101 



NMFS would have the authority to close down or compel changes in a zoo or aquarium program 

 that, in the agency's view, is not "accurate" or "consistent with the policies and objectives of the 

 MMPA" or is not conveyed "in an effective manner." The terms "accurate", "consistent" or 

 "effective" are based on subjective judgment which cannot be made without unconstitutionally, 

 examining the content of a facility's educational program. 



Significant areas of the proposed regulations exceed the statutory authority granted 

 NMFS in the MMPA. For example, NMFS intends to require permit holders to post a $10,000 

 surety bond (or make equivalent arrangements) for each animal they hold. This bond is intended 

 to offset the costs of caring for the animals should a facility terminate operations or its permit be 

 withdrawn. We are unaware of any statutory authority to support the imposition of a bond 

 requirement. 



The proposal requires each facility to obtain a five-year permit. This permit is nothing 

 more than permission to apply for yet another authorization since permissions granted under the 

 five-year permit cannot be exercised until additional authorizations are obtained. We believe this 

 is a fundamental flaw in the regulations and can only be solved by eliminating the facility permit 

 and defining NMFS' authority as the protection of animals in the wild. In addition to a five year 

 permit, the NMFS proposal requires a series of required authorizations and notifications, thus 

 creating a very cumbersome process. For example, an importation of a marine mammal requires 

 that requests for an authorization to import be submitted to NMFS headquarters at least 30 days 

 prior to the proposed event and specify or include certain information. Assuming both facilities 

 are permitted under the NMFS regulations, the same information must be resubmitted to NMFS 

 three weeks before the transfer and again one week before. And much of the information must 

 be submitted by both parties to the transfer and importation. Why isn't it sufficient to have the 

 information submitted once by one party? 



Finally, AZA and Alliance members are concerned that the proposed regulations threaten 

 the good work they do. A recent economic impact study conducted by Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

 showed that the proposed regulations would increase costs for the zoological community by 

 more than $32 million over five years. This figure represents the impact on the zoological 

 community alone; it does not include the impact on the scientific community or the costs to 

 NMFS of implementing this new system. If these regulations were finalized, the resources (staff 

 time and operational dollars) of AZA and Alliance members, would be directed away from 

 animal care, research and caring for stranded animals and redirected towards duplicative 

 paperwork and probably increased litigation. 



-12- 



DoewNM 05213 



