The International Dolphin Conservation Act of 
1992 also amended the general permit held by the 
American Tunaboat Association on behalf of U.S. 
tuna fishermen. That permit, originally issued in 
1980, and legislatively extended in 1984, had autho- 
rized the U.S. fleet to kill up to 20,500 dolphins 
annually incidental to its fishing operations. Recog- 
nizing that the number of U.S. vessels fishing for tuna 
by setting on dolphins had greatly declined since the 
permit was issued, Congress reduced the 1992 quota 
for total dolphin mortalities by the U.S. fleet, includ- 
ing those resulting from research, to 1,000. The 
quota for the period between 1 January 1993 and 1 
March 1994 was set at 800. In addition, the permit 
was amended to prohibit purse seine nets from being 
deployed to encircle any school of dolphins in which 
any eastern spinner dolphin or coastal spotted dolphin 
is observed prior to release of the net skiff. 
If any major tuna fishing nation commits to the 
international moratorium on setting on marine mam- 
mals to catch tuna, the American Tunaboat Associa- 
tion’s permit will expire on 1 March 1994. If no 
major tuna fishing nation commits to the moratorium, 
the permit will continue in effect until 31 December 
1999, but with the additional requirement that inciden- 
tal dolphin mortality be reduced by statistically 
significant amounts each year. As of the end of 1992, 
no nation had yet committed to the moratorium. 
The International Dolphin Conservation Act of 
1992 also places new restrictions on the sale of tuna 
in the United States. After 1 June 1994, regardless of 
whether the moratorium on dolphin sets is implement- 
ed, it will be unlawful to sell, purchase, offer for sale, 
transport, or ship any tuna or tuna product in the 
United States that is not “dolphin-safe.” As noted 
above, the Act also included a statutory definition of 
the term “intermediary nation” to clarify which 
nations are subject to secondary tuna embargoes under 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
Litigation Related to the Tuna-Dolphin Issue 
A lawsuit originally filed by Earth Island Institute 
on 12 April 1988 (Earth Island Institute v. Mos- 
bacher), before enactment of the 1988 amendments to 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, continued to 
affect the U.S. tuna-dolphin program during 1992. 
111 
Chapter IV — Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions 
Earlier rulings in the case focused on the observer 
requirements for both the U.S. and foreign fleets and 
on the embargo provisions applicable to foreign 
nations that fish for tuna in the eastern tropical 
Pacific. These are discussed in previous annual 
reports. 
During 1992 the focus of the case has been the 
applicability and breadth of the secondary embargoes 
required under the intermediary nation provision of 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Section 
101(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that tuna imports 
from intermediary nations be embargoed unless the 
government of the intermediary nation that exports 
yellowfin tuna or tuna products to the United States 
certifies that it has acted, within 60 days of a U.S. 
embargo, to prohibit the importation of such tuna 
from those nations that are banned from directly 
exporting tuna to the United States. Plaintiffs asserted 
that a secondary embargo under section 101(a)(2)(C) 
is broader than the underlying primary embargo and 
applies to all yellowfin tuna and tuna products. 
Plaintiffs also maintain that the Secretary of the 
Treasury was not obtaining the required certifications 
from all intermediary nations before allowing tuna 
from those nations to be imported into the United 
States. The Service contended that the scope of the 
secondary embargo is the same as the scope of the 
primary import ban. That is, a secondary embargo 
applies only to yellowfin tuna harvested with purse 
seine nets in the eastern tropical Pacific by embargoed 
fishing nations. 
The district court issued its ruling on 10 January 
1992. The court found that the secondary embargo 
provisions require every intermediary nation to 
provide certification and reasonable proof that it has 
acted to prohibit the importation of the same products 
that are banned from direct export to the United 
States. Failure to meet these requirements subjects 
the nation to the statutory ban, which prohibits the 
importation of all yellowfin tuna and tuna products 
from that nation, not just those subject to the underly- 
ing embargo of tuna from the harvesting nation. 
Based on this interpretation, the court found that the 
Federal Government was not in compliance with the 
provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
The court also ruled that, to overcome the secondary 
embargo, it is insufficient for an intermediary nation 
