have to comply with porpoise saving regulations similar to 

 those applicable to the U.S. fleet. As a result, Congress 

 amended the Act to require that each nation exporting tuna to 

 this country provide documentary evidence that it has adopted 

 a program to regulate the incidental take of marine mammals 

 that is comparable to that of the U.S. and that the average 

 rate of incidental take by its fleet is comparable to that of 

 the U.S. fleet. Failure to meet these requirements may result 

 in a ban on the import of tuna and tuna products from the 

 nation involved. 



On 21 July 1984, the Commission wrote to the Service urging 

 that it promulgate regulations to implement the foreign nation 

 certification requirements of the amendments. The Commission 

 noted that prompt action was needed because the Service's 

 existing foreign nation reporting and certification standards 

 were not as stringent as those required by the 1984 amendments. 

 Concerned about the lack of progress, the Commission wrote to 

 the Service again on 22 May 1986, pointing out the need for 

 immediate action. The Service responded by letter of 30 June 

 1986, stating that it was in the process of developing the 

 proposed regulations. The Commission wrote to the Service 

 again on 24 July 1986, asking when the proposed regulations 

 would be published and requesting that a pre-publication 

 version of the proposed regulations be provided to the Commis- 

 sion for review. 



While the Service was preparing its proposed regulations, 

 it received a request from Mexico that the Marine Mammal 

 Protection Act embargo imposed on the importation of its tuna 

 products in 1981 be rescinded. On 21 May 1986, the Service 

 published a Federal Register notice that a determination had 

 been made that Mexico was in substantial conformity with the 

 U.S. regulations governing the incidental take of marine 

 mammals and that the importation prohibition had been rescinded 

 for that country. The decision was made under the Service's 

 existing foreign nation certification regulations, which did 

 not conform with the requirements of the 1984 amendments. 



By letter of 25 June 1986, the Commission advised the 

 Service that, in its opinion, it was inappropriate to render 

 this decision under regulatory standards that were less strin- 

 gent than those established by Congress in 1984. It also 

 pointed out that the Service had not consulted with the Commis- 

 sion on the Mexican request and that it was not clear how the 

 certification decision had been reached. In order to clarify 

 the record, the Commission sought answers to a series of 

 questions on the nature and scope of the Mexican tuna-porpoise 

 program. The Service responded by letter of 4 September 

 1986, noting that, among other things: Mexico does not have 

 an incidental take quota; a Mexican observer program was 

 established in January 1986; and Mexican vessels are required 



141 



