A frozen seafood container that cleared routinely in 2025 can sit on a CBP hold in 2026 even though the supplier, the species and the fishing method never changed. The reason is the MMPA seafood import rule that took effect on January 1, 2026. NOAA Fisheries published its comparability findings at 90 FR 42395 on September 2, 2025, denied findings for a long list of foreign fisheries, and from the first day of 2026 fish and fish products from those fisheries may not enter the United States.

The ban itself is not what catches most importers. What catches them is the second layer: any product harvested by the same nation and entered under an HTS code that NOAA lists for a banned fishery must travel with a Certification of Admissibility, signed by an official of the harvesting or exporting nation and tied to that single shipment. Importers who assume the rule only touches the named fishery discover the problem at the port. This guide explains how the prohibitions work, what the certificate has to do, how the Seafood Import Monitoring Program layers on top, and what the entry file needs before the vessel sails.

Comparability Findings and the Denied Fisheries List

The import provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act require foreign fisheries that export to the United States to hold a comparability finding from NOAA Fisheries. In plain terms, the exporting nation has to show that its regulatory program for marine mammal bycatch in that fishery is comparable in effectiveness to the US program. NOAA evaluates each fishery separately, so a single country can have some fisheries approved and others denied.

The 2025 determination at 90 FR 42395 is the first time this framework has turned into an actual border control on this scale. NMFS evaluated about 2,500 fisheries in 135 nations and denied findings for at least one fishery in 46 of them. The practical point for an importer is not the headline count. It is that a denial attaches to a fishery, which is defined by country, gear type, target species and area, while CBP enforces at the level of country and HTS code, and those two ways of describing the same fish do not line up neatly.

That mismatch is the reason the certificate regime exists. CBP cannot tell from a tariff line whether a carton of tuna loins came from an approved longline fishery or a denied gillnet fishery in the same country. The Certification of Admissibility closes that gap by putting the exporting government on record, shipment by shipment, that the product did not come from the banned fishery.

What Changed on January 1, 2026

Before 2026 the comparability process ran mostly in the background. Nations submitted applications, NOAA reviewed them, and apart from the Upper Gulf of California restrictions on Mexican fisheries, importers could buy from any fishery that was otherwise admissible. Since January 1, 2026 the result of that review is enforced at entry. Fish and fish products from a fishery with a denied comparability finding are prohibited, and no certificate, bond or post-entry correction makes a prohibited product admissible.

Two categories now exist for every seafood line an importer brings in. The first is product that comes from a denied fishery: it cannot enter. The second is product that comes from an approved fishery but shares its country and HTS code with a denied one: it can enter, but only with a Certification of Admissibility. Everything outside those two categories clears under the ordinary seafood rules. The compliance work is in sorting each purchase order into the right category before it ships, because the sorting is much harder to do once the container is sitting at the terminal.

The rule is also not frozen. NOAA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking at 91 FR 47798, with comments due September 28, 2026. An advance notice changes nothing at the border today, but it signals that the framework is under review, and importers with exposure to affected countries should follow what comes out of it rather than treat the current list as permanent.

The list also moves between rulemakings. NMFS issued new comparability findings in 2026 for fisheries in New Zealand, New Caledonia, Grenada, Ireland, Suriname and for swimming crab from Vietnam, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines, so screening has to run against NOAA’s current list, not the September 2025 notice alone.

How the Certification of Admissibility Works

The Certification of Admissibility, usually shortened to COA, has three features that shape how importers have to manage it. It is signed by an authorized official of the harvesting or exporting nation, not by the exporter or the processor. It is specific to one shipment, so a certificate cannot be reused across bookings or issued once for a season. And it is filed by uploading it to CBP’s Document Imaging System (DIS) as part of the entry, which is how CBP and NOAA see it before release. CBP set out the filing mechanics in CSMS #67590021. The importer of record must also sign the final certification and submit it through DIS within 24 hours after release, if that was not done before release.

Each of those features moves work upstream. Because a government official has to sign, the supplier cannot produce the certificate on demand at the last minute; the request has to go through whatever channel the exporting nation uses, on that nation’s timeline. Because the certificate is shipment-specific, the details on it have to match the commercial invoice and the entry. Because it goes through DIS, the broker needs a legible copy in hand before the entry is transmitted, not a promise that the original is in the courier pouch.

The most common failure is not a fraudulent certificate. It is a missing one on a product the importer never realized was affected, because the buyer checked the fishery against the denied list, found it approved, and stopped there. An approved fishery is exactly the case where the COA is needed if another fishery in the same country, under the same HTS code, was denied.

Why a shared HTS code pulls in approved product

HTS codes for fish are built around species and product form, fresh, frozen, fillets, prepared or preserved, not around the gear that caught the fish. A single subheading for a frozen species can cover product from several fisheries in the same country. When one of them is denied, every entry under that country and subheading has to prove it is not from the denied one. That is why accurate HTS classification is the starting point for MMPA screening: a wrong subheading can either create a certificate requirement that did not exist or hide one that did.

Screening Every Seafood Line Against the Denied List

The screening that works is done per SKU, not per supplier. For each item, the importer needs the country of harvest, the species, the gear type and the fishing area from the supplier, and the HTS code from the classification record. Those facts are then matched twice: once against the denied fisheries to rule out prohibited product, and once against the country and HTS combinations that carry a certificate requirement.

The output should be a simple status on the item master: prohibited, COA required, or clear. Buyers see it before a purchase order is placed, logistics sees it before a booking is confirmed, and the broker sees it before the entry is prepared. An item that changes supplier, gear type or processing country goes back through the screen, because any of those changes can move it between categories.

Supplier declarations matter here, but they are an input, not a defense. The legal consequence of a prohibited entry falls on the importer of record, and the importer is expected to know what it is buying. Build the screening into the same trade compliance management program that already handles other agency requirements, so MMPA status is reviewed on the same cycle as classification and origin rather than as a one-off exercise done in January.

• Collect country of harvest, species, gear type and fishing area for every seafood SKU.
• Confirm the HTS code at the 10-digit level before screening.
• Match against denied fisheries first, then against country and HTS combinations that trigger a COA.
• Record the result on the item master and re-screen whenever supplier, gear or processing country changes.

The SIMP Overlay on the Same Entry

The MMPA rules sit on top of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which has not changed in 2025 or 2026. SIMP covers 13 species groups and requires the importer of record to hold an International Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP) and to report harvest and landing data at entry, with the supporting chain-of-custody records kept available for audit.

The two programs ask different questions. SIMP asks where and how the fish was harvested and whether the importer can trace it; the MMPA rules ask whether the fishery it came from is allowed to export to the United States at all. The data overlap, since both depend on species, area and gear, which is an argument for collecting it once and using it for both. A SIMP filing does not substitute for a COA, and a COA does not satisfy SIMP.

Importers who already run clean SIMP files have most of the information needed for MMPA screening. Importers who only file SIMP data because the broker asks for it at entry usually do not, and they are the ones most likely to be surprised by a certificate requirement.

Entry Data and Documents Your Broker Needs Before Arrival

A seafood entry in an affected country and HTS combination now depends on documents that originate with a foreign government, which means the broker’s cut-off has to move earlier. The file should be complete before the vessel sails or the flight departs, not when the arrival notice comes in.

The minimum set is the commercial invoice and packing list with species and product form, the confirmed HTS code, the MMPA screening status for each line, the Certification of Admissibility where required, and the SIMP data and IFTP number where the species group is covered. Where FDA requirements also apply, those run in parallel and are not affected by the MMPA rules. A licensed customs brokerage team handling the entry uploads the COA through DIS, checks that it matches the invoice line by line, and flags discrepancies before transmission, when the supplier can still correct them.

Discrepancies on the entry itself flow into the CBP Form 7501, and a mismatch between the summary and the certificate is the kind of inconsistency that turns a document review into a hold. Getting the description, quantity and HTS code aligned across invoice, certificate and entry summary is routine work, but it has to be done every time because each certificate covers only one shipment.

When a Seafood Shipment Is Held for a Missing COA

A hold on an MMPA seafood import line usually means one of three things: the certificate was required and not filed, it was filed but does not match the entry, or the product appears to come from a denied fishery. The first two are documentation problems that can often be fixed if the exporting government issues or corrects the certificate. The third is a prohibition, and the realistic options narrow to export or destruction under CBP supervision.

Time matters in every case because the product is perishable and storage charges accumulate. The response should start the day the hold is posted: confirm what CBP or NOAA is asking for, contact the supplier to start the government certificate process, and assess whether the product can be re-exported to another market if the certificate cannot be obtained. Terminal storage and reefer plug-in charges keep running while the certificate is sourced, so the decision to wait for a corrected COA or to re-export should be made on numbers, not hope.

The pattern across these cases is that the problem was visible before the shipment left. A certificate requirement is determined by country and HTS code, both of which are known at the purchase order stage. Treating MMPA status the way importers already treat other restricted imports, as a pre-shipment gate rather than a post-arrival surprise, removes most of the exposure.

What Large Seafood Importers Should Do Now

Start with a full screen of the current seafood catalog against the denied fisheries and the certificate-triggering country and HTS combinations. For each supplier in an affected country, confirm who in the exporting government issues the certificate and how long it takes, and write that lead time into the booking calendar.

Next, align the broker’s document cut-off with the certificate process, and make sure the COA, SIMP data and invoice are reconciled before the entry is filed. Finally, assign someone to follow the rulemaking that the July 2026 advance notice opened (comments closed September 28, 2026), because changes to the findings or the certificate process will change which lines need attention.

Importers moving product for retail and foodservice programs can see how these controls fit alongside the rest of their inbound flow on our food and beverage logistics page, and the customs compliance platform keeps item-level status such as MMPA screening visible to buyers and logistics teams before a purchase order turns into a booking.

Frequently Asked Questions

Every shipment of food bound for the United States has to be announced to FDA before it reaches the port, and the announcement has to be right. FDA prior notice is the advance electronic filing that tells the agency what the food is, who made it, who shipped it and when and where it will arrive. File it late, leave it out or get a required field wrong, and the food is subject to refusal under section 801(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, held at the port or a secure facility, and kept away from the importer until the problem is fixed.

The requirement dates from the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which added 801(m) to the statute, and the working rules sit in 21 CFR 1 subpart I (sections 1.276 to 1.285). What follows covers who must file and for which products, the minimum lead times by mode, the choice between FDA’s own portal and the customs system, the exemptions that actually apply, and the data errors that most often turn a routine food entry into a refusal. Regulatory text checked against the eCFR as of September 2026.

Who Must File Prior Notice and Which Foods It Covers

The trigger is the product, not the importer. Prior notice applies to food for humans and for animals as defined in FD&C 201(f), and the regulation spells out how wide that is: animal feed including pet food, dietary supplements and dietary ingredients, infant formula, and beverages including alcoholic beverages. Food contact substances and pesticides are excluded from the definition (21 CFR 1.276(b)(5)). A container of canned tuna, a pallet of whey protein, a load of dog treats and a shipment of wine all need a notice.

Scope also reaches shipments that many importers assume are outside it. Section 1.277(a) expressly includes gifts, quality assurance and quality control samples, food for transshipment through the United States, food imported for future export, and food admitted to a foreign-trade zone. A trade show sample carton and an in-bond load crossing from Canada to Mexico are both in.

Medical devices, drugs and cosmetics are not food and never need prior notice. Subpart I applies only to articles of food (1.277). Device entries clear through FDA admissibility review under 801(a) using device registration, establishment and listing data, which is the territory of the FDA initial importer role rather than a prior notice filing.

On who files, the regulation is flexible. Any person with knowledge of the required information can be the submitter, and the submitter may use a transmitter to send it, which in practice is usually the customs broker (1.278). The shipper, the importer or the broker can file. What does not change is that the food is refused if the notice is wrong, whoever typed it, so the allocation of that risk belongs in the contract between the parties.

Prior Notice Timing Windows by Mode of Transport

Section 1.279 sets minimum lead times before arrival at the port of arrival, and they differ by mode. The windows are short enough that a missed filing is usually discovered after the conveyance is already underway, which is why they belong in the booking workflow rather than the arrival workflow.

The clock does not start when the notice is transmitted. It starts when FDA confirms the notice for review (1.279(d)). A truck that reaches the border crossing before the 2 hour window has run from confirmation carries an untimely notice and the food is subject to refusal, unless FDA has already reviewed the notice and advised CBP (1.283(a)(1)(iii)). For road freight in particular, a notice sent while the driver is at the last warehouse before the border can leave no margin at all.

The maximum advance filing is 30 calendar days before arrival when the notice goes through ABI/ACE/ITDS, and 15 calendar days through FDA PNSI (1.279(b)). For ocean freight with long transit times, that ceiling matters: a notice cannot be filed at booking for a voyage that arrives more than 30 days later, so it has to be scheduled into the transit.

From October 1, 2026, a prior notice for food sent by international mail must also carry the name of the mail service and the mail tracking number (21 CFR 1.281(b)(10)).

PNSI vs ACE Filing and the Prior Notice Confirmation Number

Filing is electronic only, through one of two channels (1.280). The first is ABI/ACE/ITDS, used by a licensed broker or a self-filing importer. The second is FDA’s Prior Notice System Interface, PNSI, reached through access.fda.gov. PNSI becomes mandatory when the broker’s or self-filer’s system, or ABI itself, is down. Either way, the notice must be in English, with personal, company and street names allowed in their original language, and every field must use the Latin alphabet.

Inside ACE there are two ways to send it. A stand-alone prior notice carries only the prior notice data. A combined entry sends the prior notice data together with the FDA 801(a) entry data under the same transmission. FDA’s Industry Quick Reference Guide to the ACE Supplemental Guide, dated March 10, 2026, keeps separate data tables for each, and a broker working a mixed book of food and non-food lines needs to know which one the entry is using.

For most commercial food entries handled through customs brokerage, ACE is the practical choice: it allows the longer 30 day window, sits inside the same workflow as the CBP entry and avoids retyping data. PNSI suits a shipper with no broker yet appointed, a one-off sample, or a system outage.

The PN Confirmation Number is FDA’s reply confirming the notice for review (1.279(d)). It is the proof that the clock has started. The regulation requires it to travel with the goods in three cases: food sent by international mail, where it goes on the customs declaration; food carried by or accompanying a traveler; and any food whose notice was filed in PNSI (1.279(e) to (g)). Keep the number on the shipping file for every food line, because it is the first thing anyone asks for when a shipment stops.

Prior Notice Exemptions and What Stays in Scope

The exemptions in 1.277(b) are narrow and specific. They do not follow value, quantity or commercial intent, which is where most wrong assumptions come from.

Two traps sit around these exemptions. The first is mixed jurisdiction: a product that contains meat or poultry but is not under exclusive USDA jurisdiction at the time of import still needs FDA prior notice, so each formulation needs a case-by-case check rather than a blanket rule for the category. The second is the port exemption, which covers only food that never leaves the port of arrival before export. Food moved in-bond to another port, or into a warehouse or zone, is back in scope.

Samples are not exempt. A small sample box of snack bars sent to a buyer for evaluation needs the same notice as a container, including manufacturer data, and a missed notice on a sample gets the same refusal treatment.

• Food for personal use carried by or accompanying an individual.
• Homemade food sent by an individual as a personal, non-business gift.
• Food imported and then exported without leaving the port of arrival.
• Meat food products, poultry products and egg products under the exclusive jurisdiction of USDA under the FMIA, PPIA or EPIA.
• Items in a diplomatic bag under article 27(3) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Refusal Under 801(m) and the Filing Errors Behind It

Section 1.283 treats three failures the same way. Food with no prior notice, an inaccurate prior notice or an untimely prior notice is subject to refusal of admission under 801(m)(1). Unless it is immediately exported under CBP supervision, it must be held within the port of entry unless CBP or FDA directs otherwise, and if it goes to a secure facility outside the port, FDA must be told the location before it moves.

This is a harder track than the ordinary FDA review most importers know. The refused food becomes general order merchandise under 19 U.S.C. 1490, moves only under custodial bond, and may not be delivered to any importer, owner or ultimate consignee. Release under the importer’s bond is not available. Neither FDA nor CBP is liable for transportation or storage while it sits, so every day of the hold is charged to the cargo interests.

There is a way back. A post-refusal prior notice must be submitted within 10 calendar days of the refusal notice, both where no notice was filed and where an inaccurate notice has to be cancelled and resubmitted (1.283(c)). If the importer instead asks FDA to review whether the food is in scope or the notice was accurate, that request is due within 5 calendar days of the refusal (1.283(d)), and the 10 days then run from FDA’s response. Miss the deadline, and unless CBP and FDA agree otherwise, the goods move to general order procedures under 19 CFR part 127, where they may only be sold for export or destroyed. If a refused article is exported instead, the notice should be cancelled within 5 business days (1.283(a)(5)).

The exposure goes beyond the shipment. Importing food in violation of 801(m) is a prohibited act under 301(ee) of the FD&C Act, which opens the door to injunction under section 302, prosecution under section 303 and, for felony convictions or a pattern of importing adulterated food, debarment under section 306 (1.284). Food from a foreign facility that is not registered with FDA is held on a separate basis, under 801(l), even when the prior notice itself is perfect.

The data fields that cause most inaccurate notices

Section 1.281(a) lists the required data. The fields below are the ones that most need checking against the cartons, and each one is checkable before the goods move.

• Manufacturer, for food no longer in its natural state: name plus food facility registration number, city and country, or the full address plus the reason no number is given. In ACE the number goes in the PFR affirmation of compliance, or FME with an exemption reason code.
• Grower, for food in its natural state, where known; otherwise the consolidator.
• Shipper, where it differs from the manufacturer.
• The complete FDA product code, built with FDA’s Product Code Builder. A code that describes the wrong product form is an inaccurate notice.
• Quantity described from the largest container down to the smallest package.
• Lot or code numbers where the product rules require them, such as low-acid canned foods, acidified foods and infant formula.
• Carrier SCAC or IATA code, bill of lading or air waybill number, and the anticipated port, date and time of arrival. An express courier tracking number may substitute.
• Importer, owner and ultimate consignee, which are not required for transportation and exportation in-bond moves.
• Any country to which the article has been refused entry.

Building Prior Notice Into the Food Import Workflow

The cleanest programs treat prior notice as a supplier data problem solved before the first order, not a filing problem solved at arrival. Collect the manufacturer’s registration number, full address, product codes and lot coding practice once per SKU, validate them, and store them where the filer can reach them. Registration data is not publicly searchable, so the number has to come from the supplier itself.

The FSVP line belongs in the same checklist. For each food line covered by the Foreign Supplier Verification Program (FSVP), the importer’s name, email and unique facility identifier must be transmitted at entry (21 CFR 1.509(a)); lines that qualify for an FSVP exemption declare it with an exemption code instead. It is a separate requirement from prior notice, but it is reviewed at the same time and a gap there stops the same entry.

Then tie the filing to the transport plan: trigger the notice from the booking confirmation for ocean, from the flight assignment for air, and from the dispatch for road, with the minimum window measured from FDA confirmation rather than transmission. Food is one of several categories of restricted imports into the US, and the same pre-shipment discipline applies to the other agencies that regulate them.

For importers moving food across several modes and origins, running prior notice as part of a wider trade compliance management program keeps supplier data, product codes and filing windows in one place. CargoTrans works with food and beverage importers on exactly this data set, and coordinating the notice with import and export freight means the filing and the transport plan come from the same file.

Frequently Asked Questions