72 



other facility that has a permit. To require otherwise would exhaust and paralyze 

 marine manmial facilities, since each permit would be subject to extensive adminis- 

 trative proceedings and court review. Congress should also reinforce that the sale, 

 transfer and transport of marine mammals already in captivity between already 

 permitted institutions does not require further authorization. A notification (1) to 

 APHIS so it can assure that the receiving facility has APHIS certification for care 

 and maintenance and (2) to NMFS for agency inventory purposes, should be suffi- 

 cient. 



D. NEPA 



Additional litigation has been filed challenging public display permits based on an 

 effort to overturn NMFS procedures in relation to the National Environmental Pol- 

 icy Act.i8 The Marine Mammal Coalition believes that Congress should reinforce 

 that public display and scientific research permits or transfers of marine mammals 

 are not subject to the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement. 



E. Agency Obstacles to Obtaining Permits 



Despite the Congressionally-mandated simplicity of procedures for obtaining pub- 

 lic display and scientific research permits and the small number of animals taken 

 for these purposes, obtaining such permits has nonetheless become a bureaucratic 

 nightmare contrary to Congressional intent, wasteful of federal resources and debili- 

 tating to zoological institutions. Requirements for obtaining permits become increas- 

 ingly burdensome, and extraordinary delays — sometimes years — occur in granting 

 permits. 



Contributing to this problem is that there is an unnecessary duplication of regula- 

 tion, as NMFS has become increasingly involved in matters concerning animals in 

 zoological institutions, matters that are clearly the responsibility of APHIS under 

 the Animal Welfare Act. 



In that regard, when an application for a display or research permit is made, 

 APHIS conducts a thorough evaluation of husbandry standards according to its stat- 

 utory mandate under the Animal Welfare Act. Before the application is acted upon, 

 APHIS notifies NMFS whether the facility meets all husbandry requirements of^the 

 Animal Welfare Act. At this point, however, what should be a simple and straight- 

 forward process runs amok, as NMFS in the context of reviewing the MMPA permit 

 application, proceeds to make an additional assessment of the application based on 

 husbandry-related considerations, despite the assurance of APHIS that husbandry 

 practices meet all standards. In fact, NMFS may make multiple requests for infor- 

 mation that bear no relationship to existing regulations. Often husbandry require- 

 ments are added to the permit conditions. 



This system of "double jeopardy" vastly prolongs the permit process, resulting in 

 crippling delays to the applicant and a deprivation to the public it serves. 



Li addition, the process of obtaining authorizations from NMFS for transfer of 

 animals from one facility to another has become extremely burdensome. There are 

 unreasonable delays — sometimes several months — before authorizations are grant- 

 ed. 



The Marine Mammal Coalition believes that legislative action is necessary to re- 

 store common sense to the regulatory scheme. Congress should reinforce Congres- 

 sional intent to have permits issued for the number of animals necessary for public 

 display and scientific research in an expeditious and simplified manner. Congress 

 should also eliminate intrusion by NMFS into animal husbandry matters, which are 

 properly within the iurisdiction of APHIS. And, as stated above. Congress should 

 reinforce that the sale, transfer and transport of marine mammals already in cap- 

 tivity between already permitted facilities does not require further authorization. 



F. State "Veto" of Federal MMPA Permits 



A bill has been introduced in the House to amend the MMPA to authorize state 

 vetoes of public display permits. H.R. 585 ('The Marine Mammal Public Display Act 

 of 1993"). A similar House bill was properly rejected in 1990. While no such bill has 

 been introduced in the Senate, the Marine Mammal Coalition wishes to go on record 

 here as stating that any such proposal would be unwise and contrary to important 

 policies of the MMPA and should be rejected. 



State vetos of an MMPA permit would threaten the ability of zoological institu- 

 tions to obtain the small number of animals they need to carry out their Congres- 

 sionally-endorsed purposes and would undercut the comprehensive federal program 

 governing public display permits. 



i«Kama v. New England Aquarium, C.A. No. 9 11 1634 -N (D. Mass.). 



