the Norwegian lobster pot/trap fishery. NMFS 
recognizes the possible under-estimation of marine mammal bycatch in 
pot/trap gear and the challenges of attributing large whale 
entanglement to specific pot fisheries in instances where large whales 
become entangled and swim away with the gear, or in instances where 
gear that is retrieved from a whale does not allow identification to a 
specific fishery.
Chile
    Comment 31: NGOs noted that, for the purse seine fishery for 
anchoveta on the northern coast of Chile (Arica, Iquique, Tocopilla, 
and Mejillones), short-beaked common dolphins and South American sea 
lions have been reported as entangled with mortalities since 2010. The 
NGO commenters noted that a 2019 news report indicated that some 20 
dolphins were found dead in purse seine nets that were set for 
anchoveta. Additionally, for small pelagic purse seine nets for common 
sardines (Strangomera bentincki), anchovy (Engraulis ringens) and horse 
mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) (Valpara[iacute]so and Los Lagos Region 
and the area between Arica and Parinacota Region and the Antofagasta 
Region), observers reported captures of southern sea lions (Otaria 
flavascens), dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus), common dolphins 
(Delphinus delphis) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus).
    Response: NMFS is aware of the 2019 purse seine mortality and has 
been in consultation with Chile to ensure that the bycatch is reflected 
in the LOFF. Additionally, Chile is working to implement both 
electronic monitoring and observer programs. Chile is also analyzing 
observer data to provide bycatch estimates for these fisheries.
Iceland
    Comment 32: NGOs note that most of the LOFF listings for Iceland 
list the number of vessels as ``unknown.'' However, all Icelandic 
vessels are registered and assigned quotas, and the Directorate of 
Fisheries maintains a publicly accessible list of allowed catch and 
catches by species by individual licensed vessels (as well as total 
allowed catch and catches). Therefore, the number of vessels should be 
easily provided.
    Response: NMFS has conferred with Iceland regarding the licensing 
of Icelandic fishing vessels and the best way to accurately reflect 
Iceland's fisheries in the LOFF, given the nature of the individual 
transferable quota system. As noted by the commenters, Icelandic 
fishing vessel information is publicly available from the Icelandic 
Directorate of Fisheries. However, a direct count of the vessels 
landing catch would lead to an over-representation of total Icelandic 
vessels, as Icelandic vessels are authorized to switch gear, transfer 
quota, and fish in multiple areas. NMFS, in consultation with Iceland, 
agreed that leaving the vessel number empty (with some fishery 
exceptions) was the best path forward to capture all of the relevant 
fisheries information, given the multi-species and multi-gear nature of 
many Icelandic fisheries.
    Comment 33: NGOs note that in the blue mussel aquaculture 
operations only humpback whales are listed as co-occuring with the 
fishery. However, a

[[Page 63541]]

2015 paper by Madeline Young included interviews with mussel farmers 
around Iceland and noted that humpback whales, minke whales, and harbor 
porpoises were most frequently sighted. Long-finned pilot whales, 
orcas, and white beaked dolphins were also reported by separate 
respondents. Four respondents were aware of cetaceans swimming through, 
or very close (within 50 m) to, their mussel operation, and there was a 
known harbor porpoise entanglement in 1998, indicating potential 
concern.
    Response: NMFS notes this information and will consult with Iceland 
to determine whether any modification to the list of co-occurring 
marine mammals is necessary.
    Comment 34: NGOs highlight that pelagic purse seine and trawl 
fisheries for herring have known co-occurrences and bycatch for a 
number of species despite the lack of information in the LOFF. Species 
include humpback whales, minke whales, bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic 
white-sided dolphins, and killer whales. In 2008, an Icelandic herring 
trawler hauled a minke whale on board.
    Response: Co-occurrence information is important for nations who 
may not have information about marine mammal bycatch. However, this is 
not the situation in Iceland. NMFS has focused discussions with Iceland 
on those marine mammal species with documented interactions and 
mortality with fisheries.
Other Nations' Exempt Fisheries
    Comment 35: NGOs asked why tuna purse seine fisheries authorized by 
Indonesia (operating under the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and 
the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)), by Italy 
(operating under the IOTC), and by South Korea (operating under IOTC 
and WCPFC) are exempt fisheries.
    Response: NMFS has classified these purse seine fisheries as exempt 
because they are operating in fisheries managed by RFMOs and in 
compliance with conservation and management measures prohibiting the 
intentional encirclement of marine mammals by a purse seine. NMFS has 
determined that where purse seine vessels do not intentionally set on 
marine mammals, the likelihood of marine mammal bycatch is generally 
remote.
    Comment 36: NGOs asked why some crab and lobster traps/pots are 
exempt. The commenters noted that some New South Wales lobster trap/pot 
fisheries are exempt, despite some past evidence of humpback whale 
entanglements.
    Response: In 2018, NMFS, as part of its evaluation of the 2017 
draft LOFF, changed the New South Wales eastern rock lobster trap from 
export to exempt; this fishery now uses an at-call acoustic release 
system (Galvanic Time Release (GTR)) that submerges the headgear of the 
trap and has been effective in eliminating large whale entanglements 
(83 FR 11703, March 16, 2018).
    Comment 37: NGOs note that in New Zealand there are many Danish 
seine fisheries classified as exempt. The commenters highlight that in 
a recent ecological risk assessment the Australian fishery management 
authority identified one species, the Australian fur seal, as at risk 
from Danish seine fishing. The commenters further note that the 
populations of these species are in the proximity of Danish seine 
operations in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector, and, considering the 
susceptibility of seals to this method of fishing, Australia has 
adopted a code of practice to minimize interaction with seals in this 
fishery (https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheriesmanagement/methods-andgear/danish-seine). The commenters then assume that Danish seines in New 
Zealand pose a similar level of risk.
    Response: NMFS classified Danish seine fisheries as exempt based on 
the remote likelihood of marine mammal bycatch, because of a lack of 
documented interactions with marine mammals. Danish seines are actively 
fished and can easily accommodate best practices for marine mammal 
bycatch mitigation or release, reducing the likelihood of marine mammal 
bycatch. The exceptions are Danish seine fisheries with documentary 
evidence of marine mammal interactions, which NMFS classified as 
export. NMFS does not have data indicating that New Zealand Danish 
seines have more than a remote likelihood of marine mammal incidental 
mortality and serious injury and therefore require reclassification as 
an export fishery.
    Comment 38: NGOs state that the Norwegian longline fishery for 
bluefin tuna may be a risk, even if no bycatch has been reported to 
date.
    Response: In 2018, as part of its evaluation of the 2017 draft 
LOFF, NMFS changed the Norwegian longline and purse seine tuna 
fisheries to exempt. NMFS based this determination on information 
Norway submitted to ICCAT. From 2014 through 2017 there was no reported 
or observed bycatch of marine mammals in the tuna longline/purse seine 
fisheries (83 FR 11703, March 16, 2018).
    Comment 39: NGOs state that in the Philippines it is not clear why 
some ring net fisheries are exempt fisheries and some are export 
fisheries.
    Response: Ring net fisheries are predominantly classified as 
exempt. Those ring nets/purse seine nets operating under the 
conservation and management measures of the WCPFC and the non-
encirclement provisions of that RFMO are listed as exempt. The ring net 
fishery for bonitos and mackerel potentially has marine mammal bycatch 
associated with it and is therefore classified as an export fishery.

Comments on Other Nations' Export Fisheries

    Comment 40: NGOs state that the western rock lobster pot/trap 
fishery in Australia is listed as export, and humpback whales are noted 
in marine mammal interactions/mortality, but no numbers are given.
    Response: NMFS cannot identify the fishery that the commenters are 
referring to; however, there is an Australian spiny lobster (Panulirus 
cygnus), Chaceon geryons nei (Chaceon spp), Champagne crab 
(Hypothalassia armata), Red rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii), Tasmanian 
giant crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas) pot/trap fishery that interacts with 
humpback whales. NMFS recognizes the possible under-estimation of 
marine mammal bycatch in pot/trap gear and the challenges of 
attributing large whale entanglement to specific pot fisheries in 
instances where large whales become entangled and swim away with the 
gear, or in instances where gear retrieved from a whale does not allow 
identification to a specific fishery.
    Comment 41: NGOs state that all estimates of bycatch are zero for 
German fisheries operating in the Baltic, which does not seem correct. 
They assert that the 2018 reports from ICES indicate that there is 
harbour porpoise bycatch in the Baltic Sea fisheries.
    Response: The only fisheries on the LOFF for Germany indicated as 
operating in the Baltic Sea and exporting to the United States are 
those for Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) midwater pair trawls, and 
midwater trawls (not specified), and purse seines, in the German EEZ, 
(FAO:27 Atlantic Northeast), subareas 27.3.a, 27.3.b.23, 27.3.c.22, 
27.3.d.24. We have no information indicating that harbor porpoise are 
captured in these trawl and seine fisheries.
    Comment 42: NGOs indicate that, on the LOFF for Italy, pair 
trawling for anchovy is listed as export, but no information on marine 
mammal interactions/mortality is associated with this fishery. In other 
areas (e.g., English Channel bass fishery) pair trawling has

[[Page 63542]]

a high bycatch rate of common dolphins.
    Response: First, these pair trawls are for a different target 
species and operate in a different area than the example that the 
commenters cite. Assumptions that bycatch is the same across oceans, 
gear types, and target species are not valid. NMFS continues to work 
with nations to ensure that the marine mammals that co-occur with that 
fishery and any bycatch of those marine mammals is recorded in the 
IAICRS.
    Comment 43: NGOs indicate that for Netherland fisheries on the LOFF 
all bycatch estimates are zero. The commenters assert this is not 
correct for porpoises in the North Sea.
    Response: The Netherlands undertook significant revisions to its 
information provided for the LOFF, including adding bycatch estimates. 
NMFS urges the commenters to review the LOFF for the Netherlands in the 
final 2020 LOFF.
    Comment 44: Industry commenters noted the need for NMFS to examine 
the Canadian pelagic longline fishery. Commenters note that this 
fishery most certainly interacts with some of the same transboundary 
marine mammal stocks (e.g., longfin pilot whales) as the U.S. fleet, 
and the commenters have serious doubts that the Canadian government has 
implemented a marine mammal conservation regulatory program that is 
comparable in effectiveness to that of the United States. The 
commenters strongly urge NMFS to carefully examine the comparability of 
the Canadian marine mammal regulatory program through the 
implementation of the MMPA Import Provisions.
    Response: NMFS agrees and will evaluate these fisheries which 
interact with transboundary stocks of marine mammals currently included 
under the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan in accordance with the 
MMPA Import Provisions.
MMPA and the Seafood Import Monitoring Program
    Comment 45: Industry expressed concern that it will be difficult 
for NMFS to fully and accurately identify all intermediary nations in 
the LOFF, and to fully and accurately identify the fisheries from which 
intermediary nations' exports originate in order to determine if those 
fisheries meet the U.S. comparability standards. Failure to do so would 
very seriously undermine the effectiveness of the MMPA Import 
Provisions by providing a major loophole for those high seas fisheries 
to escape application of the U.S. comparability standards. To prevent 
this, the commenter urged NMFS to use its traceability data collection 
capabilities under the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) to 
enforce the MMPA Import Provisions. The commenter urged NMFS to fully 
integrate the MMPA Import Provisions with SIMP to prevent this and 
other forms of circumvention that will surely develop once the MMPA 
Import Provisions take effect.
    Response: NMFS continues to work with other U.S. trade programs, 
offices, and partner agencies to confirm the accuracy of trade data and 
verify active seafood import streams for harvesting nations and 
intermediary products. Data available for the thirteen species and 
species groups subject to SIMP has been used to assist in identifying 
intermediary nations. Trade data collected under SIMP is protected, and 
its usage to help verify intermediary products under the MMPA Import 
Provisions is conducted according to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 
1905) and the confidentiality of information requirements under 
Magnuson-Stevens Act 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b).
    Comment 46: One environmental group notes that the MMPA Import 
Provisions complement and strengthen the current SIMP requirements to 
ensure that species with high risk of being from illegal, unreported, 
and unregulated (IUU) fisheries or seafood products that are mislabeled 
are not sold in the United States. The commenter states that the 
documentation requirements of SIMP will complement the MMPA Import 
Provisions in preventing non-compliant seafood from entering the U.S. 
market. NMFS should discuss the overlap between SIMP and the MMPA 
Import Provisions, how the two programs enhance one another, and the 
effect of expansion of SIMP requirements on MMPA enforcement. The 
commenter encouraged NMFS to consider expanding the requirements of 
SIMP to include all seafood as a means to enforce the MMPA Import 
Provisions.
    Response: NMFS routinely verifies exports to the United States as 
part of its ongoing consultations with nations as well as consultations 
with relevant trade programs to identify supply chains subject to the 
MMPA Import Provisions. At this time, NMFS is focused on effective 
implementation of SIMP in its current form. Expansion of SIMP to 
include additional species would require a full rulemaking process, 
which allows for public input from U.S. and foreign stakeholders. 
Enhancing the enforcement of the MMPA Import Provisions would be 
considered in determining whether, how and when to expand the species 
scope of SIMP through a full rulemaking process.

Other Comments

    Comment 47: One environmental organization notes that if a fishery 
or fishery sector is not captured in the LOFF, it is the responsibility 
of that fishery or country to ensure that it is included in the next 
iteration of the LOFF rather than to ask for flexibility. Any ad hoc 
flexibility creates incentive to reclassify or recategorize fisheries 
and segments of fisheries to avoid regulation. This flexibility will 
create a scenario in which NMFS is behind the issue rather than leading 
with the firm requirements of the law. Future LOFF reviews will provide 
regular opportunity for corrections and additions, but the agency 
should not allow for any variance once the LOFF is finalized.
    Response: NMFS will work with nations to ensure the accuracy of the 
LOFF, and to ensure that the LOFF reflects a nation's fishery 
management regime and its authorized fisheries.
    Comment 48: One environmental organization states that countries 
that do not participate in the LOFF process despite ample opportunity 
to do so should not be given special consideration or expedited 
consideration outside of the regular LOFF process. The commenter 
further states that harvesting nations should not receive waivers, 
exemptions or exceptions to the requirements of the Marine Mammal 
Import Provisions and should be denied the ability to import fish and 
fish products into the United States until those countries demonstrate 
compliance through the LOFF process.
    Response: After January 1, 2022, all nations and fisheries 
exporting to the United States must be on the LOFF and must have 
received a Comparability Finding for those fisheries. There are no 
exemptions or waivers. There are procedures for obtaining a 
Comparability Finding for new foreign commercial fishing operations 
wishing to export to the United States (50 CFR 216.24 (h)(8)(vi)).

References

Castro, C., Van Waerebeek, K., C[aacute]rdenas, D., & Alava, J. J. 
(2020). Marine mammals used as bait for improvised fish aggregating 
devices in marine waters of Ecuador, eastern tropical Pacific. 
Endangered Species Research, 41, 289-302.
CCAMLR. 2015a. Krill fishery report 2015.
D'agrosa, Caterina, C.E. Lennert-Cody, and O. Vidal. 2000 Vaquita 
Bycatch in Mexico's Artisanal Gillnet Fisheries: Driving a Small 
Population to Extinction. Conservation Biology Vol 14 1110-1119
Dawson, S.M., S. Northridge, D. Waples, and A.J. Read. (2013) To 
ping or not to ping: the use of active acoustic devices in

[[Page 63543]]

mitigating interactions between small cetaceans and gillnet 
fisheries. Endangered Species Research Vol. 19 201-221.
FAO. 2018. Report of the Expert Workshop on Means and Methods for 
Reducing Marine Mammal Mortality in Fishing and Aquaculture 
Operations Rome, 20-23 March 2018
IUCN. 2008. Arctocephalus gazella: Hofmeyr, G.: The IUCN Red List of 
Threatened Species 2014: e.T2058A45223888.
Koschinski, S. & Strempel, R. (2012): Strategies for the Prevention 
of Bycatch of Seabirds and Marine Mammals in Baltic Sea Fisheries. 
ASCOBANS AC19/Doc.4-17 (S). 19th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee 
Meeting, Galway, Ireland, 20-22 March. 69 pp.; Herr, H., Siebert, U. 
& Benke, H. (2009b): Stranding numbers and bycatch implications of 
harbor porpoises along the German Baltic Sea coast. Document AC16/
Doc.62 (P). 16th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting, Brugge, 
Belgium, 20-24 April 2009. ASCOBANS, Bonn. 3 pp.).
SCAR EGS. 2004. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Expert 
Group on Seals (SCAR EGS): Scientific Committee for Antarctic 
Research--Expert Group on Seals Report.
Skora, K.E., Kuklik, I. (2003) Bycatch as a potential threat to 
harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Polish Baltic waters. NAMMCO 
Scientific Publications 5: 303-315.
Vanhatalo, J., Vetemaa, M., Herrero, A., Aho, T., Tiilikainen, R. 
2014.) By-catch of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in Baltic 
fisheries--a Bayesian analysis of interview survey. Plos One.
Vinther (1999, Bycatches of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L.) 
in Danish set-net fisheries. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1: 123-135.)

    Dated: October 2, 2020.
Christopher Wayne Oliver,
Assistant Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-22290 Filed 10-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P