As noted in the Commission's last annual report, it took an aver- 

 age of almost 6 months in 1992 for a permit application to be proc- 

 essed. It should not take any more than one-half that time. The 

 long processing time seems attributable to a number of things. One 

 was the 1992 moratorium on new regulations, which prevented the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service from updating and revising its 

 permit regulations. 



A related problem is permit application instructions which fail to 

 clearly indicate the determinations that must be made before per- 

 mits can be issued, and the information that must be provided to 

 allow those determinations to be made. This often results in appli- 

 cants not providing sufficient information in their permit applica- 

 tions to make the required determinations and causes processing to 

 be suspended while additional information is sought. 



Also, it is not always clear that certain types of research will or 

 will not result in taking marine mammals, and that a permit there- 

 fore is or is not necessary. For example, scientists conducting aerial 

 surveys design and attempt to carry out the surveys to avoid 

 harassing or otherwise taking marine mammals. However, they 

 cannot always be certain that they will succeed. Consequently, they 

 must obtain research permits to ensure that, should they inadvert- 

 ently take a marine mammal, they have not violated the Marine 

 Mammal Protection Act. 



Another problem is that the act does not provide a mechanism 

 for authorizing the possible harassment of marine mammals while 

 taking still pictures, motion pictures, or video tapes for either edu- 

 cational or commercial purposes. Consequently, taking in the con- 

 duct of such activities either is done illegally or under the guise of 

 scientific research. 



Many of these problems should be resolved when the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service completes revision of its permit regula- 

 tions and application instructions. 



The burden of obtaining a permit when it is uncertain whether 

 a marine mammal might inadvertently be harassed or otherwise be 

 taken in the course of planned research could be reduced or avoid- 

 ed in a number of ways. One possibility would be to classify various 

 scientific activities according to the likely significance of their im- 

 pacts, and for those activities likely to have little or no impact, to 

 replace the existing permit system with a simple notification and 

 reporting requirement. Such an approach would allow the regu- 

 latory agencies to require a permit if it were not clear that the no- 

 tifiea activity would not have a negligible impact. It also would 

 help the agencies to develop the data base necessary to verify that 

 the various activities are, in fact, classified properly. 



The possibility that unique scientific opportunities may be lost 

 because of the mandatory 30-day comment period could be avoided 

 by authorizing the issuance of permits before the end of the 30-day 

 comment period when the secretary, in consultation with the Ma- 

 rine Mammal Commission, determines that such taking would fur- 

 ther a legitimate scientific purpose which otherwise would be lost 

 or compromised. 



Finally, problems associated with photography for education and 

 commercial purposes being done in conjunction with or under the 

 guise of scientific research could be avoided by amending the act 



