59 



Responses from Dr. Nancy Foster to 



Questions by H. James Saxton Before the 



Subcommittee on Environment & Natural Resources 



February 10, 1994 



Your questions were in reference to the Proposed Rule to 

 Revise Regulations for Public Display and Scientific Research 

 Permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) , Endangered 

 Species Act (ESA) , and the Fur Seal Act (FSA) , published in the 

 Federal Register on October 14, 1993. 



1) Why are these Regulations Necessary? 



The proposed rule is necessary to address concerns identified 

 by the regulated communities, conservation organizations, and 

 federal agencies regarding inconsistencies and uncertainties in the 

 permitting process; the lack of enforcement against non-compliance 

 and abuse of permit privileges; and the vulnerability to frequent 

 litigation. 



Briefly, following the extensive amendments Congress made to 

 the MMPA in 1988, NMFS initiated an open review of the permitting 

 process. The proposed rule is the product of that review. The 

 rule proposes to implement the 1988 amendments, consolidate 

 existing regulations under one section of the U.S. Code, establish 

 consistent and predictable regulatory requirements, eliminate 

 duplicative procedures, clearly define permitted activities to 

 avoid unnecessary litigation, and establish clear and enforceable 

 responsibilities for permit -holders to address problems with non- 

 compliance and abuse. 



2) Why are they not overreaching? 



I believe you were referring to two primary areas of criticism 

 by the public display industry: (1) the proposal for a surety bond 

 and (2) the requirement for education and conservation programs. 



First, the proposal for a $10,000 surety bond to be provided 

 for each marine mammal in captivity is to cover the expense of 

 care, transport and final disposition in the event of abandonment. 

 The amount and the mechanism of a surety bond was included in the 

 proposed rule to initiate broad discussion of this serious problem. 

 This would be a one-time cost, per animal, per facility, with per- 

 facility costs never exceeding the actual number of animals held by 

 that facility. The industry estimates the maximum cost to be $500 

 per animal . 



Beyond the humane issues involved with the disposition of 

 abandoned animals, there is the economic issue of public monies 



