U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2016

114–388 

Calendar No. 692 

ACCESS FOR SPORTFISHING ACT OF 2016 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 3099 

NOVEMBER 28, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SENcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas ED MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
1 National Park Service, ‘‘Ocean Parks,’’ at http://www.nps.gov/subjects/oceans/oceanparks.html. 

Calendar No. 692 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–388 

ACCESS FOR SPORTFISHING ACT OF 2016 

NOVEMBER 28, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. THUNE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3099] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 3099) to preserve and enhance saltwater fishing opportunities for recreational anglers, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 3099 is to preserve and enhance saltwater fishing opportunities for recreational anglers. The bill would prohibit 

implementation and enforcement of restrictions on recreational 

fishing in Biscayne National Park (BNP), Florida, that were not developed with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission of 

Florida (FWC). It also would prohibit shark feeding, except for harvesting purposes in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Lastly, it 

would require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a final rule to 

implement the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a). 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Biscayne National Park 

Located adjacent to Miami in Biscayne Bay, the BNP is the largest marine park in the National Park system.1 In June 2015, BNP 

officials finalized an update of the BNP’s General Management 

Plan (GMP), which was last updated in 1983. BNP officials approved a no-fishing marine reserve in more than 10,000 acres of 

the BNP’s most popular and productive fishing area, despite commitments made by BNP officials to work with stakeholders and the 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

2 National Park Service, Biscayne National Park Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 2, Appendices F and G, April, 2015, at http:// 

www.parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=353&projectID=11168d&ocumentID=65801. 3Letter from Nick Wiley, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission to Lauren 

Milligan, Office of Intergovernmental Programs, Department of Environmental Protection, July 

14, 2015. 4Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Florida, Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission and the National Park Service, Biscayne National Park. FWC Agreement No. 12179 

and NPS Agreement number G525000001, October 5, 2012. 

State of Florida to explore less restrictive options. This decision ran 

counter to the recommendations from stakeholders, the BNP’s own 

working group, and the FWC.2 In particular, the FWC stated that 

the GMP was not consistent with the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the FWC and the BNP,3 which states 

that, ‘‘FWC and the [BNP] agree to seek the least restrictive management actions necessary to fully achieve mutual management 

goals for the fishery resources of the Park and adjoining areas. 

Furthermore, both parties recognize the FWC’s belief that marine 

reserves (no-take areas) are overly restrictive and that less-restrictive management measures should be implemented during the duration of this MOU.’’4

Despite these facts, the BNP states in its GMP that no-take 

zones are more effective for managing coral reef fisheries populations than other less restrictive options, and further states that 

less restrictive options would be difficult to enforce. It is troubling 

that such statements are patently focused on fisheries management 

and directly conflict with provisions in the MOU under which notake areas are not to be considered for fisheries management unless other less restrictive measures have been tried and have failed. 

The Committee believes the GMP will unnecessarily prohibit all 

recreational and commercial fishing in the 10,522 acre Marine Reserve Zone. While the GMP notes that the Marine Reserve Zone 

represents only 7 percent of the entire water area of the BNP, it 

fails to consider that it also encompasses some of the most popular 

and productive fishing grounds in the Biscayne Bay. There is insufficient scientific basis to support fisheries closures in the GMP. The 

GMP cites scientific studies relative to restoration of coral reef systems, but the validity of these studies appears to be tenuous at 

best, and the broad assumptions and conclusions in the GMP regarding the effectiveness of no fishing zones are unaccompanied by 

serious analysis, metrics, or other quantifiable measures to support 

them. 

The Committee also is concerned that the input and interests of 

the State of Florida, the FWC, and numerous boaters and anglers 

provided during the GMP planning process and prior to the selection of the preferred alternative were not given any meaningful 

consideration by the BNP. To select the preferred alternative as 

the BNP did, with little if any meaningful engagement with the 

State of Florida, is completely inconsistent with the manner in 

which the State and the BNP historically have managed fishing activity in the Biscayne Bay. Since 1970, the State of Florida has conveyed a significant amount of acreage to the BNP to be incorporated into the BNP, and the BNP has, through its MOU with the 

FWC, agreed to share responsibilities and authorities regarding 

fisheries management and enforcement. 

The Committee also notes that implementation of the Marine Reserve Zone by the BNP would be inconsistent with Florida’s federVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR388.XXX SR388

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘‘NOAA Fisheries Fact Sheet - Frequently 

Asked Questions About Sharks,’’ at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FSlfaq.html. 6Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, ‘‘Regulations for Feeding Fish, Shark, 

or other Marine Species,’’ at http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/recreational/feeding-fish. 7 Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation ‘‘Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 Passes the House 

of Representatives,’’ press release, September 12, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-mediaroom/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives. 8P.L. 112–183 

9 Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation ‘‘Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 Becomes Law,’’ 

press release, October 16, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives. 

ally approved Coastal Zone Management Program under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). Had the 

BNP adhered to the cooperative process established under its MOU 

with the FWC, it would likely have avoided such inconsistencies 

with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program. 

For all these reasons, the Committee believes that the BNP and 

FWC need to revisit the proposed Marine Reserve Zone to ensure 

that any fishing restrictions imposed upon recreational, charter, 

and commercial fishermen in the Biscayne Bay are the least restrictive measures necessary to achieve conservation and management goals. 

Shark Feeding 

Some dive charters introduce food (chum) to attract sharks to 

their clients so they can see and photograph the sharks. This is extremely dangerous because the divers may or may not be in a cage 

and are at risk of attacks. Sharks also may learn to associate divers with food since divers are feeding the sharks directly from their 

hands. Marine biologists and other interested parties agree that 

sharks attack humans because they mistake humans for marine 

life.5 Concerns about the increased likelihood of shark attacks 

apply both to the divers participating in feeding trips and to other 

divers who encounter previously fed sharks during non-feeding 

trips. These concerns have led to State bans on the feeding of 

sharks for all purposes (excluding feeding sharks for the purpose 

of harvesting).6 Other than in the case of Federal waters off Hawaii, no similar bans exist in Federal waters. 

Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 

More than two decades ago, the United States banned the commercial sale and harvest of Atlantic-caught billfish (marlin, sailfish, and spearfish), in order to maximize recreational opportunities 

for these relatively rare fish. Catch-and-release recreational angling for billfish generates many millions of dollars in economic 

benefits to the U.S. economy each year.7 On October 5, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, 

effectively banning the importation of all billfish into the continental United States.8 This legislation was in response to declining 

billfish populations due to overfishing by non-U.S. commercial fishing fleets. In an effort to conserve billfish, the Billfish Conservation 

Act of 2012 prohibits the sale of nearly all billfish. The sale of 

swordfish is still allowed and billfish may be caught if landed and 

retained in Hawaii. The Hawaii exemption was for the purpose of 

protecting traditional fisheries and markets in that State.9 The 

rulemaking to implement that Act has not been completed, howVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR388.XXX SR388

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

ever, thus its passage has not yet yielded any conservation benefits. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

If enacted, S. 3099 would do the following: 

∑ Prohibit implementation or enforcement of restrictions on recreational fishing activities in the BNP that were not developed in 

coordination and consultation with the FWC. 

∑ Prohibit any person from engaging in shark feeding, with the 

exception of harvest purposes, in the EEZ. 

∑ Require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a final rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 not later than 45 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 3099 was introduced on June 23, 2016, by Senator Nelson and 

is cosponsored by Senator Rubio. Related bills have been introduced by Senators Cassidy and Rubio (S. 2807) and Representative 

Ros-Lehtinen (H.R. 3310). S. 2807 and H.R. 3310 would have required the National Park Service to have approval from State fish 

and wildlife agencies before closing State marine or Great Lakes 

waters to recreational or commercial fishing. 

On June 29, 2016, the Committee met in open Executive Session 

and, by voice vote, ordered S. 3099 to be reported favorably without 

amendment. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 3099—Access for Sportfishing Act of 2016 

S. 3099 would prohibit the National Park Service (NPS) from implementing or enforcing restrictions on fishing in Biscayne National Park in Florida, unless the restrictions are developed in coordination with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and are the least restrictive measures necessary for 

effective management of the fishery. The bill also would require the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to issue 

a final regulation implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 

2012, which prohibits the sale of billfish, within 45 days of enactment of the bill. Finally, S. 3099 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit people 

from feeding sharks in federal waters. 

Based on information from the NPS and the FWC about the 

agencies’ positions on fishing restrictions within the park, CBO expects that the NPS would probably not choose to enter into an 

agreement with the FWC to develop new fishing regulations. As a 

result, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would not 

affect federal spending with respect to management of Biscayne 

National Park. 

Based on information from NOAA, CBO estimates that implementing S. 3099 would cost less than $500,000 annually to issue 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
5 

rules on the sale of billfish and to implement the prohibition on 

feeding sharks. Any such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the legislation could increase revenues and associated direct spending; therefore, pay-asyou-go procedures apply. 

S. 3099 would create new civil and criminal penalties for feeding 

sharks; such penalties are recorded as revenues. Because criminal 

penalties are deposited into the Crime Victims Fund and later 

spent without further appropriations action, the bill also could increase direct spending. However, CBO expects that any additional 

revenues and subsequent direct spending would not be significant 

in any year because the number of civil and criminal violations 

would probably be small. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 3099 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 3099 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 

the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The bill contains private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Specifically, the bill would prohibit anyone from feeding sharks in 

U.S. waters for any purpose other than to harvest sharks. It also 

would prohibit anyone from operating a vessel for the purpose of 

carrying passengers to engage in or observe shark feeding. The cost 

of the mandates would be the net income forgone as a result of the 

prohibitions. Some diving operators use bait to attract sharks so 

that their customers can get a closer look. Feeding sharks is already banned in some state waters, including California and Florida. However, some dive operators have gotten around state bans 

by taking their customers out of state waters and into adjacent federal waters. The bill would make such practices illegal. Based on 

information from the academic literature about the size of the industry in the United States and in other countries, the rates 

charged for charter trips, and the customer base for such trips, 

CBO estimates that revenues generated by the industry amount to 

about $10 million annually. Therefore, CBO estimates that the cost 

of the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($154 million in 2016, 

adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese and 

Jon Sperl (for federal costs) and Logan Smith (for private-sector 

mandates). The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 3099, as reported, would require the Secretary of Commerce 

to issue a final rule implementing the Bill Conservation Act of 

2012. This would result in a prohibition of the sale of billfish, exVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR388.XXX SR388

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
6 

cept in very limited circumstances. Very few people would be covered by this since there is no commercial billfish fishery. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The legislation is not expected to have a negative impact on the 

Nation’s economy. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill is not expected to impact the personal privacy 

of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 3099 would require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a final 

rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 not later 

than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would provide the short title of the bill, the ‘‘Access 

for Sportfishing Act of 2016.’’ 

Section 2. Fishery management measures in Biscayne National 

Park. 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing or enforcing any restrictions on recreational fishing, 

charter fishing, or commercial fishing in the BNP developed as part 

of a management plan adopted after December 31, 2014. In order 

for the Secretary of the Interior to implement restrictions, they 

would need to be based on best available science, developed in coordination with the FWC, and be the least restrictive measures 

necessary for effective fish conservation and management. ‘‘Fish’’, 

‘‘fishery resource’’, ‘‘fishing’’, ‘‘charter fishing’’, ‘‘commercial fishing’’, 

‘‘conservation and management’’, and ‘‘recreational fishing’’ would 

have the definitions given those terms in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 

U.S.C 1802). 

Section 3. Shark Conservation Act of 2010. 

This section would amend the Act to amend the High Seas 

Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the 

conservation of sharks (Public Law 111–348; 124 Stat. 3668) to prohibit any person from engaging in shark feeding or operating a vessel for the purpose of carrying a passenger for hire to a site to engage in shark feeding, with the exceptions of regulations in the 

MSA that allow for feeding to attract sharks for harvest within the 

EEZ. The amendment made by this section would prohibit the reVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:26 Dec 01, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR388.XXX SR388

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
7 

fusal of an authorized officer to board a fishing vessel for the purpose of enforcing this law. It would prohibit any assault, resistance, 

or interference of such authorized officers. The amendment made 

by this section would outline the civil and criminal penalties associated with violation of that Act. Nothing in that Act would supersede more restrictive State laws or regulations regarding shark 

feeding in State waters. 

Section 4. Billfish Conservation Act of 2012. 

This section would require the Secretary of Commerce to issue a 

final rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 not 

later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act and clarify that an exemption provided for certain traditional fisheries and 

markets applies to billfish landed and retained locally. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING 

MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT AND THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ACT TO IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS 

[Public Law 111–348; 124 Stat. 3668] 

øSEC. 104. OFFSET OF IMPLEMENTATION COST. 

* * * * * * *¿ 

SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON SHARK FEEDING. 

(a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in section 317 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1866), it is unlawful for any person— 

(1) to engage in shark feeding; or 

(2) to operate a vessel for the purpose of carrying a passenger 

for hire to any site to engage in shark feeding or to observe 

shark feeding. 

(b) ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED ACTS.—It is unlawful for any person— 

(1) to violate this section or any regulation promulgated 

under this section; 

(2) to refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce the 

provisions of this section to board a fishing vessel subject to 

such person’s control for purposes of conducting any search or 

inspection in connection with the enforcement of this section or 

any regulation promulgated under the section; 

(3) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or 

interfere with any such authorized officer in the conduct of any 

search or inspection described in paragraph (2); 

(4) to resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by this section; or 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
8 

(5) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the apprehension or arrest of another person, knowing that such other 

person has committed any act prohibited by this section. 

(c) LIMITATION.—Any incidental feeding or attracting of a shark 

in the course of educational or scientific research conducted under 

a permit issued by the Secretary of Commerce or lawful fishing 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall not be considered a violation 

of this section. 

(d) CIVIL PENALTY.—Any person who commits any act that is unlawful under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall be 

liable to the United States for a civil penalty under section 308 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1858). 

(e) CRIMINAL PENALTY.—Any person who commits an act that is 

unlawful under paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (b) of this 

section is deemed to be guilty of an offense punishable under section 

309(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1859(b)). 

(f) ENFORCEMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating 

shall prevent any person from violating this section in the same 

manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 

powers, and duties as though sections 308 through 311 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) were incorporated into and 

made a part of this Act. 

(2) PENALTIES AND PRIVILEGES.—Any person who violates this 

section is subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges 

and immunities provided in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) in 

the same manner and by the same means as though sections 

308 through 311 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) were 

incorporated into and made a part of this Act. 

(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) PASSENGER FOR HIRE.—The term ‘‘passenger for hire’’ has 

the meaning given that term in section 2101(21a) of title 46, 

United States Code. 

(2) SHARK FEEDING.—The term ‘‘shark feeding’’ means the introduction of food or any other substance into the water to feed 

or attract sharks for any purpose other than to harvest sharks. 

SEC. 105. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be 

construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation 

and management measures as the Secretary considers appropriate 

under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3) and 

1854(g)). 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN
9 

BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012 

[Public Law 112–183; 126 Stat. 1422] 

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH. 

[16 U.S.C. 1827a] 

(a) PROHIBITION.—No person shall offer for sale, sell, or have custody, control, or possession of for purposes of offering for sale or 

selling billfish or products containing billfish. 

(b) PENALTY.—For purposes of section 308(a) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1858(a)), a violation of this section shall be treated as an act prohibited by section 307 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1857). 

(c) EXEMPTIONS FOR TRADITIONAL FISHERIES AND MARKETS.— 

(1) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish caught by US 

fishing vessels and landed and retained in the State of Hawaii 

or Pacific Insular Areas as defined in section 3(35) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1802(35)). 

(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to billfish landed by foreign 

fishing vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas when the foreign 

caught billfish is exported to non-US markets or retained within Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas for local consumption. 

(d) BILLFISH DEFINED.—In this section the term ‘‘billfish’’— 

(1) means any fish of the species— 

(A) Makaira nigricans (blue marlin); 

(B) Kajikia audax (striped marlin); 

(C) Istiompax indica (black marlin); 

(D) Istiophorus platypterus (sailfish); 

(E) Tetrapturus angustirostris (shortbill spearfish); 

(F) Kajikia albida (white marlin); 

(G) Tetrapturus georgii (roundscale spearfish); 

(H) Tetrapturus belone (Mediterranean spearfish); and 

(I) Tetrapturus pfluegeri (longbill spearfish); and 

(2) does not include the species Xiphias gladius (swordfish). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with REPORTS-SEN