39762 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

Exporter 15

Cash deposit 

rate in effect 

(%) 

Federal Register notice 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company, aka Fimex VN, aka Sao Ta Seafood Factory, aka Saota 

Seafood Factory.

4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

Thong Thuan Company Limited, aka Cong Ty Tnhh Thong Thuan .................................................. 4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation, aka Thuan Phuoc Corp., aka Frozen Seafoods 

Factory No. 32, aka Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory, aka Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory 

Vietnam, aka My Son Seafoods Factory.

4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation, aka UT XI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation, aka UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, aka UT XI Aquatic Products Processing 

Company, aka UTXI Co. Ltd., aka UTXI, aka UTXICO, aka Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory, 

aka Hoang Phong Seafood Factory.

4.78 AR11 Final Results. 

Viet Foods Co., Ltd., aka Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd .......................................... 4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation, aka Vina Cleanfood ................................................................ 4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd., aka Fish One .................................... 4.78 AR11 Final Results. 

Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................... 4.78 AR10 Final Results. 

There have been no subsequent 

administrative reviews completed for 

the below-listed non-individually 

examined company that qualified for a 

separate rate and is subject to this 

litigation; thus, the cash deposit rate of 

6.94 percent, as recalculated in Remand 

II, applies for this exporter. 

Exporter 

Cash deposit 

rate in effect 

(%) 

BIM Seafood Joint Stock 

Company ........................... 6.94 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 15, 2017. 

Gary Taverman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, 

Performing the Non-exclusive Functions and 

Duties of the Assistant Secretary for 

Enforcement and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17629 Filed 8–21–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 170706630–7630–01] 

RIN 0648–XF538 

Fish and Fish Product Import 

Provisions of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act List of Foreign 

Fisheries 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is publishing its draft 

List of Foreign Fisheries (LOFF) for 

2017, as required by the regulations 

implementing the Fish and Fish Product 

Import Provisions of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The 

draft LOFF reflects available 

information on marine mammal 

interactions in commercial fisheries 

exporting fish and fish products to the 

United States. NMFS has classified each 

commercial fishery included in the draft 

LOFF into one of two categories based 

upon frequency and likelihood of 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals that is likely to 

occur incidental to each fishery. 

Fisheries are classified as either exempt 

or export. The classification of a fishery 

on the draft and final LOFF will 

determine which regulatory 

requirements will be applicable to that 

fishery to enable the nation to receive a 

comparability finding necessary to 

export fish and fish products to the 

United States from that particular 

fishery. The draft LOFF can be found at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/species/marine_

mammals/mmpaloff.html. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on 

October 23, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0084, by either of the 

following methods: 

1. Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- 

0084, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields and enter 

or attach your comments. 

2. Mail: Submit written comments to: 

Director, Office of International Affairs 

and Seafood Inspection, Attn: MMPA 

List of Foreign Fisheries, NMFS, F/IASI, 

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe portable 

document file (PDF) formats only. 

NMFS will consider all comments 

and information received during the 

comment period in preparing a final 

LOFF. NMFS will also seek input from 

nations on the draft LOFF at bilateral 

and multilateral meetings, as 

appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Young, NMFS F/IASI at 

Nina.Young@noaa.gov 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 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). 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 

fisheries operated by nations that export 

fish and fish products to the United 

States. 

Under this rule, fish or fish products 

cannot be imported into the United 

States from commercial fishing 

operations, which result in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39763 

incidental mortality or serious injury of 

marine mammals in excess of United 

States standards. Such fish and fish 

products from export and exempt 

fisheries identified by the Assistant 

Administrator for 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 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. 

What is the List of Foreign Fisheries? 

Based on information provided by 

nations, industry, the public, and other 

readily available sources, NMFS has 

identified nations with commercial 

fishing operations that export fish and 

fish products to the United States and 

has 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 subsidiary jurisdiction), 

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 MMPA 

import provisions in August 2016 (81 

FR 54390, August 15, 2016). 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. 

The LOFF is an integral part of the 

process for implementing the import 

provisions of the MMPA. As described 

below, 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 marine mammal. A harvesting 

nation must apply for and receive a 

comparability finding for each of its 

export and exempt fisheries to continue 

to export fish and fish products from 

those fisheries to the United States. For 

all fisheries, in order to receive a 

comparability finding under this 

program, the harvesting nation must 

prohibit intentional killing of marine 

mammals in the course of commercial 

fishing operations in the fishery or 

demonstrate that it has procedures to 

reliably certify that exports of fish and 

fish products to the United States were 

not harvested in association with the 

intentional killing or serious injury of 

marine mammals. 

What do the classifications of ‘‘exempt 

fishery’’ and ‘‘export fishery’’ mean? 

The classifications of ‘‘exempt 

fishery’’ or ‘‘export fishery’’ determine 

the criteria that a particular 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 differ. 

The criteria for an exempt fishery to 

receive a comparability finding are 

limited only to those conditions related 

to the prohibition of intentional killing 

or injury of marine mammals (see 50 

CFR 216.24(h)(6)(iii)(A)). To receive a 

comparability finding, export fisheries, 

must comply with those criteria and 

also 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)). 

What is the five-year exemption period? 

NMFS included a five-year exemption 

period (which began 1 January, 2017) in 

this process to allow foreign harvesting 

nations time to develop, as appropriate, 

regulatory programs comparable in 

effectiveness to U.S. programs at 

reducing marine mammal bycatch. 

During this exemption period, NMFS, 

based on the final LOFF, and in 

consultation with the Secretary of State, 

will consult with harvesting nations 

with commercial fishing operations 

identified as export or exempt fisheries 

for purposes of notifying the harvesting 

nation of the requirements of the 

MMPA. NMFS will continue to urge 

harvesting nations to gather information 

about marine mammal bycatch in their 

commercial fisheries to inform the next 

draft and final LOFF. NMFS will reevaluate foreign commercial fishing 

operations and publish a notice of 

availability of the draft for public 

comment, and a notice of availability of 

the final revised LOFF in the Federal 

Register the year prior to the expiration 

of the exemption period (2020). 

If, during the five-year exemption 

period, the United States determines 

that a marine mammal stock is 

immediately and significantly adversely 

affected by an export fishery, NMFS 

may use its emergency rulemaking 

authority to institute an import ban on 

these products. 

How will NMFS classify a fishery if a 

harvesting nation does not provide 

information? 

In instances where information on the 

commercial fishing operations and the 

frequency and likelihood of bycatch in 

a fishery has not been provided by the 

nation or is not readily available, NMFS 

may determine whether a fishery is an 

exempt or export fishery by evaluating 

the fishery using information such as 

fishing techniques, gear used, methods 

used to deter marine mammals, target 

species, seasons and areas fished, 

qualitative data from logbooks or fisher 

reports, stranding data, the species and 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

area, or other factors. 

As anticipated, information on the 

frequency or likelihood of interactions 

or bycatch in most foreign fisheries was 

lacking or incomplete. In the absence of 

such information, NMFS used the 

information noted above to classify 

fisheries, which may include drawing 

analogies to similar U.S. fisheries and 

gear types interacting with similar 

marine mammal stocks. Where no 

analogous fishery or fishery information 

exists, NMFS classified the commercial 

fishing operation as an export fishery 

until such time as information comes 

available to properly classify the fishery. 

NMFS may reclassify a fishery if a 

harvesting nation provides, during the 

comment period, reliable information to 

reclassify the fishery or such 

information is readily available to 

NMFS in the course of preparing a 

revised LOFF. 

Instructions to Nations Reviewing the 

Draft LOFF 

In the LOFF, the vast majority, 3272 

fisheries, are classified as export 

fisheries in accordance with 50 CFR 

216.24(h)(3) and 216.3. To ensure the 

appropriate classification of their 

fisheries, nations should review the 

LOFF at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/species/ 

marine_mammals/mmpaloff.html 

together with this Federal Register 

notice carefully and submit detailed 

comments on their commercial fishing 

and processing operations. In this 

Federal Register notice, NMFS provides 

detailed information on the information 

reviewed to create the LOFF, the criteria 

used to classify a fishery as exempt or 

export, and the assumptions made to 

determine such classifications based on 

the information submitted or found 

readily available. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39764 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

If a nation or entity wishes to 

advocate for a change in the 

classification of a fishery, the nation or 

entity should provide detailed 

information about the fishery, 

summaries of observer or logbook data, 

information on analogous fisheries 

where marine mammal bycatch may or 

may not occur, and detailed 

documentary evidence to support its 

claims, including, whenever possible, 

peer-reviewed data on marine mammal 

bycatch and impacts of bycatch to 

marine mammal population abundance. 

NMFS recommends that nations make 

specific edits in the appropriate column 

to the draft LOFF and provide 

references and supporting information. 

Instructions for Freshwater and Inland 

Fisheries 

Fisheries that occur solely in fresh 

water outside any marine mammal 

habitat, and inland aquaculture 

operations, are exempt from this rule. If 

any such fisheries have been included 

in the LOFF, nations should indicate 

such fisheries and provide the necessary 

documentary evidence so NMFS can 

remove them from the LOFF as 

appropriate. 

Instructions for Data Sets Listed as 

‘‘None Provided’’ 

Many nations either did not provide 

information or provided incomplete 

information. Where no information was 

provided, NMFS labelled that data set as 

‘‘none provided.’’ Nations are strongly 

encouraged to provide that information 

during the public comment period. In 

particular, NMFS is lacking information 

for many fisheries on gear type, area of 

operation, marine mammal species that 

a fishery may encounter or entangle as 

bycatch, and bycatch estimates for many 

species. This information is critical for 

properly classifying the fishery. When 

no information was provided, NMFS 

used other readily available information 

to define a fishery. Nations are urged to 

review both information supplied by the 

nation or discovered by NMFS, 

especially those nations that did not 

provide information or provided 

incomplete information. 

NMFS also urges nations to provide 

the area of operation for both wildcaught fisheries and aquaculture 

operations for all the fisheries listed. It 

is particularly important for nations to 

provide information on the location of 

aquaculture operations (e.g., open 

ocean, lagoon, or pond) and the type of 

aquaculture operation (e.g., pens, cages, 

or lines); without this information, 

NMFS cannot properly classify an 

aquaculture operation. 

Instructions for Reviewing Gear Type 

and Operational Areas 

In developing the LOFF, NMFS 

divided the fisheries by gear type 

because certain gears are documented as 

posing a greater risk of having marine 

mammal bycatch than others. 

Subdividing fishery information in this 

manner may not account for the actual 

or estimated number of vessels. Nations 

should review the number of vessels 

licensed to fish with a particular gear 

type and provide comments or revised 

estimates of vessels licensed to fish with 

that gear type. 

Some fisheries in the LOFF are likely 

multi-species fisheries but are currently 

classified separately by fish species. If a 

fishery listed has multiple target species 

(e.g., demersal fish or large pelagics) and 

is represented more than once on the 

LOFF, nations should consider 

consolidating those fisheries to 

accurately reflect the multi-species 

nature of that fishery. For example, cod 

and haddock fisheries that are classified 

separately can be designated as 

multispecies groundfish fishery 

(including cod, haddock, etc.). NMFS 

encourages nations to aggregate those 

fisheries that are listed separately into a 

broader fishery designation, as 

appropriate, and provide NMFS with a 

list of fish species that are captured in 

that fishery and its operational details 

(e.g., coastal pelagic gillnet fishery). 

NMFS also urges nations to group or 

list fisheries, not based on the product 

exported but on the actual target species 

of the fishery. If an exported fish or fish 

product is not a target of a fishery but 

rather is a bycatch of that fishery, 

nations should note that information. 

NMFS prefers avoiding consolidating 

gear types together due to the different 

risk gear types pose to marine mammals, 

but would consider aggregating fisheries 

by target species or area, based on a 

nation’s recommendations. 

NMFS separated fisheries into 

specific areas of operation. Our 

experience indicates that marine 

mammal bycatch can differ depending 

on a fishery’s area of operation and its 

overlap with marine mammal 

populations. NMFS urges nations to 

review the area of operation listed for 

each fishery and aggregate fisheries of 

the same gear type into larger areas of 

operation (e.g., encompassing more bays 

or management zones) where 

appropriate. NMFS recommends 

avoiding collapsing areas into larger 

management areas unless it is 

appropriate to do so and would not 

result in a fishery with marine mammal 

bycatch disadvantaging one or more 

fisheries that do not pose the same level 

of risk. 

Instructions for High Seas Fisheries 

Operating Within a Regional Fishery 

Management Organization, 

Intergovernmental Agreement, or Access 

Agreement 

NMFS attempted to identify fisheries 

that are operating within a convention 

area of a regional fishery management 

organization (RFMO) or are associated 

with an intergovernmental agreement. 

NMFS requests that nations identify 

which fisheries are operating or 

authorized under an RFMO or 

intergovernmental agreement and 

provide information on conservation 

and management measures that 

specifically govern the bycatch of 

marine mammals in that organization. 

This information will further assist in 

the classification of fisheries and 

determinations related to future 

comparability findings. 

Many nations have access agreements 

with other nations that permit them to 

fish within the EEZ or territorial waters 

of another nation (see annex on global 

tuna catch and access agreements in 

supporting documents at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/species/marine_

mammals/mmpaloff.html). 

In most cases, nations did not provide 

information distinguishing between 

vessels permitted to fish in their own 

territorial waters from their national 

vessels fishing in distant waters under 

some type of access agreement. NMFS 

strongly encourages nation to identify 

which fisheries are operating under 

access agreements in distant waters or 

within the EEZ of another nation and 

the reporting requirements for such 

fisheries. 

Instruction for Nations That Are 

Processing Fish and Fish Products 

For the purposes of identifying 

intermediary nations (discussed below), 

if a nation exports a fish or fish product 

to the United States for which it is only 

the processor, and the fish in that 

product is harvested elsewhere, NMFS 

strongly encourages nations or other 

entities to identify those products and 

the source fisheries and nations for 

those products. Providing this 

information will result in NMFS reclassifying a nation as an intermediary 

nation for that specific fish or fish 

product. 

Instructions for Fisheries With No 

Specific Target Species 

Nations will note that there are 

products for which NMFS has been 

unable to find information (e.g., gear 

type and area of operation), and there 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39765 

are fisheries that have been documented 

in the literature as having marine 

mammal bycatch associated with a 

nation and gear type but for which no 

target species of fish or fish products 

was identified. NMFS urges nations to 

provide the information that is lacking 

and as much detail as possible about the 

fishery, its operational characteristics, 

and its interactions with marine 

mammals, including applicable 

references. 

Instructions for Which Fisheries Should 

be Included in the LOFF 

NMFS urges nations to examine their 

exports to the United States over the last 

decade and include all fisheries which 

have, are, or may in the future be the 

source of fish and fish products 

exported to the United States. To ensure 

that no fisheries 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 in the LOFF. Providing 

such information will ensure an 

accurate classification of each fishery in 

the final LOFF and avoid requiring a 

nation to develop a regulatory program 

for a fishery classified as an export 

fishery because the nation failed to 

provide information. 

Instructions for Non-Nation Entities 

NMFS welcomes the input of the 

public, non-governmental organizations, 

and scientists. These entities can 

provide critical information about 

marine mammal bycatch in global 

fisheries and efforts to mitigate such 

bycatch. NMFS requests that when such 

entities comment on the LOFF, they 

provide as much detail and supporting 

documentary evidence as possible. 

While there are references in the 

literature to marine mammal bycatch in 

certain foreign fisheries, it may be that 

fish and fish products originating from 

those fisheries are not exported to the 

United States (e.g., artisanal or coastal 

fisheries for domestic consumption). 

NMFS would like to receive information 

on which fish and fish products are 

exported to the United States and the 

frequency of marine mammal 

interactions or bycatch in those 

fisheries. 

Further Direction and Instructions 

NMFS urges all nations and all 

stakeholders to review the criteria, 

assumptions, and global classifications 

that follow in this Federal Register 

notice, to more completely understand 

the classifications and rationale in the 

LOFF. 

Definitions 

What is a ‘‘comparability finding?’’ 

A comparability finding is a finding 

by NMFS that the harvesting nation for 

an export or exempt fishery 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. In 

order 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 may be met by 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 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). The 

definition of an export fishery is 

summarized below. 

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 that have 

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 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, to 

properly classify the foreign commercial 

fishing operation. 

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). The definition of an exempt 

fishery is summarized below. 

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 that have 

a remote likelihood of, or no known, 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals in the course of 

commercial fishing operations. A 

commercial fishing operation that has a 

remote likelihood of causing incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals is one that, collectively with 

other foreign fisheries exporting fish 

and fish products to the United States, 

causes the annual removal of: 

(1) Ten percent or less of any marine 

mammal stock’s bycatch limit, or 

(2) More than 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 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39766 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

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 2017 Draft List of 

Foreign Fisheries 

How is the List of Foreign Fisheries 

organized? 

NMFS organized the LOFF by 

harvesting nation (or subsidiary 

jurisdiction), then exempt fisheries, 

export fisheries, and export fisheries 

with no information. The fisheries listed 

contain defining factors including 

geographic location of harvest, geartype, target species or a combination 

thereof. The LOFF also includes a list of 

the marine mammals that interact with 

each commercial fishing operation, 

where known, and, when available, 

indicates the level of 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 draft LOFF? 

NMFS reviewed and considered 

documentation provided by nations; the 

public; and other sources of 

information, where available, including 

fishing vessel records; reports of onboard fishery observers; information 

from off-loading facilities, port-side 

government officials, enforcement, 

transshipment vessel workers and fish 

importers; government vessel registries; 

RFMOs 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 

these sources of information and any 

other readily available information to 

classify the fisheries as ‘‘export’’ or 

‘‘exempt’’ fisheries to develop the LOFF. 

How did NMFS obtain the information 

used to classify fisheries included in the 

draft LOFF? 

First, NMFS identified imports of fish 

and fish products by nation using the 

U.S. foreign trade database for 

commercial fisheries imports found at: 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/. 

Second, in December 2016 NMFS 

notified in writing each nation with 

commercial fishing or processing 

operations that export fish or fish 

products to the United States to request 

that within 90 days of notification, by 

April 1, 2017, the nation submit 

information about commercial fishing or 

processing operations. NMFS included 

in that notification a list of fish and fish 

products imported into the United 

States from that nation during the past 

several years. 

For commercial fishing operations, 

NMFS requested information on the 

number of participants, number of 

vessels, gear type, target species, area of 

operation, fishing season, and any 

information regarding the frequency of 

marine mammal incidental mortality 

and serious injury, including programs 

to assess marine mammal populations 

or bycatch. NMFS also requested that 

nations submit copies of any laws, 

decrees, regulations, or measures to 

reduce incidental mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals in their 

commercial fishing operations or 

prohibit the intentional killing or injury 

of marine mammals. 

NMFS also evaluated information 

submitted by the nations and the public 

in response to Federal Register Notice 

(82 FR 2961, January 10, 2017) seeking 

information on foreign commercial 

fishing operations that export fish and 

fish products to the United States and 

the frequency of incidental and 

intentional mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals in those fisheries. 

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 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 and readily 

available scientific information 

including co-occurrence models 

demonstrating distributional overlap of 

the commercial fishing operations and 

marine mammals to determine which 

species or stocks to include as 

incidentally or intentionally killed or 

seriously 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 above 

or 50 CFR 216.3). 

How often will NMFS revise the List of 

Foreign Fisheries? 

NMFS has developed this draft LOFF 

and intends to publish a notice of the 

availability of the final LOFF in the 

Federal Register by January 1, 2018. 

NMFS will re-evaluate foreign 

commercial fishing operations and 

publish a notice of availability of the 

draft for public comment, and a notice 

of availability of the final revised LOFF 

in the Federal Register the year prior to 

the expiration of the exemption period 

(2020). 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 

publication of the LOFF, if a nation 

wishes to commence exporting fish and 

fish products to the United States from 

a fishery not on 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, 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 

(e.g., nearshore in less than three meters 

of water), 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39767 

The Intersection of the LOFF and Other 

Statutes Certifying Bycatch 

What is the relationship between the 

MMPA import rule, the LOFF, and the 

affirmative finding process and 

yellowfin tuna purse seine fisheries in 

the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean? 

Dolphin (family Delphinidae) 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

in eastern tropical Pacific yellowfin 

tuna purse seine fisheries are covered by 

section 101(a)(2)(B) and Title III of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2)(B) and 16 

U.S.C. 1411–1417), implemented at 50 

CFR 216.24(a)–(g). Nations must still 

comply with those provisions and 

receive an affirmative finding in order to 

export tuna to the United States. Tuna 

purse seine fishing vessels fishing for 

tuna with a carrying capacity of 400 

short tons or greater that are governed 

by the Agreement for the International 

Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) 

are not included in the LOFF, and are 

not required to apply for and receive a 

comparability finding. Purse seine 

vessels under 400 short tons and vessels 

using all other gear types operating in 

the eastern tropical Pacific must comply 

with the MMPA import rule. These 

fisheries are included in the LOFF and 

must apply for and receive a 

comparability finding. 

What is the intersection of the U.S. 

shrimp certification program (Section 

609 of Pub. L. 101–162) with the MMPA 

import rule? 

Section 609 of Public Law 101–162 

(‘‘Sec. 609’’) prohibits imports of certain 

categories of shrimp unless the 

President annually certifies to the 

Congress by May 1, 1991, and annually 

thereafter, that either: (1) The harvesting 

nation has adopted a program governing 

the incidental taking of sea turtles in its 

commercial shrimp fishery comparable 

to the program in effect in the United 

States and has an incidental take rate 

comparable to that of the United States; 

or (2) the particular fishing environment 

of the harvesting nation does not pose 

a threat of the incidental taking of sea 

turtles. On May 1, 2017, the Department 

of State certified that 13 shrimpharvesting nations and four fisheries 

have a regulatory program comparable 

to that of the United States governing 

the incidental taking of the relevant 

species of sea turtles in the course of 

commercial shrimp harvesting and that 

the particular fishing environments of 

26 shrimp-harvesting nations, one 

economy, and three fisheries do not 

pose a threat of the incidental taking of 

covered sea turtles in the course of such 

harvesting (83 FR 21295 May 5, 2017). 

All nations exporting wild-caught 

shrimp and shrimp products to the 

United States, regardless of whether 

they are certified under this provision, 

must also comply with the MMPA 

import rule, be included on the LOFF, 

and have a comparability finding. 

Nations in compliance with the MMPA 

import rule, but not certified under 

Public Law 101–162, cannot export 

wild-caught shrimp to the United States. 

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 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

interactions/lof/. 

Process When Only Incidental Mortality 

and Serious Injury Estimates Were 

Available 

In the majority of cases, however, 

NMFS either did not receive any 

information or found that the 

information provided was incomplete, 

lacking detail regarding marine mammal 

interactions, and lacking quantitative 

information on the frequency of 

interactions. Where nations provided 

estimates of bycatch (incidental or 

intentional mortality or serious injury) 

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. The code or designation in the 

LOFF for the determination ‘‘presence 

of bycatch’’ is recorded as ‘‘P’’ in the 

LOFF. 

Alternative Approaches When Estimates 

of Marine Mammal Bycatch Are 

Unavailable 

Because bycatch estimates were 

lacking for most fisheries, NMFS relied 

on three considerations to assess the 

likelihood of bycatch or interaction with 

marine mammals, including: (1) Cooccurrence, the spatial and seasonal 

distribution and overlap of marine 

mammals and fishing operations; (2) 

analogous gear, evaluation of records of 

bycatch and assessment of risk, where 

such information exists, in analogous 

U.S. 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). 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 level 

of risk by location, season, fishery, and 

gear. A summary of the information 

used to support the designations 

described below is available in the 

annotated bibliography and the 

expanded LOFF with references and 

comments, at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/ 

species/marine_mammals/ 

mmpaloff.html. 

Co-Occurrence Evaluation 

The co-occurrence of marine mammal 

populations with a commercial fishing 

operation can be a measure of risk. 

NMFS evaluated, when available, the 

distribution and spatial overlap of 

marine mammal populations and 

commercial fishing operations to 

determine whether the probability for 

marine mammal interactions or bycatch 

in that fishery is more than remote. 

Resources that NMFS used to consider 

co-occurrence include OBIS–SEAMAP 

http://seamap.env.duke.edu/, http://

www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/mapping_

marine_mammals.pdf and http://www.

conservationecologylab.com/uploads/1/ 

9/7/6/19763887/lewison_et_al_

2014.pdf. Additional sources in peer 

reviewed literature that provide 

documentation of co-occurrence are 

Komoroske & Lewison 2015; FAO 2010; 

Watson et al. 2006; Read et al., 2006; 

Reeves et al., 2004. The code or 

designation for ‘‘co-occurrence’’ is 

recorded as ‘‘C/O’’ in the LOFF. 

Analogous Gear Evaluation 

Where a nation did not provide 

documentation or information was not 

readily available on the amount of 

marine mammal bycatch in a fishery or 

the co-occurrence, NMFS classified a 

fishery as exempt or export by analogy 

to similar U.S. or international fisheries 

and gear types interacting with similar 

marine mammal stocks. NMFS 

consulted the United States’ domestic 

MMPA List of Fisheries when 

classifying by analogy international 

fisheries http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

interactions/fisheries/2017_list_of_


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39768 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

fisheries_lof.html. NMFS also evaluated 

other relevant information including, 

but not limited to: 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. The code or designation for the 

determination ‘‘analogous gear’’ is 

recorded as ‘‘A/G’’ in the LOFF. Gear 

types commonly used in U.S. fisheries, 

such as longline, gillnet, purse seine, 

trawl, and pot/trap, were identified as 

‘‘analogous gear’’ in the justification 

section of the LOFF. Gear types not 

commonly used in U.S. waters, such as 

Danish seine, ring nets, lift nets or large 

pound nets off Southeast Asia, however, 

could not be compared to an analogous 

gear or fishery in the United States. 

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. The code or 

designation for the determination ‘‘no 

information’’ is recorded as ‘‘N/I’’ in the 

LOFF. 

Multiple Codes and Additional Terms in 

the LOFF 

In some cases, NMFS recorded 

multiple codes as the rationale for a 

fishery classification. For example, 

NMFS may have received insufficient 

information from a nation, still lacks 

information in some columns, yet 

classified the fishery by analogy. In that 

instance, the codes used to classify the 

fishery would be: ‘‘N/I, A/G.’’ 

Additional terms in the LOFF include 

‘‘none provided,’’ ‘‘no information,’’ and 

‘‘none documented’’. ‘‘None provided’’ 

indicates the nation did not provide 

information and no information could 

be found through research and literature 

searches. ‘‘None documented’’ indicates 

that neither the nation nor reference 

material have documented interactions 

with marine mammals either through 

observers or logbooks. ‘‘No information’’ 

indicates that the nation provided 

information but did not specifically 

provide information on the marine 

mammal species interacting with a 

fishery or estimates of marine mammal 

bycatch. 

Overarching Classifications 

Below is a discussion of the 

overarching fishery classifications of 

gillnets, longlines, purse seines, trawls, 

and aquaculture, and their interactions 

with marine mammals. 

Gillnets 

Because the available information 

indicates that there is a likelihood that 

the mortality and serious injury caused 

by gillnets is more than remote, NMFS 

has classified all gillnet fisheries as 

export fisheries in the draft LOFF. 

Several U.S. gillnet fisheries, which are 

analogous to some fisheries considered 

in the LOFF, have been categorized as 

Category I fisheries under the MMPA. 

Records show that between 1990 and 

2011, bycatch in gillnets continues to 

affect many dolphins (odontocetes); 

namely 56 of the 74 recognized species 

(75%) have been bycaught in gillnets 

(Reeves et al. 2013). Additionally, 

records indicate that nine species of the 

14 recognized species of whales have 

been bycaught in gillnets. For seals and 

sea lions, 14 of the 18 extant species of 

phocid seals were captured in gillnets; 

and of the 14 species of otariid seals and 

sea lions (including one extinct species), 

seven have been bycaught in gillnets 

(Reeves et al. 2013). Since 1990, marine 

mammal bycatch in gillnets has 

increased and consistently poses a 

significant risk to marine mammals 

(Reeves et al. 2013). In particular, 

Lewison et al. (2014) found that gillnets 

for finfish have high bycatch intensity 

in various fishing regions of the world. 

International and regional marine 

mammal and fishery management 

organizations such as ACCOBAMS 

(2008), ASCOBANS (2009), CMS (2011), 

FAO (2000), ICES (2013), IOTC (2014), 

and IWC (2004) have conducted 

workshops, collected information, and 

published findings documenting the 

high risk gillnets pose to marine 

mammals. 

Based on the available information, 

NMFS has designated all gillnet 

fisheries as export fisheries. Nations 

wishing to challenge this designation 

must provide observer or logbook data 

sufficient to refute this determination. 

When possible, NMFS requests nations 

provide documentation that 

demonstrates that a gillnet fishery poses 

a remote likelihood of incidental 

mortality and serious injury to marine 

mammals. 

Longlines 

Because the available information 

indicates that there is a likelihood that 

the mortality and serious injury caused 

by longlines is more than remote, NMFS 

classified all longline fisheries as export 

fisheries. U.S. longline fisheries, which 

are analogous to some fisheries 

considered in the LOFF, have been 

categorized as Category I fisheries under 

the MMPA. 

In longline fisheries, hooking, 

entanglement, and boat strikes account 

for some mortality and serious injury, 

but not all interactions or depredation 

may have this result. Interactions of 

marine mammals with longline fisheries 

are likely to be under-reported (Clarke 

2014). Though not as great a threat for 

cetaceans globally as compared with 

other gear types, longline bycatch is a 

threat to several species and 

populations, including false killer 

whales (Pseudorca crassidens), Risso’s 

dolphin (Grampus griseus), and pilot 

whales (Globicephala spp.) in the 

Northwest Atlantic (Werner 2015). 

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) and sperm 

whales (Physeter macrocephalus) 

appear to be the main species involved 

with demersal longline fisheries at 

higher latitudes, while false killer 

whales (Pseudorca crassidens) and pilot 

whales (Globicephala spp.) appear to be 

the primary species involved with 

pelagic longline fisheries at lower 

latitudes (Hamer 2012). 

In a 2010 bycatch workshop with tuna 

RFMOs, the FAO found that progress on 

quantifying tuna RFMO fishery impacts 

on marine mammal populations and 

related progress in mitigating or 

reducing the mortality has been slow, 

because the priority for fishers is the 

adoption of measures to reduce or 

eliminate depredation and gear damage 

(FAO 2010). In tuna longline fisheries, 

which represent a significant portion of 

fisheries that export seafood to the 

United States, cetaceans are 

occasionally entangled and hooked. Any 

entanglement could be mitigated by the 

use of voluntary or mandated best 

practices to avoid bycatch by the tuna 

fishing industry; however, to date, the 

application of such techniques has been 

limited (Gilman 2011). 

Only through an evaluation of the 

bycatch rate and a determination of 

overall risk of bycatch associated with 

longline fishing can definitive case-bycase classifications be made for longline 

fisheries. NMFS invites nations who are 

parties and cooperating non-parties to 

RFMOs to join us in urging their 

respective RFMOs to undertake, as a 

research priority, such a risk assessment 

and analyze logbook and observer data 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39769 

to analyze the marine mammal bycatch 

risk posed by longline fisheries. 

NMFS designated all longline 

fisheries as export fisheries. Nations 

wishing to challenge this designation 

must provide observer or logbook data 

sufficient to refute this determination. 

When possible, NMFS requests that 

nations provide documentation that 

demonstrates that a longline fishery 

poses a remote likelihood of incidental 

mortality and serious injury to marine 

mammals. 

Purse Seines 

Because the available information 

indicates that there is a likelihood that 

the mortality and serious injury caused 

by purse seines is more than remote, 

NMFS classified several types of purse 

seine fisheries as export fisheries. Purse 

seine gear is documented to have 

marine mammal bycatch globally 

(Anderson 2014, Hall 2013, NOAA Tech 

Memo 2011). A portion of tuna exported 

to the United States is captured with 

purse seines, documented to have 

marine mammal bycatch (Anderson 

2014, Gilman 2011, IOTC 2010). Marine 

mammal interactions have been 

documented in purse seine fisheries 

other than those for tuna, including 

anchovy (Gonzales 2015), sardine 

(Prajith 2014), and small scale coastal 

fisheries for various species (Mustika, 

2014, Kiszka 2008). 

Purse seine fisheries for tuna are, with 

some exceptions, managed through 

RFMOs according to agreements entered 

into by member nations. Five tuna 

RFMOs manage fisheries in the 

Southern Ocean, Indian Ocean, Eastern 

Tropical Pacific, Western and Central 

Pacific, and Atlantic. Only three RFMOs 

have adopted measures to mitigate 

marine mammal bycatch in purse seine 

fisheries or prohibit entirely the 

intentional encirclement of marine 

mammals with purse seines. 

Specifically, the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission serves as the 

secretariat for the International Dolphin 

Conservation Program; the Indian Ocean 

Tuna Commission prohibits members 

from intentionally setting on cetaceans; 

and the Western and Central Pacific 

Fisheries Commission also prohibits 

intentionally setting on schools 

associated with cetaceans, and requires 

reasonable steps to ensure safe release of 

marine mammals. The International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas and the Commission for 

the Conservation of Southern Bluefin 

Tuna do not prescribe marine mammal 

conservation measures. 

NMFS designated most non-tuna 

purse seine fisheries as export fisheries. 

Purse seine fisheries outside tuna RFMO 

areas of jurisdiction are designated as 

export fisheries. Tuna fisheries within 

the jurisdiction of RFMOs lacking 

measures that prohibit intentional 

encirclement are export fisheries. Tuna 

fisheries within the jurisdiction of 

RFMOs with measures that prohibit 

intentional encirclement are exempt 

fisheries, unless information submitted 

by nations or readily available scientific 

information shows that the fishery has 

more than a remote likelihood of 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals in the course of its 

commercial fishing operations. Nations 

wishing to challenge these designations 

must provide observer or logbook data 

sufficient to refute this determination. 

When possible, NMFS requests nations 

provide documentation that 

demonstrates that purse seine gear in a 

particular fishery poses a remote 

likelihood of incidental mortality and 

serious injury to marine mammals. 

Trawl 

Because the available information 

indicates that there is a likelihood that 

the mortality and serious injury caused 

by trawl fisheries is more than remote, 

NMFS classified several types of trawl 

fisheries as export fisheries. U.S. trawl 

fisheries with marine mammal bycatch, 

which are analogous to some fisheries 

considered in the LOFF have been 

categorized as Category II fisheries 

under the MMPA. 

Trawl fisheries, including bottom, 

mid-water, and pelagic trawls, have 

been documented to globally interact 

with marine mammals (Peltier et al. 

2016, Komoroske & Lewison 2015, Read 

2014, Brown 2014). Pinnipeds are more 

likely to be entangled in industrial pair 

and pelagic trawl fisheries (Machado 

2015, Lobao-Tello et al. 2013). ICES 

(2010) has identified pelagic trawl nets 

as posing a risk of cetacean bycatch. 

Northridge et al. (2011) documented 

bycatch of harbor porpoises, bottlenose 

dolphins, common dolphins, pilot 

whales, minke whales, grey and harbor 

seals in mid-water and pair trawl 

fisheries in the North Atlantic. Trawl 

bycatch intensity was found to be higher 

in certain regions (Lewison et al. 2014). 

Nations wishing to challenge that 

designation must provide observer or 

logbook data sufficient to refute this 

determination. When possible, NMFS 

requests nations provide documentation 

that demonstrates that a trawl fishery 

poses a remote likelihood of incidental 

mortality and serious injury to marine 

mammals. 

Aquaculture 

Based on the available information, 

NMFS has designated most aquaculture 

operations for which nations submitted 

information as exempt fisheries unless 

there is a record of entanglement or 

intentional killing in such aquaculture 

operations. Because the MMPA import 

rule applies to aquaculture facilities 

sited in marine mammal habitat, where 

deterrence measures (e.g., anti-predator 

nets) may incidentally or intentionally 

kill and seriously injury marine 

mammals, NMFS evaluated an array of 

aquaculture operations, some of which 

have no analogous operations or 

characteristics to operations in the 

United States. Aquaculture operations 

for finfish (especially salmon), 

mollusks, seaweed, and other species 

are proliferating globally. Since 1990, 

annual production of salmonid farms 

has increased from 299,000 to 1,900,000 

tons (FAO 2012), and accompanying 

this expansion has been an increase in 

conflicts with marine mammals, 

especially pinnipeds. Pinniped 

depredation is a major problem at many 

aquaculture facilities in Europe, Chile, 

Australia, and South Africa (Kemper et 

al. 2003). Some nations use antipredator nets as a deterrent. 

In some aquaculture operations, 

bycatch of marine mammals in antipredator nets occurs occasionally, 

although direct killing, harassment, and 

exclusion from preferred habitat may 

pose more serious problems for marine 

mammal populations (Kemper et al. 

2003). Fatal entanglements of 

odontocetes in aquaculture antipredator nets appear to be infrequent; 

however, dolphin deaths in such nets 

have been reported from salmon and 

tuna facilities in Australia and Chile 

(Kemper et al. 2003). 

Literature documenting marine 

mammal interactions and the risk of 

marine mammal interactions with 

aquaculture equipment, or fish cages is 

lacking. For net pens and fish cages, the 

most damaging marine mammal 

interactions are with pinnipeds, while 

dolphins, porpoises and whales are 

viewed as a minor threat. Dolphins have 

been documented feeding on wild fish 

attracted to marine fish farms off Italy 

but were not reported to predate the 

caged fish (Dı ́az Lo ́pez et al. 2005). In 

a five-year study of Italian sea bass, sea 

bream, and meagre cages, Dı ́az Lo ́pez 

(2012) observed individually identified 

dolphins to assess patterns of habitat 

use and farm fidelity. Dolphins near 

farms typically foraged on wild fish 

concentrated in the farm but also fed on 

discarded or escaping fish during 

harvesting operations. Annual dolphin 

mortality was 1.5 per year, and five 

animals were found entangled in nets 

during the study period. The potential 

for marine mammals to become 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39770 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

entangled and drown in farm structures 

or lines is a concern (Wu ̈rsig and Gailey 

2002). From surveys at marine fish 

farms off Italy, Dı ́az Lo ́pez and Shirai 

(2007) estimated one bottlenose dolphin 

mortality per month due to 

entanglement with farm nets. 

Mussel aquaculture is a growing 

industry, with coastal and offshore 

waters being utilized for mussel 

aquaculture farms. This form of 

aquaculture uses ropes in the water 

column that pose an entanglement risk 

to marine mammals, particularly 

whales, although the extent of the risk 

is undetermined. In 2015, a Pacific right 

whale was documented entangled in, 

but successfully disentangled and 

released from, the grow-out ropes of 

mussel farm gear in Korea (Young, 

2015). A Bryde’s whale was entangled 

in mussel spat lines off the coast of New 

Zealand (Lloyd 2003). A humpback calf 

was found entangled in mussel spatcollecting rope off Western Australia but 

was disentangled and released (Groom & 

Coughran, 2012). Finally, a humpback 

whale died from entanglement in single 

dropper spat- collectors at an 

experimental mussel farm in northwest 

Iceland (Young, 2015). Given this 

information, the placement of 

aquaculture farms in waters that are 

critical habitats and migratory routes for 

endangered species, can increase the 

risk of entanglements, and in so doing 

can change the classification of the 

aquaculture operation. 

Review of the NMFS U. S. Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments (Waring et al. 2012, 

2015) finds very few verified instances 

of marine mammals being injured by or 

entangled in aquaculture gear. U.S 

aquaculture facilities are Category III 

fisheries, because there are no known 

incidental mortalities or serious injuries 

of marine mammals in these operations, 

and they are considered to have a 

remote likelihood of marine mammal 

interactions. Therefore, by analogy, 

NMFS is proposing to classify all 

aquaculture operations for which 

nations provided information (or for 

which scientific information is readily 

available) as exempt in the LOFF, absent 

information and evidence that a 

particular aquaculture operation has 

more than a remote likelihood of 

incidental mortality and serious injury 

of marine mammals, NMFS is seeking 

comment on this classification. 

However, NMFS has classified as export 

fisheries aquaculture facilities with a 

record of entanglement or a history of 

intentional killing. A harvesting nation 

must demonstrate that all aquaculture 

operations, regardless of their 

classification, sited in marine mammal 

habitat or interacting with marine 

mammals, are prohibited from the 

intentional killing or serious injury of 

marine mammals in the course of 

aquaculture operations or have 

established procedures to reliably 

certify that exports of fish and fish 

products to the United States are not the 

product of an intentional killing or 

serious injury of a marine mammal. 

While NMFS desires more 

information about the environmental 

risk of these operations, particularly 

mussel rope and cage aquaculture, to 

marine mammals and urges the industry 

to develop mitigation techniques to 

avoid potential entanglements or reduce 

their severity, the documented 

interactions have been mostly non-life 

threatening. Nevertheless, in developing 

the LOFF, NMFS has evaluated, and 

will continue to evaluate, aquaculture 

operations on a case-by-case basis, 

considering the operation’s measures to 

reduce interactions, prohibit intentional 

mortality, and reduce incidental 

mortality and serious injury of marine 

mammals (e.g., use of anti-predator nets 

and the prohibition on intentional 

killing). 

Fisheries or Gear Types Excluded From 

This Rule or That are Generally Listed 

as Exempt 

In the implementing regulations and 

the LOFF, NMFS has defined 

‘‘commercial fishing operation’’ as: 

Vessels or entities that catch, take, or 

harvest fish (as defined in section 3 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1802)) from the marine 

environment (or other areas where 

marine mammals occur) that results in 

the sale or barter of all or part of the fish 

caught, taken or harvested. The term 

includes aquaculture activities that 

interact with or occur in marine 

mammal habitat. Consequently, this rule 

does not apply to any land-based or 

freshwater aquaculture operations; these 

commercial fishing operations do not 

occur in marine mammal habitat. 

Additionally, there are several gear 

types in the U.S. List of Fisheries that 

are consistently and broadly classified 

as category III fisheries with no 

documented marine mammal catch (see 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

interactions/fisheries/2016_list_of_

fisheries_lof.html#table3_cat3). NMFS 

has classified those fisheries as Category 

III because there are often no known 

incidental mortalities or serious injuries 

of marine mammals in these fisheries, 

and there is a remote likelihood of 

marine mammal mortalities and serious 

injuries given that the fishing method or 

gear is highly selective. These include: 

• handline 

• harpoon 

• hook and line 

• pole and line 

• spearfishing 

• aquarium collecting 

• cast net 

• hand collection 

• loop net 

• rake/tongs 

• diving 

By analogy, NMFS classified these 

gear types as exempt in the LOFF. 

What was the process for notification 

and the classification for fisheries where 

nations failed to provide information? 

NMFS first informed nations of the 

requirements of the MMPA import rule 

and the process to develop the LOFF via 

a cable sent to all trading partners in 

September 2016. On December 21, 2016, 

NMFS sent a letter to the Washington, 

DC embassy of each trading partner 

officially requesting the information 

needed to create the LOFF. The letter 

included explicit details about the type 

of information needed. From March 

through June 2017, NMFS followed up 

on these requests by phone, emails, and 

in some cases, visits to embassies in the 

United States, requesting information on 

nation’s fisheries that export to the 

United States. Additionally, NMFS 

searched readily available information, 

including FAO documents, in an 

attempt to classify fisheries for which 

nations failed to provide sufficient 

information or provided no information 

at all. If nations submit information 

during this comment period on the draft 

LOFF, NMFS will consider this 

information when developing the final 

LOFF. 

As discussed above, NMFS classified 

as export fisheries all fisheries from 

nations that failed to respond to 

requests for information or provided 

insufficient information about a fishery 

and for which information was not 

readily available as stipulated in the 

implementing regulations defining 

export and exempt fishery (see 50 CFR 

216.3 Definitions of Export and Exempt 

Fishery). 

Nations that Failed to Provide 

Information 

The following nations failed to 

provide information on their fisheries, 

and NMFS did not find available 

information to classify their fisheries; 

consequently, NMFS classified all these 

nations’ fisheries as export fisheries (see 

50 CFR 216.3 Definitions of Export and 

Exempt Fishery). 

• British Virgin Islands (BVI) failed to 

provide data for exports of marine fish, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39771 

toothfish, snapper and squid. BVI maintains 

that it does not export fish and fish products 

to the United States. 

• Cameroon failed to provide data for 

exports of groundfish (cod, cusk, haddock, 

hake, pollock, sole), mackerel, herring, snail, 

mussels, oysters, crawfish, crustaceans, 

tilapia, and shrimp. These species may be 

harvested with longlines and gillnets. 

Indications of marine mammal bycatch in 

longlines (Werner 2014) and gillnets (Ayissi 

et al. 2014) are documented; however, the 

target species for these gear types are not 

identified in the literature for Cameroon. 

• China also did not provide information, 

and the data readily available and used to 

classify China’s fisheries that export to the 

United States may not accurately characterize 

existing aquaculture operations, processing 

operations, and wild-capture fisheries. 

• Haiti failed to provide data for exports of 

conch, coral, crab, lobster, molluscs, sea 

cucumbers, and shrimp. Haiti has not 

exported fish or fish products to the United 

States since 2012. 

Classification for Fisheries of Nations 

Identified as Solely Intermediary 

Nations 

NMFS defines an intermediary nation 

as a nation that imports fish or fish 

products from a fishery on the LOFF 

and re-exports such fish or fish products 

to the United States. To prevent any fish 

or fish products subject to import 

prohibitions authorized by the MMPA 

import rule from being imported into 

the United States from any intermediary 

nation, including a processing nation, 

NMFS includes provisions for 

intermediary nations (see 50 CFR 216.24 

(h)(9)(iv)). NMFS requested that 

intermediary nations provide 

information on the fisheries and nations 

that are the source of any imported 

product that they process and export to 

the United States. Many nations failed 

to provide this information; NMFS 

continues to urge them to do so. 

Based on the information received or 

obtained, the following nations are 

solely intermediary nations: Belarus, 

Monaco, and Switzerland. Israel is 

predominantly an intermediary nation 

except for the export of seaweed, tuna, 

and freshwater species-derived caviar. 

Nations are encouraged to identify and 

indicate the fish and fish products for 

which they are acting as intermediary 

nations. 

Nations That Do Not Have a Consistent 

History of Exporting Fish and Fish 

Products to the United States and Are 

Not Included in the List of Foreign 

Fisheries 

In reviewing the import data, 

information submitted by nations, and 

readily available information, NMFS 

identified twenty-five trading partners 

that either exported solely freshwater 

species or had a sporadic or inconsistent 

export history with the United States. 

Table 1 summarizes the nations that 

NMFS has determined will not be 

included in the LOFF and are not 

subject to any of the requirements of the 

MMPA import rule. However, if any of 

these nations wish to export fish and 

fish products to the United States, they 

must contact NMFS and satisfy the 

requirements of the MMPA import rule. 

TABLE 1—NATIONS SUGGESTED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE MMPA LOFF AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL

Bolivia 

Justification—Landlocked nation, low level of U.S. fish imports from Bolivia. 

Detail—Landlocked nation. In 2006 & 2015, the U.S. imported fish and shellfish meal not for human consumption, and fish eggs only in 

2006. In 2013, Bolivia exported seaweed to the U.S. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/foreign-trade/. 

http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/bol/profile.htm. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/BOL/en. 

Bosnia Hercegovina 

Justification—Export conch (2015), grouper, snapper, and swordfish (2003). 

Detail—Very small amount of coastline on the Adriatic Sea. ‘‘The role of maritime areas in the total national economy is very small. There 

are no exact figures on the performance of the economy but it is estimated (Strategy for development of tourism of Bosnia and 

Herzegovina) that the GDP from the maritime area of Bosnia and Herzegovina is less than 1 percent of the total GDP of the country (European Commission, 2014 H).’’ 

Fisheries are artisanal and sold domestically or captured for domestic aquaculture. 

http://www.fao.org/3/a-au016e.pdf. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/BIH/en. 

Burkina Faso 

Justification—Landlocked; only export waxes. 

Detail—Have exported ‘‘waxes, may include spermaceti’’ to the U.S. in 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2016. Further consultation with NMFS Office 

of Science and Technology (S&T) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) revealed that since cessation of commercial whaling and

whale product imports, ‘‘waxes’’ encompasses waxes not derived from spermaceti whale oil, such as beeswax. 

Cayman Islands 

Justification—Only toothfish exports which may be an error. 

Detail—Consultations with S&T, CBP, and NOAA experts on the Dissostichus catch documentation scheme indicate that attribution of 

toothfish catch to Cayman Islands is likely a recording error of ‘‘last port’’ vs. ‘‘origin of product.’’ NMFS contacted the Caymans, and they 

have no records of toothfish exports. Further, the catch documentation scheme ensures that toothfish cannot enter the United States 

without valid catch documentation. 

Central African Republic (CAR) 

Justification—Landlocked, possible processor only. 

Detail—Exported processed squid in 2016, lobster, yellowfin and swordfish 2000–2001. Aquaculture for domestic use only. http://www.fao.

org/3/a-au069e.pdf FAO indicates that CAR does not have an export market for fish products: Table 2. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/CAF/fr. 

Chad 

Justification—Landlocked; Last 17 years only product exported was thickeners derived from seaweed (2015). 

Detail—Landlocked, local economy produces no exports of fish for human consumption to U.S. from Chad. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/TCD/fr. 

Christmas Island, territory of Australia 

Justification—During the last 17 years exports have been sporadic, clam or crab in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, fish liver, roe 2016. 

Detail—Australia indicated that no export fisheries originate from Christmas Island. 

Cocos Island 

Justification—Freshwater fish exports. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39772 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 1—NATIONS SUGGESTED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE MMPA LOFF AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL— 

Continued 

Detail—Between 2000 and 2017, Cocos Island has exported tilapia once to the U.S. Australia noted hand collection of giant clam for aquaculture and re-seeding in the waters around Cocos Island, but these products are not entering the U.S. via Cocos Island. 

Ethiopia 

Justification—Landlocked, only product exported is waxes. 

Detail—Consultation with NMFS S&T and CBP revealed that since cessation of commercial whaling and whale product imports, ‘‘waxes’’ 

encompasses wax that is not made from spermaceti whale oil, likely beeswax. Ethiopia confirmed the wax was beeswax. 

Ethiopian fisheries are entirely from aquaculture with limited exports. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/ETH/en. 

French Guiana 

Justification—Freshwater fish in 2016, no exports to the U.S. 2001–2015. 

Details—Rule does not apply to freshwater fisheries. 

Hungary 

Justification—Landlocked; Seaweed and other algae, historically caviar (2014). 

Details—Hungary has extensive inland capture fisheries, pond aquaculture, and fish farming. Carps are the most popular fish species in 

capture fisheries (54%) and pond aquaculture (82%) while African catfish is the dominant fish in intensive fish farming. Inland waters 

have high value predator species such as pikes, catfish and pike perch, which were not exported to the U.S. Given the inland nature of 

Hungarian fisheries, the export of seaweed is likely from inland freshwater aquaculture and fish farming and is therefore not included 

under this rule. 

Kazakhstan 

Justification—Landlocked; Solely freshwater fisheries, some caviar. 

Details—The MMPA import rule does not apply to freshwater fisheries. The last U.S. import of caviar (aquaculture) was in 2010. Aquaculture is on the rise, but fish farming is expensive to maintain and consequently results in very few exports. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_KZ.pdf. 

Kyrgyzstan 

Justification—Landlocked; Oysters, canned (2004), dolphinfish and tilapia (2013), marine fish (2015). 

Details—In the last 17 years, U.S. importation records show imports for only the three years listed above. Import reports/records may be an 

error, generally there are no consistent seafood imports to the U.S. from this nation. 

Macedonia 

Justification—Landlocked; Exported fish paste in 2016. 

Details—Exported fish paste (2016 and 2010), and processed tuna in 2010. Their fisheries are entirely freshwater, for which the rule does 

not apply. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_MK.pdf. 

Mali 

Justification—Landlocked, main export is waxes 2003 to 2015. 

Details—Mali exported to the U.S. grouper and processed fish in 2009, and solely waxes were exported to the U.S. other years, with no exports to the U.S. between 2015–present. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/fr/FI_CP_ML.pdf (in French). 

Moldova 

Justification—Landlocked; Export is aquaculture derived caviar. 

Details—Moldova exported tuna and caviar in 2012 and 2016, caviar only in 2015. FAO has no record of tuna or caviar harvest in Moldova: 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_MD.pdf. 

It appears that most of the sturgeon caviar harvest is derived from aquaculture: 

http://www.aquatir.md/?lang=en (and other google searches). 

Mongolia 

Justification—Landlocked, freshwater fisheries only. 

Details— Mongolia exported to U.S. seaweed unfit for human consumption in 2016 (processed product). No FAO fishery profile. The

MMPA import rule does not apply to freshwater inland fisheries. 

Monserrat 

Justification—freshwater aquaculture; No exports to U.S. from 2000–2017 with exception of tuna in 2012. 

Details—It appears that Monserrat has no active commercial tuna fishery (http://waittinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/5_MontserratFisheries-Assessment-final.pdf, and targeted searches), no FAO fishery profile. 

Serbia 

Justification—No exports 2000–17 with the exception of tuna in 2012. 

Details—Landlocked, Rule does not apply to freshwater aquaculture. No FAO fishery profile. (http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_

serbia/en). Do not and have not fished for tuna as members of International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 

Slovakia 

Justification— Landlocked; Freshwater pond aquaculture. 

Details— U.S. does not import aquaculture product from Slovakia. The U.S. imported bigeye and yellowfin tuna in 2013 and pickled herring 

in 2014. Neither are products that Slovakia is likely harvesting or processing. 

ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_SK.pdf. 

Somalia 

Justification—U.S. imported shrimp in 2002, lobster (Homarus spp.) in 2004, and coral/shells in 2015. 

Details—The Homarus lobster is not native to the Indian Ocean; therefore, this product is likely a re-export or reporting error. Coral and 

shell fisheries are predominantly hand collection fisheries and have a remote likelihood of marine mammal interaction. NMFS was unable 

to find evidence of an existing shrimp fishery. Possible import recording issue as the U.S. is not actively importing any product from Somalia. (http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/SOM/profile.htm). 

Tokelau Islands, Territory of New Zealand 

Justification—No commercial fisheries. 

Details—2000–2017 U.S. Trade Data shows records of exports of marine fish (2001, 2007, 2008, 2009) seabass (2010, 2011, 2012) and 

Bluefin tuna (2016). However, several reports indicate the absence of commercial fisheries operating in Tokelau (Dalzell et al., 1996; 

Passfield, 1998). All fishing activities are subsistence. In addition, seabass is not a species found in Tokelau. Tokelau does not have the 

food safety regulations to export fish to another nation and is not a flag state or port state. 

Togo 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39773 

TABLE 1—NATIONS SUGGESTED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE MMPA LOFF AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REMOVAL— 

Continued 

Justification—Few and inconsistent exports. 

Details—We found evidence that Togo’s fisheries for shrimp are subsistence, artisanal fisheries; likewise, Togo’s tuna fisheries are solely 

artisanal fisheries with no current active industrial fishery although foreign-flagged and IUU vessels target tuna in Togo’s waters. Togo’s 

sardine fishery consists of industrial trawl and artisanal beach seine operations, with no evidence that these are commercial and exporting fisheries (https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/legacy.seaaroundus/doc/Researcher+Publications/dpauly/PDF/2015/Working+Papers/ 

MarineFisheriesTogo.pdf). Togo’s snail (other than sea snail) are freshwater species for which the rule does not apply. Finally, the crustacean fishery is lagoon-based (artisanal and subsistence) with limited exports to international markets. 

Uganda 

Justification—Landlocked, only export freshwater species. 

Details—From 2000–2009, U.S. Trade Data records show some processed marine fishery products imported to the U.S via Uganda; however from 2012 to 2017, exports have been exclusively Nile perch, a freshwater species for which the MMPA import rule does not apply. 

Uzbekistan 

Justification—Landlocked; Freshwater species only. 

Details—No imports 2014–2017, in 2013 Uzbekistan exported freshwater species only; and, from 2009–2012, the predominant exports

were freshwater fish species with some exports of processed ‘‘marine fish.’’ For freshwater species the MMPA import rule does not 

apply. 

http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/UZB/en. 

Assumptions Made in the Development 

of the LOFF 

Fishery Products 

NMFS assumed that seafood products 

imported by the U.S. between the years 

2000 and 2017 would be a reasonable 

basis for the list of target species 

included in the draft LOFF for each 

harvesting nation, unless the nation 

indicated that the fishery no longer 

occurs, the species is a re-export, (e.g., 

because the nation is only the processor 

for that fish or fish product), or the 

reported export of that seafood species/ 

product to the United States was a data 

reporting error. For those fish and fish 

products listed on the U.S. Trade 

database, NMFS initially assumed that a 

fishery was associated with those 

products and looked to exporting 

nations to confirm their status as either 

the harvesting nation, intermediary 

nation, or both. 

NMFS assumed that species or 

products that were associated with a 

gear type were wild caught and not 

aquacultured, with one exception. 

Unless occurring in the wild in a given 

country, NMFS assumed tilapia was 

produced by aquaculture operation. 

Area of Operation 

To the extent possible, NMFS listed a 

harvesting nation’s fisheries that take 

place in a foreign Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) or on the high seas under 

that harvesting nation’s LOFF, rather 

than under the LOFF of the nation in 

whose EEZ the fishing took place. 

Hand Collection Fisheries for Corals, 

Sponges, Shells 

Where no information was provided 

by a nation and the U.S. has imported 

corals, sponges, and/or shells from that 

nation, these fisheries were designated 

as a gear type of ‘‘hand collection’’ and 

subsequently labelled an exempt 

fishery. There is limited aquaculture of 

corals for export, though aquacultureraised coral would also be hand 

collected and labelled an exempt 

fishery. 

Duplication of Marine Mammal 

Interactions Based on Gear Type With 

No Associated Target Fishery Species 

Where nations did not indicate target 

species and failed to provide fishery 

information in the form of: (1) A gear 

type and associated marine mammal 

interaction, or (2) a gear type and 

specific area of operation with 

associated marine mammal interaction, 

NMFS assumed that any instance of that 

gear type for any target species, or that 

gear type operating in a specific area of 

operation for any corresponding target 

species also reported, had the same 

likelihood or prevalence of marine 

mammal interaction. Any species or 

bycatch numbers provided in these 

instances were copied across target 

fisheries. Nations are encouraged to 

notice where duplication may have 

occurred and provide documentation to 

support changes to the bycatch species 

or bycatch estimates. 

Toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) Catch 

Documentation Scheme (CDS) 

Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish 

(Dissostichus spp.) are fished under a 

strict catch documentation scheme 

(CDS) in order to prevent trade in 

toothfish harvested in contravention of 

Convention on the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) Conservation measures. The 

CDS allows for supply chain tracking of 

toothfish from point of harvest. Only 

Members and nations that are Party to 

the Convention are permitted to 

participate in the CDS for toothfish with 

the exception of the Seychelles, which 

is the sole Non-Contracting Party (NCP), 

permitted to participate in the CDS. As 

in the case of the Cayman Islands 

discussed above, instances where the 

NOAA S&T and CBP import data 

indicated the U.S. received toothfish 

from an NCP were crosschecked against 

the CDS and were determined to likely 

be the result misreporting a vessel’s 

‘‘last port’’ as its ‘‘point of origin.’’ As 

the U.S. already prohibits the 

importation of toothfish without a valid 

Dissostichus Catch Document, NMFS 

discarded these cases from the LOFF. 

For more information, see https://

www.ccamlr.org/en/compliance/catchdocumentation-scheme-cds. 

Summary 

NMFS reviewed information from or 

related to more than 160 trading 

partners. NMFS eliminated 25 nations 

from the LOFF (see Table 1 for a list of 

these nations and the rationale used for 

eliminating them from the LOFF). The 

draft LOFF is comprised of 138 nations 

for a total of 720 exempt and 3,270 

export fisheries. The LOFF, an 

expanded LOFF containing references, a 

list of Intermediary nations and their 

associated products, and list of fisheries 

and nations where the rule does not 

apply can found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

ia/species/marine_mammals/ 

mmpaloff.html. An annotated 

bibliography with supporting references 

can be found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/ 

species/marine_mammals/ 

mmpaloff.html. 

Impact of the LOFF on Largest Trading 

Partners by Volume and Value 

Below is a table containing the twenty 

largest imports by volume and value, an 

assessment of the data they provided, 

and their risk of marine mammal 

bycatch. NMFS based its assessment of 

the quality of the data supplied by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39774 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

nations based on the completeness and 

amount of detail in the information 

provided. The number of export and 

exempt fisheries is a tally of those 

fisheries after NMFS analysis of the 

LOFF. The overall risk of marine 

mammal bycatch is based on the type of 

gear most prevalent in the nation’s 

fisheries and the information provided 

by those nations related to marine 

mammal fisheries interactions. 

Chile, Peru, Argentina, and Ecuador 

have large numbers of small gillnet, 

purse seine, and trawl vessels with 

marine mammal bycatch. Canada’s pot 

fisheries for lobster and snow crab have 

high levels of large whale bycatch. 

Canada also has bycatch in its gillnet 

fisheries and permits the intentional 

killing of marine mammals in 

aquaculture operations. Indonesia, 

Thailand, and Vietnam have large 

processing and aquaculture sectors; 

their vulnerability lies in their apparent 

inability to assess and mitigate marine 

mammal bycatch. If these nations 

estimate their marine mammal bycatch 

or provide more detailed information 

about their fishery operations, NMFS 

may be able to reclassify as exempt 

additional fisheries. 

The Russian Federation, Japan, 

Mexico, and China provided little to no 

information to enable a full assessment 

of their fisheries and level of marine 

mammal risk. Japan’s marine mammal 

bycatch is particularly large in its pound 

net fisheries, whereas the Russian 

Federation’s bycatch is predominantly 

in its pot and trawl fisheries. Mexico’s 

marine mammal bycatch includes its 

gillnet and trawl fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Gulf of California. 

India’s fishery bycatch is predominantly 

in its coastal gillnet fisheries which 

includes tens of thousands of vessels. 

Taiwan has bycatch in their longline 

fisheries and their drift gillnet fisheries. 

The United Kingdom has bycatch of 

harbor porpoise and common dolphins 

in gillnet and trawl fisheries. 

Nations, some not on this list, with a 

high level of documented marine 

mammal bycatch include South Korea 

(pound nets and gillnets); New Zealand 

(all gear types, especially trawl); and 

Australia (trawl and longline). However, 

NMFS recognizes that this evaluation 

may be highly influenced by the 

advanced assessment capabilities of 

these nations. New Zealand and Norway 

may be the only nations to have 

currently calculated a bycatch limit. 

Norway’s information demonstrates 

bycatch of harbor porpoise, gray seal, 

and harbor seal in excess of the bycatch 

limit in its gillnet fisheries. 

TABLE 2—LIST OF THE TWENTY LARGEST IMPORTS BY VOLUME AND VALUE AND AN ASSESSMENT OF THE DATA THEY

PROVIDED AND THEIR RISK OF MARINE MAMMAL BYCATCH

Nation Quality of data supplied 

Number of 

export/exempt 

fisheries 

Overall risk of marine 

mammal bycatch 

Canada ................................................................... Excellent ................................................................ 163/82 Average/High. 

China ...................................................................... Poor ....................................................................... 110/3 Unknown. 

Indonesia ................................................................ Fair ........................................................................ 13/25 Low. 

Thailand ................................................................. Fair ........................................................................ 76/12 Average. 

Chile ....................................................................... Good ...................................................................... 46/39 Average/High. 

India ....................................................................... Poor ....................................................................... 24/2 Unknown. 

Vietnam .................................................................. Fair ........................................................................ 26/14 Low. 

Ecuador .................................................................. Good ...................................................................... 21/6 High. 

Mexico .................................................................... Fair ........................................................................ 40/24 Average. 

Russian Federation ................................................ Poor ....................................................................... 114/0 Average/High. 

Japan ..................................................................... Poor ....................................................................... 197/18 High. 

Philippines .............................................................. Good ...................................................................... 16/4 Low. 

Peru ........................................................................ Good ...................................................................... 70/34 Average/High. 

Argentina ................................................................ Good ...................................................................... 65/9 Average. 

Iceland .................................................................... Excellent ................................................................ 27/2 Average. 

Honduras ................................................................ Poor ....................................................................... 4/6 Unknown. 

Taiwan .................................................................... Good ...................................................................... 19/3 Average/High. 

South Korea ........................................................... Excellent ................................................................ 604/44 High. 

New Zealand .......................................................... Excellent ................................................................ 81/25 Average/High. 

United Kingdom ..................................................... Good ...................................................................... 56/8 Average/High. 

Request for Input 

In addition to the requested 

information in this Federal Register 

notice, NMFS is interested in receiving 

public comment and supporting 

documentation in response to the 

following: 

1. Should all marine aquaculture involving 

lines, such as seaweed, mussels, oysters, and 

other shellfish be considered an exempt 

fishery? Why or why not? 

2. Should net pen aquaculture for tuna be 

considered an exempt fishery? Why or why 

not? 

3. Should net cage aquaculture for finfish 

be considered an exempt fishery? Why or 

why not? 

4. Should lift net or other such nets be 

considered an exempt fishery? Why or why 

not? 

5. Would nations prefer to submit their 

information in the form of a database? 

6. Should nations with only exempt 

fisheries be allowed to apply for a 

comparability finding every eight years rather 

than every four years? 

References 

Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans 

of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and 

contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS) 

2008. International Workshop on Cetacean 

Bycatch within ACCOBAMS Area. Rome 

(FAO HQs), Italy, 17–18 September 2008 

Anderson, R.C. (2014) Cetaceans and Tuna 

Fisheries in the Western and Central 

Indian Ocean. IPNLF Technical Report 2, 

International Pole and Line Foundation, 

London. 133 pages. 

Agreement on the Conservation of Small 

Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East 

Atlantic, Irish and North Seas 

(ASCOBANS) 2009. Cetacean Incidental 

Catches in Fisheries: Report on the 

Implementation of Certain Provisions of 

the Council Regulations (EC) No. 812/2004 

and on a Scientific Assessment of the 

Effects of Using in Particular Gillnets, 

Trammel Nets, and Entangled Nets on 

Cetaceans in the Baltic Sea as Requested 

through Council Regulation (EC) No. 2187/ 

2005. 6th Meeting of the Parties to 

ASCOBANS MOP6/Doc.5–09 (AC) UN 

Campus, Bonn, Germany, 16–18 September 

2009 Dist. 

Ayissi, I.K. Van Waerebeek, and G. 

Segniagbeto, ‘‘Report on the exploratory 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 39775 

survey of cetaceans and their status in 

Cameroon,’’ in Proceedings of the 17th 

Meeting CMS Scientific Council, Bergen, 

Norway, November 2011, Document 

UNEP/CMS/ScC17/Inf.10 

Brown S, Reid D, Rogan E (2014) 

Characteristics of Fishing Operations, 

Environment and Life History Contributing 

to Small Cetacean Bycatch in the Northeast 

Atlantic. PLoS ONE 9(8): e104468. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104468 

Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., 

Inoue, Y. & Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in 

longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like 

species: a global review of status and 

mitigation measures. FAO Fisheries and 

Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 588. 

Rome, FAO. 199 pp. 

Convention for Migratory Species (CMS) 

2011. Assessment of Bycatch in Gillnet 

Fisheries. Sextant Technology Ltd. UNEP/ 

CMS.FAO 2010. Kobe II Bycatch Workshop 

Background Paper—Marine Mammals. 

Bergen, 20–25 November 2011. 

Diaz Lopez, B., L. Marini, and F. Polo. 2005. 

The impact of a fish farm on a bottlenose 

dolphin population in the Mediterranean 

Sea. Thalassas 21:65–70. 

Dı ́az Lo ́pez, B., and J.A. Bernal Shirai. 2007. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

presence and incidental capture in a 

marine fish farm on the north-eastern coast 

of Sardinia (Italy). Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the U.K. 87:113– 

117.–Dı ́az Lo ́pez, B. 2012. Bottlenose 

dolphins and aquaculture: interaction and 

site fidelity on the north-eastern coast of 

Sardinia (Italy). Marine Biology 159:1–12, 

DOI:10.1007/s00227–00012–02002–x. 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 

Fisheries Department (FAO-FI). Review of 

the state of world marine fishery resources 

2009. World Global Tuna Fisheries. FIRMS 

Reports. In: Fisheries and Resources 

Monitoring System (FIRMS) [online]. 

Rome. Updated 18 February 2013. [Cited 

13 July 2017]. http://firms.fao.org/firms/ 

fishery/459/en 

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 

2010, Kobe II Bycatch Workshop 

Background Paper Marine Mammals. 

IOTC–2010–WPEB-Inf13, Co-occurrence 

with world tuna fisheries, but little known 

status, bycatch. Kobe II Background Paper, 

Available online www.iotc.org/sites/ 

default/files/documents/proceedings/.../ 

IOTC–2010–WPEB-Inf14.pdf 

Gilman, E.L. 2011. Bycatch Governance and 

Best Practice Mitigation Technology in 

Global Tuna Fisheries. Marine Policy 

(2011). Honolulu, HI. doi:10.1016/ 

j.marpol.2011.01.021 

Gonzales, A., Vega, R., E. Yanez. 2015. 

Operational Interaction between South 

American Sea Lion Otaria Flavescens and 

Purse Seine Fishing Activities in Northern 

Chile. Revista de Biologia Marina y 

Oceanografia: 50 (3): 479–489. Doi: 

10.4067/S0718 

Groom, C., & Coughran, D. (2012). 

Entanglements of baleen whales off the 

coast of Western Australia between 1982 

and 2010: patterns of occurrence, outcomes 

and management responses. Pacific 

Conservation Biology, 18(3), 203–214. 

Hall, M. and M. Roman 2013. Bycatch and 

Non-tuna Catch in the Tropical Tuna Purse 

Seine Fisheries of the World. FAO and 

Aquatic Technical Paper. No. 569. Rome. 

249 pp. 

Halpin, W. J. Nichols, and Carl Safina. 2014 

Global Patterns of Marine Mammal, 

Seabird, and Sea Turtle Bycatch Reveal 

Taxa-specific and Cumulative Megafauna 

Hotspots. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. Vol. 111 No. 14 

5271–5276. 

Hamer D, Childerhouse S, and N. Gales. 

2012. Odontocene Bycatch and 

Depredation in Longline Fisheries: A 

Review of Available Literature and of 

Potential Solutions. Marine Mammal 

Science 28 (4): E345–E374. Doi: 10.1111/ 

j.1748–7692 

ICES 2013. Request from EU Concerning 

Monitoring of Bycatch of Cetaceans and 

Other Protected Species. Special Request. 

ICES Advice Book 1. 

ICES 2010. New Information Regarding Small 

Cetaceans, Marine Mammals, Sea Birds, 

and Sensitive Habitats and Impact of 

Fisheries. 1.5 1.2 Special Request Advice. 

IOTC 2014. A Concept Note on the Need to 

Develop an IOTC Identification Guide for 

Marine Mammals. Working Party on 

Ecosystems and Bycatch. Tokyo, Japan. 

October 27–31 2014. IOTC–2014– 

WPEB10–32. 

IWC 2004. Report of Subcommittee on 

Estimation of Bycatch and Other Human 

Induced Mortality. International Whaling 

Commission. Annex J. J. CETACEAN RES. 

MANAGE. 7 (SUPPL.),2005 The meeting 

was held at the Hilton Sorrento Palace 

Hotel, Sorrento, Italy, from 29 June—10 

July 2004 and was chaired by Doug 

DeMaster. 

Kemper CM, Pemberton D, Cawthorn M, 

Heinrich S and others (2003) Aquaculture 

and marine mammals: coexistence or 

conflict? In: Gales N, Hindell M, Kirkwood 

R (eds) Marine mammals: fisheries, 

tourism, and management issues. CSIRO, 

Collingwood, p 208¥225 

Kiszka J, Muir C, Poonian C, Cox T, Amir O, 

Bourjea J, Razafindrakoto Y, wambiji N, 

and N Bristol. 2008. Marine Mammal 

Bycatch in the Southwest Indian Ocean: 

Review and Need for a Comprehensive 

Status Assessment. Western Indian Ocean 

Journal of Marine Science 7 (2), 119–136 

pp. 

Komoroske LM and RL Lewison 2015. 

Addressing Fisheries Bycatch in A 

Changing World. Front. Mar.Sci.2:83. doi: 

10.3389/fmars.2015.00083 

Lewison, Rebecca L., Larry B. Crowder, 

Bryan P. Wallace, Jeffrey E. Moore, Tara 

Cox, Ramunas Zydelis, Sara McDonald, 

Andrew DiMatteo, Daniel C. Dunn, Connie 

Y. Kot, Rhema Bjorkland, Shaleyla Kelez, 

Candan Soykan, Kelly R. Stewart, Michelle 

Sims, Andre Boustany, Andrew J. Read, 

Patrick Halpin, W.J. Nicohols, and Carl 

Safina 2014. Global Patterns of Marine 

Mammal, Seabird, and Sea Turtle Bycatch 

Reveal Taxa-specific and Cumulative 

Megafauna Hotspots. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 111 

No. 14 5271–5276. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ 

10.1073/pnas.1318960111 

Lloyd, B.L. (2003). Potential effects of mussel 

farming on New Zealand’s marine 

mammals and seabirds: a discussion paper. 

Wellington: DOC Science Publishing, 

Science & Research Unit. 

Lobao-Tello, Pablo Ricardo & Hucke-Gaete, 

Rodrigo & Torres-Florez, Juan. (2013). First 

observations of operational interactions 

between bottom-trawling fisheries and 

South American sea lion, Otaria flavescens 

in south-central Chile. Journal of the 

Marine Biological Association of the UK. 

93. 10.1017/S0025315412001282. 

Machado R. 2015.Incidental Catch of South 

American Sea Lion in a Pair Trawl off 

Southern Brazil. Neotropical Biology and 

Conservation. Doi: 10.4013/ 

nbc.2015.101.06 

Mustika, PL, Purnomo FS, S Northridge 2014. 

A Pilot Study to Identify the Extent of 

Small Cetacean Bycatch in Indonesia Using 

Fisher Interview and Stranding Data as 

Proxies. Final Report. International 

Whaling Commission. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Technical Memo 2011. 

U.S. National Bycatch Report [W.A. Karp, 

L. Desfosse, S.G. Brooke, Editors.] NMFS– 

F/SPO–117C, 508 p. 

Northridge S, Kingston A, Mackay A, M 

Lonergan. 2011. Bycatch of Vulnerable 

Species: Understanding the Process of 

Mitigating the Impacts. Final Report to 

Defra Marine and Fisheries Science Unit. 

Defra, London. 99 pp. 

Peltier, Helene, Matthieu Authier, Rob 

Deaville, Willy Dabin, Paul D. Jepson, 

Olivier van Canneyt, Pierre Daniel, Vincent 

Ridoux. 2016. Small Cetacean Bycatch as 

Estimated from Stranding Schemes: The 

Common Dolphin Case in the Northeast 

Atlantic. Environmental Science & Policy, 

Volume 63, 2016, Pages 7–18, ISSN 1462– 

9011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 

j.envsci.2016.05.004. (http://

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 

S1462901116301514) 

Prajith K.K, P.H. Dhiju Das, Leela Edwin. 

2014. Dolphin Wall Net (DWN). An 

Innovative Management Measure Devised 

by Ring Seine Fishermen of Kerla-India to 

Reducing or Eliminating Marine Mammal 

Fishery Interactions. Ocean and Coastal 

Management 102:1–6. Doi:10.1016/ 

j.oceocoaman.2014.08/012 

Read, A.J., Drinker, P. and Northridge S.P. 

(2006). By-Catches Of Marine Mammals in 

U.S. Fisheries and a First Estimate of the 

Magnitude of Global Marine Mammal 

ByCatch. Conservation Biology Volume 20, 

No. 1, 163–169. 

Reeves RR, Berggeren Per, Crespo Enrique, 

Gales Nick, Northridge Simon P, di Sciara 

Giuseppe, Perrin William, Read Andrew, 

Rogan Emer, Smith Brian, and Koen 

Waerebeek. 2004. Global Priorities for 

Reduction of Cetacean Bycatch. 

International Whaling Commission.SC/56/ 

Bc2. 56th Scientific Committee Meeting. 

Sorrento, Italy. 

Reeves, Randall R, Kate McClellan, Timothy 

B. Werner. 2013 Marine Mammal Bycatch 

in Gillnet and Other Entangling Net 

Fisheries, 1990 to 2011. Endangered 

Species Research Vol. 20: 71–97. 

Waring, GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, 

Rosel PE, Byrd B, Cole TVN, Engleby L, 

Garrison LP, Hatch J, Henry A, Horstman 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39776 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 22, 2017 / Notices 

SC, Litz J, Mullin KD, Orphanides C, Pace 

RM, Palka DL, Lyssikatos M. Wenzel FW 

(2015) Trends in Selected U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments—2014. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–NE–23. Available at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ao2013_

tm228.pdf. Accessed: 23 December 2015 

Waring GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, 

Rosel PE, Barry K, Byrd B, Cole TVN, 

Engleby L, Fairfield C, Garrison LP, Henry 

A, Hansen L, Litz J, Orphanides C, Pace 

RM, Palka DL, Rossman MC, Sinclair C, 

Wenzel FW (2012) U.S. Atlantic and Gulf 

of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments—2011. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–NE–22. Available at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ 

ao2011.pdf. Accessed: 23 December 2015 

Watson RC, Revenga C, and Y Kura. 2006. 

Fishing Gear Associated with Global 

Marine Catches. Fisheries Research 79:97– 

102. Vancouver, BC. Doi:10.1016/ 

j.fishres.2006.01.010 

Werner (2014) Mitigating bycatch and 

depredation of marine mammals in 

longline fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 72:1576–1586. 

Wu ̈rsig, B., and G.A. Gailey. 2002. Marine 

mammals and aquaculture: Conflicts and 

potential resolutions. Pages 45–59 in R.R. 

Stickney and J.P. McVey, editors. 

Responsible Marine Aquaculture. CAB 

International, New York. 

Young, Madeline Olivia. 2015. Marine 

animal entanglements in mussel 

aquaculture gear, documented cases from 

mussel farming regions of the world 

including first-hand accounts from Iceland. 

Master’s thesis. University of Akureyri, 

Iceland. 

Dated: August 16, 2017. 

John Henderschedt, 

Director, Office for International Affairs and 

Seafood Inspection, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17671 Filed 8–21–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Marine Mammals and Endangered 

Species 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permits and 

permit amendments. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

permits or permit amendments have 

been issued to the following entities 

under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), as applicable. 

ADDRESSES: The permits and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shasta McClenahan (File Nos. 17350, 

20523, 20605, 21045, and 21114), Carrie 

Hubard (File No. 16111 and 20311), 

Sara Young (File No. 20043), Courtney 

Smith (File No. 21170), and Jennifer 

Skidmore (File No. 16580) at (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notices 

were published in the Federal Register 

on the dates listed below that requests 

for a permit or permit amendment had 

been submitted by the below-named 

applicants. To locate the Federal 

Register notice that announced our 

receipt of the application and a 

complete description of the research, go 

to www.federalregister.gov and search 

on the permit number provided in the 

table below. 

File No. RIN Applicant Receipt of application Federal 

Register notice 

Permit or amendment issuance date 

16111–02 .................. 0648–XA626 ........... John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research 

Collective, Waterstreet Building, Suite 

201, 218 1⁄2 West Fourth Ave., Olympia, WA 98501.

77 FR 19645; April 2, 2012 .... July 13, 2017. 

16580–01 .................. 0648–XB158 ........... Shannon Atkinson, Ph.D., University of 

Alaska Fairbanks, 17101 Pt. Lena 

Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801.

77 FR 31835; May 30, 2012 ... July 17, 2017. 

17350–02 .................. 0648–XC067 ........... North Slope Borough Department of 

Wildlife Management, (Taqulik Hepa, 

Responsible Party), P.O. Box 69, Barrow, AK 99723.

77 FR 36488; June 19, 2012 .. July 20, 2017. 

20043 ........................ 0648–XF153 ........... Whitlow Au, Ph.D., University of Hawaii, 

P.O. Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744.

82 FR 4858; January 17, 2017 July 28, 2017. 

20311 ........................ 0648–XF412 ........... NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center, (Evan Howell, Ph.D., Responsible Party), 1845 Wasp Boulevard, 

Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

82 FR 22498; May 16, 2017 ... June 30, 2017. 

20523 ........................ 0648–XF455 ........... National Museum of Natural History (Kirk 

Johnson, Ph.D., Responsible Party), 

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 

20013.

82 FR 26455; June 7, 2017 .... July 10, 2017. 

20605 ........................ 0648–XF381 ........... Robin Baird, Ph.D., Cascadia Research 

Collective, 218 1⁄2 West Fourth Avenue, Olympia, WA 98501.

82 FR 22503; May 16, 2017 ... July 28, 2017. 

21045 ........................ 0648–XF350 ........... Matson Laboratory (Carolyn Nistler, Responsible Party), 135 Wooden Shoe 

Lane, Manhattan, MT 59741.

82 FR 22516; May 16, 2017 ... June 29, 2017. 

21114 ........................ 0648–XF453 ........... The Whale Museum (Jenny Atkinson, 

Responsible Party), P.O. Box 945, Friday Harbor, WA 98250.

82 FR 26455; June 7, 2017 .... July 25, 2017. 

21170 ........................ 0648–XF399 ........... Keith Ellenbogen, Keith Ellenbogen Photography, 795 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11215.

82 FR 21370; May 8, 2017 ..... July 3, 2017. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES