49–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–711 

STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 

DECEMBER 22, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4742] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4742) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing 

Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is the following: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

Sec. 101. Definitions. 

Sec. 102. References. 

Sec. 103. Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks. 

Sec. 104. Modifications to the annual catch limit requirement. 

Sec. 105. Distinguishing between overfished and depleted. 

Sec. 106. Transparency and public process. 

Sec. 107. Limitation on future catch share programs. 

Sec. 108. Report on fee. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

Sec. 109. Data collection and data confidentiality. 

Sec. 110. Cooperative research and management program. 

Sec. 111. Council jurisdiction for overlapping fisheries. 

Sec. 112. Gulf of Mexico fisheries cooperative research and red snapper management. 

Sec. 113. North Pacific fishery management clarification. 

Sec. 114. Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout their range. 

Sec. 115. Limitation on harvest in North Pacific directed pollock fishery. 

Sec. 116. Recreational fishing data. 

Sec. 117. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of Mexico Council’s Reef Fish Management 

Plan. 

Sec. 118. Estimation of cost of recovery from fishery resource disaster. 

Sec. 119. Deadline for action on request by Governor for determination regarding fishery resource disaster. 

Sec. 120. Prohibition on considering red snapper killed during removal of oil rigs. 

Sec. 121. Prohibition on considering fish seized from foreign fishing. 

Sec. 122. Subsistence fishing. 

Sec. 123. Inter-sector trading of commercial catch share allocations in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Sec. 124. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE II—REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC 

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Sec. 202. Findings; purpose. 

Sec. 203. Refinancing of Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction loan. 

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS. 

Any term used in this title that is defined in section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) shall have the same 

meaning such term has under that section. 

SEC. 102. REFERENCES. 

Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this title an amendment 

or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a provision, the 

reference shall be considered to be made to a provision of the Magnuson-Stevens 

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

SEC. 103. FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS. 

(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4)— 

(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ‘‘possible’’ and inserting ‘‘practicable’’; 

(B) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as follows: 

‘‘(ii) may not exceed the time the stock would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean generation, except in a case in which— 

‘‘(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement 

in which the United States participates dictate otherwise; 

‘‘(II) the Secretary determines that the cause of the stock being 

depleted is outside the jurisdiction of the Council or the rebuilding 

program cannot be effective only by limiting fishing activities; 

‘‘(III) the Secretary determines that one or more components of 

a mixed-stock fishery is depleted but cannot be rebuilt within that 

time- frame without significant economic harm to the fishery, or 

cannot be rebuilt without causing another component of the mixedstock fishery to approach a depleted status; 

‘‘(IV) the Secretary determines that recruitment, distribution, or 

life history of, or fishing activities for, the stock are affected by informal transboundary agreements under which management activities outside the exclusive economic zone by another country may 

hinder conservation and management efforts by United States fishermen; and 

‘‘(V) the Secretary determines that the stock has been affected by 

unusual events that make rebuilding within the specified time period improbable without significant economic harm to fishing communities;’’; 

(C) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (B), 

by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D), 

and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: 

‘‘(B) take into account environmental condition including predator/prey 

relationships;’’; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

(D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(E) specify a schedule for reviewing the rebuilding targets, evaluating 

environmental impacts on rebuilding progress, and evaluating progress 

being made toward reaching rebuilding targets.’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) A fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations 

may use alternative rebuilding strategies, including harvest control rules and 

fishing mortality-rate targets to the extent they are in compliance with the requirements of this Act. 

‘‘(9) A Council may terminate the application of paragraph (3) to a fishery if 

the Council’s scientific and statistical committee determines and the Secretary 

concurs that the original determination that the fishery was depleted was erroneous, either— 

‘‘(A) within the 2-year period beginning on the effective date a fishery 

management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulation for a fishery 

under this subsection takes effect; or 

‘‘(B) within 90 days after the completion of the next stock assessment 

after such determination.’’. 

(b) EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AND INTERIM MEASURES.—Section 305(c)(3)(B) (16 

U.S.C. 1855(c)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘180 days after’’ and all that follows 

through ‘‘provided’’ and inserting ‘‘1 year after the date of publication, and may be 

extended by publication in the Federal Register for one additional period of not 

more than 1 year, if’’. 

SEC. 104. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT. 

Section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(m) CONSIDERATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENTS.— 

‘‘(1) CONSIDERATION OF ECOSYSTEM AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS.—In establishing 

annual catch limits a Council may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), consider 

changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing communities. 

‘‘(2) LIMITATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL FISHERIES.—Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), a Council is not required to develop 

an annual catch limit for— 

‘‘(A) an ecosystem component species; 

‘‘(B) a fishery for a species that has a life cycle of approximately 1 year, 

unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to overfishing; 

or 

‘‘(C) a stock for which— 

‘‘(i) more than half of a single-year class will complete their life cycle 

in less than 18 months; and 

‘‘(ii) fishing mortality will have little impact on the stock. 

‘‘(3) RELATIONSHIP TO INTERNATIONAL FISHERY EFFORTS.—Each annual catch 

limit may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), take into account— 

‘‘(A) management measures under international agreements in which the 

United States participates; 

‘‘(B) informal transboundary agreements under which fishery management activities by another country outside the exclusive economic zone may 

hinder conservation efforts by United States fishermen for a fish species for 

which any of the recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing activities 

are transboundary; and 

‘‘(C) in instances in which no transboundary agreement exists, activities 

by another country outside the exclusive economic zone that may hinder 

conservation efforts by United States fisherman for a fish species for which 

any of the recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing activities are 

transboundary. 

‘‘(4) AUTHORIZATION FOR MULTISPECIES COMPLEXES AND MULTIYEAR ANNUAL

CATCH LIMITS.—For purposes of subsection (h)(6), a Council may establish— 

‘‘(A) an annual catch limit for a stock complex; or 

‘‘(B) annual catch limits for each year in any continuous period that is 

not more than three years in duration. 

‘‘(5) ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT SPECIES DEFINED.—In this subsection the term 

‘ecosystem component species’ means a stock of fish that is a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of fish in a fishery, or a nontarget, incidentally harvested 

stock of fish that a Council or the Secretary has determined— 

‘‘(A) is not subject to overfishing, approaching a depleted condition or depleted; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

‘‘(B) is not likely to become subject to overfishing or depleted in the absence of conservation and management measures.’’. 

SEC. 105. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (34), by striking ‘‘The terms ‘overfishing’ and ‘overfished’ 

mean’’ and inserting ‘‘The term ‘overfishing’ means’’; and 

(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following: 

‘‘(8a) The term ‘depleted’ means, with respect to a stock of fish or stock complex, that the stock or stock complex has a biomass that has declined below a 

level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.’’. 

(b) SUBSTITUTION OF TERM.—The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by striking ‘‘overfished’’ each 

place it appears and inserting ‘‘depleted’’. 

(c) CLARITY IN ANNUAL REPORT.—Section 304(e)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(1)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The report shall distinguish between 

fisheries that are depleted (or approaching that condition) as a result of fishing and 

fisheries that are depleted (or approaching that condition) as a result of factors 

other than fishing. The report shall state, for each fishery identified as depleted or 

approaching that condition, whether the fishery is the target of directed fishing.’’. 

SEC. 106. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS. 

(a) ADVICE.—Section 302(g)(1)(B) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)(1)(B)) is amended by adding 

at the end the following: ‘‘Each scientific and statistical committee shall develop 

such advice in a transparent manner and allow for public involvement in the process.’’. 

(b) MEETINGS.—Section 302(i)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(i)(2)) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet Web site of the Council— 

‘‘(i) to the extent practicable, a Webcast, an audio recording, or a live 

broadcast of each meeting of the Council, and of the Council Coordination 

Committee established under subsection (l), that is not closed in accordance 

with paragraph (3); and 

‘‘(ii) audio, video (if the meeting was in person or by video conference), 

or a searchable audio or written transcript of each meeting of the Council 

and of the meetings of committees referred to in section 302(g)(1)(B) of the 

Council by not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the meeting. 

‘‘(H) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to the public an archive of Council and scientific and statistical committee meeting audios, videos, 

and transcripts made available under clauses (i) and (ii) subparagraph (G).’’. 

(c) FISHERY IMPACT STATEMENTS.— 

(1) REQUIREMENT.—Section 303 (16 U.S.C. 1853) is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (9) and redesignating paragraphs (10) through (15) as paragraphs (9) through (14), respectively; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(d) FISHERY IMPACT STATEMENT.— 

‘‘(1) Any fishery management plan (or fishery management plan amendment) 

prepared by any Council or by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), 

or proposed regulations deemed necessary pursuant to subsection (c), shall include a fishery impact statement which shall assess, specify and analyze the 

likely effects and impact of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment. 

‘‘(2) The fishery impact statement shall describe— 

‘‘(A) a purpose of the proposed action; 

‘‘(B) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 

‘‘(C) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should 

the proposed action be implemented; 

‘‘(D) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action; 

‘‘(E) the relationship between short-term use of fishery resources and the 

enhancement of long-term productivity; 

‘‘(F) the cumulative conservation and management effects; and 

‘‘(G) economic, and social impacts of the proposed action on— 

‘‘(i) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by 

the proposed action; 

‘‘(ii) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under 

the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council 

and representatives of those participants; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

‘‘(iii) the safety of human life at sea, including whether and to what 

extent such measures may affect the safety of participants in the fishery. 

‘‘(3) A substantially complete fishery impact statement, which may be in draft 

form, shall be available not less than 14 days before the beginning of the meeting at which a Council makes its final decision on the proposal (for plans, plan 

amendments, or proposed regulations prepared by a Council pursuant to subsection (a) or (c)). Availability of this fishery impact statement will be announced by the methods used by the council to disseminate public information 

and the public and relevant government agencies will be invited to comment on 

the fishery impact statement. 

‘‘(4) The completed fishery impact statement shall accompany the transmittal 

of a fishery management plan or plan amendment as specified in section 304(a), 

as well as the transmittal of proposed regulations as specified in section 304(b). 

‘‘(5) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the Secretary, establish criteria 

to determine actions or classes of action of minor significance regarding subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2), for which preparation of 

a fishery impact statement is unnecessary and categorically excluded from the 

requirements of this section, and the documentation required to establish the 

exclusion. 

‘‘(6) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the Secretary, prepare procedures for compliance with this section that provide for timely, clear, and concise 

analysis that is useful to decisionmakers and the public, reduce extraneous paperwork and effectively involve the public, including— 

‘‘(A) using Council meetings to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and identifying significant issues related to the proposed action; 

‘‘(B) integration of the fishery impact statement development process with 

preliminary and final Council decisionmaking in a manner that provides 

opportunity for comment from the public and relevant government agencies 

prior to these decision points; and 

‘‘(C) providing scientific, technical, and legal advice at an early stage of 

the development of the fishery impact statement to ensure timely transmittal and Secretarial review of the proposed fishery management plan, 

plan amendment, or regulations to the Secretary. 

‘‘(7) Actions taken in accordance with the procedures of this section shall constitute fulfillment of the requirements the National Environmental Policy Improvement Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and all related implementing 

regulations.’’. 

(2) EVALUATION OF ADEQUACY.—Section 304(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1854(a)(2)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end of subparagraph (B), 

striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and 

by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D) evaluate the adequacy of the accompanying fishery impact statement 

as basis for fully considering the environmental impacts of implementing 

the fishery management plan or plan amendment.’’. 

(3) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.—Section 304(b) (16 U.S.C. 1854(b)) is amended 

by striking so much as precedes subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(b) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.— 

‘‘(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of proposed regulations 

prepared under section 303(c), the Secretary shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent 

with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, this Act and other applicable law. The Secretary shall also immediately initiate an evaluation of the accompanying fishery impact statement as a basis for fully considering the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed regulations. Within 15 days 

of initiating such evaluation the Secretary shall make a determination 

and—’’. 

(4) EFFECT ON TIME REQUIREMENTS.—Section 305(e) (16 U.S.C. 1855(e)) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),’’ after ‘‘the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.)’’. 

SEC. 107. LIMITATION ON FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS. 

(a) CATCH SHARE DEFINED.—Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting 

after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(2a) The term ‘catch share’ means any fishery management program that allocates a specific percentage of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, community, processor, repVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

resentative of a commercial sector, or regional fishery association established in 

accordance with section 303A(c)(4), or other entity.’’. 

(b) CATCH SHARE REFERENDUM PILOT PROGRAM.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 303A(c)(6)(D) (16 U.S.C. 1853a(c)(6)(D)) is amended 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(D) CATCH SHARE REFERENDUM PILOT PROGRAM.— ‘‘(i) The New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Councils may not submit a fishery management plan or amendment 

that creates a catch share program for a fishery, and the Secretary may 

not approve or implement such a plan or amendment submitted by 

such a Council or a secretarial plan or amendment under section 304(c) 

that creates such a program, unless the final program has been approved, in a referendum in accordance with this subparagraph, by a 

majority of the permit holders eligible to participate in the fishery. For 

multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico, any permit holder with 

landings from within the sector of the fishery being considered for the 

catch share program within the 5-year period preceding the date of the 

referendum and still active in fishing in the fishery shall be eligible to 

participate in such a referendum. If a catch share program is not approved by the requisite number of permit holders, it may be revised 

and submitted for approval in a subsequent referendum. 

‘‘(ii) The Secretary may, at the request of the New England Fishery 

Management Council, allow participation in such a referendum for a 

fishery under the Council’s authority, by fishing vessel crewmembers 

who derive a significant portion of their livelihood from such fishing. 

‘‘(iii) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum under this subparagraph, including notifying all permit holders eligible to participate in 

the referendum and making available to them— 

‘‘(I) a copy of the proposed program; 

‘‘(II) an estimate of the costs of the program, including costs to 

participants; 

‘‘(III) an estimate of the amount of fish or percentage of quota 

each permit holder would be allocated; and 

‘‘(IV) information concerning the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum process. 

‘‘(iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘permit holder 

eligible to participate’ only includes the holder of a permit for a fishery 

under which fishing has occurred in 3 of the 5 years preceding a referendum for the fishery, unless sickness, injury, or other unavoidable 

hardship prevented the permit holder from engaging in such fishing. 

‘‘(v) The Secretary may not implement any catch share program for 

any fishery managed exclusively by the Secretary unless first petitioned by a majority of those permit holders eligible to participate in 

the fishery.’’. 

(2) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.—The amendment made by paragraph (1) 

shall not apply to a catch share program that is submitted to, or proposed by, 

the Secretary of Commerce before the date of enactment of this Act. 

(3) REGULATIONS.—Before conducting a referendum under the amendment 

made by paragraph (1), the Secretary of Commerce shall issue regulations implementing such amendment after providing an opportunity for submission by 

the public of comments on the regulations. 

SEC. 108. REPORT ON FEE. 

Section 304(d)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1854(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(D) The Secretary shall report annually on the amount collected under this 

paragraph from each fishery and detail how the funds were spent in the prior 

year on a fishery-by-fishery basis, to— 

‘‘(i) Congress; and 

‘‘(ii) each Council from whose fisheries the fee under this paragraph were 

collected.’’. 

SEC. 109. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA CONFIDENTIALITY. 

(a) ELECTRONIC MONITORING.— 

(1) ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.— 

(A) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall issue regulations governing the 

use of electronic monitoring for the purposes of monitoring fisheries that 

are subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). 

(B) CONTENT.—The regulations shall— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(i) distinguish between monitoring for data collection and research 

purposes and monitoring for compliance and enforcement purposes; and 

(ii) include minimum criteria, objectives, or performance standards 

for electronic monitoring. 

(C) PROCESS.—In issuing the regulations the Secretary shall— 

(i) consult with the Councils and fishery management commissions; 

(ii) publish the proposed regulations; and 

(iii) provide an opportunity for the submission by the public of comments on the proposed regulations. 

(2) IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), and after the issuance of 

the final regulations, a Council, or the Secretary for fisheries referred to in 

section 302(a)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(3)), may, in accordance with the regulations, on a fishery-by-fishery basis and consistent with the existing objectives and management goals of a fishery management plan and the Act for 

a fishery issued by the Council or the Secretary, respectively, amend such 

plan— 

(i) to incorporate electronic monitoring as an alternative tool for data 

collection and monitoring purposes or for compliance and enforcement 

purposes (or both); and 

(ii) to allow for the replacement of a percentage of on-board observers 

with electronic monitoring. 

(B) COMPARABILITY.—Subparagraph (A) shall apply to a fishery only if 

the Council or Secretary, respectively, determines that such monitoring will 

yield comparable data collection and compliance results. 

(3) PILOT PROJECTS.—Before the issuance of final regulations, a Council, or 

the Secretary for fisheries referred to in section 302(a)(3), may, subject to the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, on a fishery-by-fishery basis, and consistent with the existing objectives 

and management goals of a fishery management plan for a fishery issued by 

the Council or the Secretary, respectively, conduct a pilot project for the use of 

electronic monitoring for the fishery. 

(4) DEADLINE.—The Secretary shall issue final regulations under this subsection by not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) VIDEO AND ACOUSTIC SURVEY TECHNOLOGIES.—The Secretary shall work with 

the Regional Fishery Management Councils and nongovernmental entities to develop and implement the use pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) of video survey technologies and 

expanded use of acoustic survey technologies. 

(c) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(b) (16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)) is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (1)— 

(i) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows: 

‘‘(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees as necessary for 

achievement of the purposes of this Act, subject to a confidentiality agreement between the State or Commission, respectively, and the Secretary 

that prohibits public disclosure of the identity of any person and of confidential information;’’; 

(ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘limited access’’ and inserting 

‘‘catch share’’; and 

(iii) in subparagraph (G), by striking ‘‘limited access’’ and inserting 

‘‘catch share’’; 

(B) in paragraph (2)— 

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, and information obtained through a vessel monitoring system or other technology used onboard a fishing vessel for enforcement or data collection 

purposes,’’ after ‘‘information’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon at the end of subparagraph 

(B); and 

(iii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(C) as authorized by any regulations issued under paragraph (6) allowing the collection of observer information, pursuant to a confidentiality 

agreement between the observers, observer employers, and the Secretary 

prohibiting disclosure of the information by the observers or observer employers, in order— 

‘‘(i) to allow the sharing of observer information among observers and 

between observers and observer employers as necessary to train and 

prepare observers for deployments on specific vessels; or 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

‘‘(ii) to validate the accuracy of the observer information collected; or 

‘‘(D) to other persons if the Secretary has obtained written authorization 

from the person who submitted such information or from the person on 

whose vessel the information was collected, to release such information for 

reasons not otherwise provided for in this subsection.’’; 

(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (6); and 

(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State fisheries management agency, or a Marine Fisheries Commission by any person in compliance 

with the requirements of this Act, including confidential information, may only 

be used for purposes of fisheries management and monitoring and enforcement 

under this Act. 

‘‘(4) The Secretary may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the 

heads of other Federal agencies for the sharing of confidential information to 

ensure safety of life at sea or for fisheries enforcement purposes, including information obtained through a vessel monitoring system or other electronic enforcement and monitoring systems, if— 

‘‘(A) the Secretary determines there is a compelling need to do so; and 

‘‘(B) the heads of the other Federal agencies agree— 

‘‘(i) to maintain the confidentiality of the information in accordance 

with the requirements that apply to the Secretary under this section; 

and 

‘‘(ii) to use the information only for the purposes for which it was 

shared with the agencies. 

‘‘(5) The Secretary may not provide any vessel-specific or aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is collected for monitoring and enforcement purposes to any person for the purposes of coastal and marine spatial planning 

under Executive Order 13547, unless the Secretary determines that providing 

such information is important for maintaining or enhancing national security 

or for ensuring fishermen continued access to fishing grounds.’’. 

(2) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION DEFINED.—Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following: 

‘‘(4a) The term ‘confidential information’ means— 

‘‘(A) trade secrets; 

‘‘(B) proprietary information; 

‘‘(C) observer information; and 

‘‘(D) commercial or financial information the disclosure of which is likely 

to result in harm to the competitive position of the person that submitted 

the information to the Secretary.’’. 

(d) INCREASED DATA COLLECTION AND ACTIONS TO ADDRESS DATA-POOR FISHERIES.—Section 404 (16 U.S.C. 1881c) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(e) USE OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND FOR FISHERY INDEPENDENT DATA COLLECTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.— 

‘‘(A) The Secretary, subject to appropriations, may obligate for data collection purposes in accordance with prioritizations under paragraph (3) a portion of amounts received by the United States as fisheries enforcement penalties. 

‘‘(B) Amounts may be obligated under this paragraph only in the fishery 

management region with respect to which they are collected. 

‘‘(2) INCLUDED PURPOSES.—The purposes referred to in paragraph (1) include— 

‘‘(A) the use of State personnel and resources, including fishery survey 

vessels owned and maintained by States to survey or assess data-poor fisheries for which fishery management plans are in effect under this Act; and 

‘‘(B) cooperative research activities authorized under section 318 to improve or enhance the fishery independent data used in fishery stock assessments. 

‘‘(3) DATA-POOR FISHERIES PRIORITY LISTS.—Each Council shall— 

‘‘(A) identify those fisheries in its region considered to be data-poor fisheries; 

‘‘(B) prioritize those fisheries based on the need of each fishery for upto-date information; and 

‘‘(C) provide those priorities to the Secretary. 

‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

‘‘(A) The term ‘data-poor fishery’ means a fishery— 

‘‘(i) that has not been surveyed in the preceding 5-year period; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

‘‘(ii) for which a fishery stock assessment has not been performed 

within the preceding 5-year period; or 

‘‘(iii) for which limited information on the status of the fishery is 

available for management purposes. 

‘‘(B) The term ‘fisheries enforcement penalties’ means any fine or penalty 

imposed, or proceeds of any property seized, for a violation of this Act or 

of any other marine resource law enforced by the Secretary. 

‘‘(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year to carry out this subsection up to 

80 percent of the fisheries enforcement penalties collected during the preceding 

fiscal year.’’. 

SEC. 110. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

Section 318 (16 U.S.C. 1867) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before the first sentence, and by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) Within one year after the date of enactment of the Strengthening Fishing 

Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, and after 

consultation with the Councils, the Secretary shall publish a plan for implementing 

and conducting the program established in paragraph (1). Such plan shall identify 

and describe critical regional fishery management and research needs, possible 

projects that may address those needs, and estimated costs for such projects. The 

plan shall be revised and updated every 5 years, and updated plans shall include 

a brief description of projects that were funded in the prior 5-year period and the 

research and management needs that were addressed by those projects.’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)— 

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘FUNDING’’ and inserting ‘‘PRIORITIES’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (1), by striking all after ‘‘including’’ and inserting an em 

dash, followed on the next line by the following: 

‘‘(A) the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine technology; 

‘‘(B) expanding the use of electronic catch reporting programs and technology; and 

‘‘(C) improving monitoring and observer coverage through the expanded 

use of electronic monitoring devices.’’. 

SEC. 111. COUNCIL JURISDICTION FOR OVERLAPPING FISHERIES. 

Section 302(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), in the second sentence— 

(A) by striking ‘‘18’’ and inserting ‘‘19’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the period at the end ‘‘and a liaison who is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to represent the interests of fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (B), in the second sentence— 

(A) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘22’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the period at the end ‘‘and a liaison who is a member of the New England Fishery Management Council to represent the interests of fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council’’. 

SEC. 112. GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND RED SNAPPER MANAGEMENT. 

(a) REPEAL.—Section 407 (16 U.S.C. 1883), and the item relating to such section 

in the table of contents in the first section, are repealed. 

(b) REPORTING AND DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Commerce 

shall— 

(1) in conjunction with the States, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council, and the recreational fishing sectors, develop and implement a real-time 

reporting and data collection program for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery 

using available technology; and 

(2) make implementation of this subsection a priority for funds received by 

the Secretary and allocated to this region under section 2 of the Act of August 

11, 1939 (commonly known as the ‘‘Saltonstall-Kennedy Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 713c– 

3). 

(c) FISHERIES COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Commerce— 

(1) shall, in conjunction with the States, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commission and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and the commercial, 

charter, and recreational fishing sectors, develop and implement a cooperative 

research program authorized under section 318 for the fisheries of the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic regions, giving priority to those fisheries that are 

considered data-poor; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

(2) may, subject to the availability of appropriations, use funds received by 

the Secretary under section 2 of the Act of August 11, 1939 (commonly known 

as the ‘‘Saltonstall-Kennedy Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 713c–3) to implement this subsection. 

(d) STOCK SURVEYS AND STOCK ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator of the 

Southeast Regional Office, shall for purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)— 

(1) develop a schedule of stock surveys and stock assessments for the Gulf of 

Mexico Region and the South Atlantic Region for the 5-year period beginning 

on the date of the enactment of this Act and for every 5-year period thereafter; 

(2) direct the Southeast Science Center Director to implement such schedule; 

and 

(3) in such development and implementation— 

(A) give priority to those stocks that are commercially or recreationally 

important; and 

(B) ensure that each such important stock is surveyed at least every 5 

years. 

(e) USE OF FISHERIES INFORMATION IN STOCK ASSESSMENTS.—The Southeast 

Science Center Director shall ensure that fisheries information made available 

through fisheries programs funded under Public Law 112–141 is incorporated as 

soon as possible into any fisheries stock assessments conducted after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

(f) STATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN THE GULF OF MEXICO WITH RESPECT TO RED

SNAPPER.—Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(4) Notwithstanding section 3(11), for the purposes of managing the recreational 

sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the seaward boundary of a coastal 

State in the Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 miles seaward from the baseline from which 

the territorial sea of the United States is measured.’’. 

(g) FUNDING OF STOCK ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

shall enter into a cooperative agreement for the funding of stock assessments that 

are necessitated by any action by the Bureau with respect to offshore oil rigs in the 

Gulf of Mexico that adversely impacts red snapper. 

SEC. 113. NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT CLARIFICATION. 

Section 306(a)(3)(C) (16 U.S.C. 1856(a)(3)(C)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘was no’’ and inserting ‘‘is no’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘on August 1, 1996’’. 

SEC. 114. ENSURING CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOR FISHERIES THROUGHOUT THEIR 

RANGE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 4 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 5. ENSURING CONSISTENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL 

LAWS. 

‘‘(a) NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT AND ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906.—In any 

case of a conflict between this Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), this Act 

shall control. 

‘‘(b) FISHERIES RESTRICTIONS UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973.—To ensure transparency and consistent management of fisheries throughout their range, 

any restriction on the management of fish in the exclusive economic zone that is 

necessary to implement a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be implemented— 

‘‘(1) using authority under this Act; and 

‘‘(2) in accordance with processes and time schedules required under this 

Act.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in the first section is amended 

by inserting after the item relating to section 4 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 5. Ensuring consistent fisheries management under certain other Federal laws.’’. 

SEC. 115. LIMITATION ON HARVEST IN NORTH PACIFIC DIRECTED POLLOCK FISHERY. 

Section 210(e)(1) of the American Fisheries Act (title II of division C of Public Law 

105–277; 16 U.S.C. 1851 note) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) HARVESTING.— 

‘‘(A) LIMITATION.—No particular individual, corporation, or other entity 

may harvest, through a fishery cooperative or otherwise, a percentage of 

the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock fishery that exVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

ceeds the percentage established for purposes of this paragraph by the 

North Pacific Council. 

‘‘(B) MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE.—The percentage established by the North 

Pacific Council shall not exceed 24 percent of the pollock available to be 

harvested in the directed pollock fishery.’’. 

SEC. 116. RECREATIONAL FISHING DATA. 

(a) RECREATIONAL DATA COLLECTION.—Section 401(g) (16 U.S.C. 1881(g)) is 

amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by inserting after 

paragraph (3) the following: 

‘‘(4) FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS.— 

‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish partnerships with 

States to develop best practices for implementation of State programs established pursuant to paragraph (2). 

‘‘(B) GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall develop guidance, in cooperation 

with the States, that details best practices for administering State programs pursuant to paragraph (2), and provide such guidance to the States. 

‘‘(C) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the Congress and 

publish biennial reports that include— 

‘‘(i) the estimated accuracy of the registry program established under 

paragraph (1) and of State programs that are exempted under paragraph (2); 

‘‘(ii) priorities for improving recreational fishing data collection; and 

‘‘(iii) an explanation of any use of information collected by such State 

programs and by the Secretary, including a description of any consideration given to the information by the Secretary. 

‘‘(D) STATES GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall make grants to States 

to improve implementation of State programs consistent with this subsection. The Secretary shall prioritize such grants based on the ability of 

the grant to improve the quality and accuracy of such programs.’’. 

(b) STUDY ON RECREATIONAL FISHERIES DATA.—Section 401(g) (16 U.S.C. 1881(g)) 

is further amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) STUDY ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the enactment of this 

paragraph, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the National 

Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to study the implementation of the programs described in this section. The study shall— 

‘‘(i) provide an updated assessment of recreational survey methods 

established or improved since the publication of the Council’s report 

‘Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods (2006)’; 

‘‘(ii) evaluate the extent to which the recommendations made in that 

report were implemented pursuant to paragraph (3)(B); and 

‘‘(iii) examine any limitations of the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey and the Marine Recreational Information Program established under paragraph (1). 

‘‘(B) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after entering into an agreement 

under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress 

on the results of the study under subparagraph (A).’’. 

SEC. 117. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER GULF OF MEXICO 

COUNCIL’S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title IV (16 U.S.C. 1881 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 409. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED UNDER GULF OF MEXICO 

COUNCIL’S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission shall conduct all 

fishery stock assessments used for management purposes by the Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council for the fisheries managed under the Council’s Reef 

Fish Management Plan. 

‘‘(b) USE OF OTHER INFORMATION AND ASSETS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Such fishery assessments shall— 

‘‘(A) incorporate fisheries survey information collected by university researchers; and 

‘‘(B) to the extent practicable, use State, university, and private assets to 

conduct fisheries surveys. 

‘‘(2) SURVEYS AT ARTIFICIAL REEFS.—Any such fishery stock assessment conducted after the date of the enactment of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act shall incorporate 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

fishery surveys conducted, and other relevant fisheries information collected, on 

and around natural and artificial reefs. 

‘‘(c) CONSTITUENT AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.—Each such fishery assessment shall— 

‘‘(1) emphasize constituent and stakeholder participation in the development 

of the assessment; 

‘‘(2) contain all of the raw data used in the assessment and a description of 

the methods used to collect that data; and 

‘‘(3) employ an assessment process that is transparent and includes— 

‘‘(A) includes a rigorous and independent scientific review of the completed fishery stock assessment; and 

‘‘(B) a panel of independent experts to review the data and assessment 

and make recommendations on the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents in the first section is amended 

by inserting after the item relating to section 408 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 409. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of Mexico Council’s Reef Fish Management 

Plan.’’. 

SEC. 118. ESTIMATION OF COST OF RECOVERY FROM FISHERY RESOURCE DISASTER. 

Section 312(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(1)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; 

(2) by redesignating existing subparagraphs (A) through (C) as clauses (i) 

through (iii), respectively, of subparagraph (A) (as designated by the amendment made by paragraph (1)); and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) The Secretary shall publish the estimated cost of recovery from a fishery resource disaster no later than 30 days after the Secretary makes the determination 

under subparagraph (A) with respect to such disaster.’’. 

SEC. 119. DEADLINE FOR ACTION ON REQUEST BY GOVERNOR FOR DETERMINATION REGARDING FISHERY RESOURCE DISASTER. 

Section 312(a) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

through (4) as paragraphs (3) through (5), and by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

following: 

‘‘(2) The Secretary shall make a decision regarding a request from a Governor 

under paragraph (1) within 90 days after receiving an estimate of the economic impact of the fishery resource disaster from the entity requesting the relief.’’. 

SEC. 120. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERING RED SNAPPER KILLED DURING REMOVAL OF OIL 

RIGS. 

Any red snapper that are killed during the removal of any offshore oil rig in the 

Gulf of Mexico shall not be considered in determining under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) whether the 

total allowable catch for red snapper has been reached. 

SEC. 121. PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERING FISH SEIZED FROM FOREIGN FISHING. 

Any fish that are seized from a foreign vessel engaged in illegal fishing activities 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone shall not be considered in determining under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et 

seq.) the total allowable catch for that fishery. 

SEC. 122. SUBSISTENCE FISHING. 

(a) DEFINITION.—Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting after paragraph 43 the following: 

‘‘(43a)(A) The term ‘subsistence fishing’ means fishing in which the fish harvested are intended for customary and traditional uses, including for direct personal or family consumption as food or clothing; for the making or selling of 

handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts taken for personal or family consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade. 

‘‘(B) In this paragraph— 

‘‘(i) the term ‘family’ means all persons related by blood, marriage, or 

adoption, or any person living within the household on a permanent basis; 

and 

‘‘(ii) the term ‘barter’ means the exchange of a fish or fish part— 

‘‘(I) for another fish or fish part; or 

‘‘(II) for other food or for nonedible items other than money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature.’’. 

(b) COUNCIL SEAT.—Section 302(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(2)) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or recreational’’ and inserting ‘‘, recreational, or subsistence fishing’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (C), in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘, and in the 

case of the Governor of Alaska with the subsistence fishing interests of the 

State,’’ after ‘‘interests of the State’’. 

(c) PURPOSE.—Section 2(b)(3) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 

recreational’’ and inserting ‘‘, recreational, and subsistence’’. 

SEC. 123. INTER-SECTOR TRADING OF COMMERCIAL CATCH SHARE ALLOCATIONS IN THE 

GULF OF MEXICO. 

Section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1851) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) INTER-SECTOR TRADING OF COMMERCIAL CATCH SHARE ALLOCATIONS IN THE

GULF OF MEXICO.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any commercial 

fishing catch share allocation in a fishery in the Gulf of Mexico may only be traded 

by sale or lease within the same commercial fishing sector.’’. 

SEC. 124. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 4 (16 U.S.C. 1803) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘this Act’’ and all that follows through ‘‘(7)’’ and inserting ‘‘this 

Act’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 2014 

through 2018’’. 

TITLE II—REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF 

FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific 

Act’’ or the ‘‘REFI Pacific Act’’. 

SEC. 202. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings: 

(1) In 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast groundfish 

fishery a Federal fisheries economic disaster due to low stock abundance, an 

overcapitalized fleet, and historically overfished stocks. 

(2) Section 212 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (title II of division B of Public Law 108–7; 117 Stat. 80) was 

enacted to establish a Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program, also known as a buyback program, to remove excess fishing capacity. 

(3) In 2003, Congress authorized the $35,700,000 buyback loan, creating the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program through the National Marine Fisheries Service fisheries finance program with a term of 30 

years. The interest rate of the buyback loan was fixed at 6.97 percent and is 

paid back based on an ex-vessel fee landing rate not to exceed 5 percent for the 

loan. 

(4) The groundfish fishing capacity reduction program resulted in the removal 

of limited entry trawl Federal fishing permits from the fishery, representing approximately 46 percent of total landings at the time. 

(5) Because of an absence of a repayment mechanism, $4,243,730 in interest 

accrued before fee collection procedures were established in 2005, over 18 

months after the groundfish fishing capacity reduction program was initiated. 

(6) In 2011, the West Coast groundfish fishery transitioned to an individual 

fishing quota fishery, which is a type of catch share program. 

(7) By 2015, West Coast groundfish fishermen’s expenses are expected to include fees of approximately $450 per day for observers, a 3-percent cost recovery 

fee as authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801) for catch share programs, and a 5-percent ex-vessel 

landings rate for the loan repayment, which could reach 18 percent of their 

total gross revenue. 

(8) In 2012, the West Coast groundfish limited entry trawl fishery generated 

$63,000,000, an increase from an average of $45,000,000 during the years 2006 

to 2011. This revenue is expected to continue to increase post-rationalization. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to refinance the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery fishing capacity reduction program to protect and conserve the West Coast 

groundfish fishery and the coastal economies in California, Oregon, and Washington 

that rely on it. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

SEC. 203. REFINANCING OF PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHING CAPACITY REDUCTION 

LOAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Commerce, upon receipt of such assurances as 

the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States, 

shall issue a loan to refinance the existing debt obligation funding the fishing capacity reduction program for the West Coast groundfish fishery implemented under section 212 of the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2003 (title II of division B of Public Law 108–7; 117 Stat. 80). 

(b) APPLICABLE LAW.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary 

shall issue the loan under this section in accordance with subsections (b) through 

(e) of section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a) and sections 53702 and 53735 of title 46, United States Code. 

(c) LOAN TERM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 53735(c)(4) of title 46, United 

States Code, a loan under this section shall have a maturity that expires at the 

end of the 45-year period beginning on the date of issuance of the loan. 

(2) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1) and if there is an outstanding balance on the loan after the period described in paragraph (1), a loan 

under this section shall have a maturity of 45 years or until the loan is repaid 

in full. 

(d) LIMITATION ON FEE AMOUNT.—Notwithstanding section 312(d)(2)(B) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1861a(d)(2)(B)), the fee established by the Secretary with respect to a loan under 

this section shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of the harvest from 

each fishery for where the loan is issued. 

(e) INTEREST RATE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 53702(b)(2) of title 46, United 

States Code, the annual rate of interest an obligor shall pay on a direct loan 

obligation under this section is the percent the Secretary must pay as interest 

to borrow from the Treasury the funds to make the loan. 

(2) SUBLOANS.—Each subloan under the loan authorized by this section— 

(A) shall receive the interest rate described in paragraph (1); and 

(B) may be paid off at any time notwithstanding subsection (c)(1). 

(f) EX-VESSEL LANDING FEE.— 

(1) CALCULATIONS AND ACCURACY.—The Secretary shall set the ex-vessel landing fee to be collected for payment of the loan under this section— 

(A) as low as possible, based on recent landings value in the fishery, to 

meet the requirements of loan repayment; 

(B) upon issuance of the loan in accordance with paragraph (2); and 

(C) on a regular interval not to exceed every 5 years beginning on the 

date of issuance of the loan. 

(2) DEADLINE FOR INITIAL EX-VESSEL LANDINGS FEE CALCULATION.—Not later 

than 60 days after the date of issuance of the loan under this section, the Secretary shall recalculate the ex-vessel landing fee based on the most recent value 

of the fishery. 

(g) AUTHORIZATION.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 

Commerce to carry out this section an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of 

the loan authorized under this section for purposes of the Federal Credit Reform 

Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4742 is to amend the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for 

fishery managers and stability for fishermen. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), initially passed in 1976, is the primary law dealing with fisheries resources and fishing activities in 

Federal waters which, are defined as those waters extending from 

the edge of state waters to the 200-mile limit. 

The Secretary of Commerce, working through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and AtVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

mospheric Administration (NOAA), has the responsibility for implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

The Act not only provides the structure for commercial and recreational fishermen to harvest a federal natural, renewable resource, but also provides economic activity and opportunities for 

coastal communities and especially for fishery-dependent communities through fishing, processing jobs, and other related businesses. In addition to jobs and economic activity, the MagnusonSteven Act is the statute that regulates the harvest of a sustainable, healthy food source. Finally, the Act allows access to a large 

number of recreationally-important species for the for-hire industry 

and for private saltwater anglers. Both commercial and recreational fishing activities provide significant economic ripple effects for coastal communities. All of these activities require healthy 

fish populations, but they also require that management regulations not be so inflexible that the activities—and the benefits of 

those activities—cannot be realized. 

The key themes of the Act include: regional flexibility that allows 

each region the ability to create unique management solutions to 

regional challenges; the optimum use of the Nation’s fishery resources; prevention of overfishing and the rebuilding of overfished 

fisheries; science-based management; and a transparent, public 

process that allows both managers and those who are most affected 

by the management decisions to have a seat at the table when 

these management decisions are made. For management to be effective, the scientific underpinnings must be accurate, up-to-date, 

transparent, and understandable. 

Federal fisheries that are managed under the Act provide not 

only recreational opportunities for anglers, and economic engines 

for coastal communities, but also provide a significant food source 

for both the United States and the world. According to NOAA’s 

‘‘Fisheries Economics of the U.S., 2012’’ report, U.S. commercial 

and recreational saltwater fishing activities generated more than 

$199 billion in sales in 2012. According to the report, the U.S. seafood industry—which includes the commercial harvest sector, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and distributors, 

importers, and seafood retailers—supported approximately 1.3 million full-time and part-time jobs and generated $141 billion in sales 

impacts, $39 billion in income impacts, and $59 billion in valueadded impacts. During this period, U.S. commercial fishermen 

landed 9.6 billion pounds of finfish and shellfish (with an ex-vessel 

value of $5.1 billion). In addition, there were approximately 11 million recreational saltwater anglers across the U.S. who took 72 million saltwater fishing trips around the country. These anglers spent 

$4.6 billion on fishing trips and $20 billion on durable fishing-related equipment. These expenditures contributed $58 billion in 

sales impacts to the U.S. economy, generated $30 billion in valueadded impacts, and supported over 381,000 jobs. 

Background 

The primary goals at the time of enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the original name of the Act now 

known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) were the conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources, the development of U.S. domestic fisheries, and the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

phasing-out of foreign fishing activities within the 200-mile fisheries conservation zone adjacent to the U.S. coastline. This area became known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) following a 

1983 proclamation by President Ronald Reagan. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. These Councils are charged with implementing 

the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (in coordination with 

NMFS), including the 10 National Standards which are the guiding 

principles for the conservation and management of the domestic 

fishery resources. In addition to managing the fisheries resources 

for conservation purposes, Councils are responsible for allocating 

resources among various and often competing users. 

According to the Act, ‘‘each Council shall reflect the expertise and 

interest of the several constituent States in the ocean area over 

which such Council is granted authority.’’ The Act specifies which 

states are under the jurisdiction of each Council, specifies the number of seats on each Council, and which of those seats will be selected from nominations by the Governors. 

These Councils are comprised of: a state representative from the 

state agency with the responsibility for marine fisheries management for each affected state; representatives of NOAA and other 

appropriate Federal agencies (the regional director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for the region, the commandant of the Coast Guard 

for the region, the executive director of the Marine Fisheries Commission for the region, and a representative of the State Department serve as non-voting members of each Council); and individuals from the commercial and recreational fishing industry or individuals with other fishery expertise. 

These private individuals are nominated by the Governors of the 

affected states and are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. 

Governors submit a roster of three names for each open seat, and 

the Secretary is required to choose from these lists. Individuals 

serve three year terms and may not serve more than three consecutive terms. The Councils allow stakeholders and those with direct 

knowledge of the fisheries and the marine environment to be involved in creating the rules for managing the fisheries in federal 

waters. While the Councils provide the venue for these discussion 

and decisions to be made, any actions taken by the Councils must 

be approved or disapproved by the Secretary of Commerce. 

Councils are charged with implementing the Act, in coordination 

with NMFS, and in accordance with the 10 National Standards 

mentioned above. National Standard 1 requires that conservation 

and management measures prevent overfishing while achieving the 

optimum yield from each fishery. This requires a balancing act between the conservation of the Nation’s fishery resources and providing the optimum yield for the domestic fishing industry which 

translates to economic activity for fishery-dependent businesses 

and many coastal communities. In addition, National Standard 2 of 

the Act requires Councils to establish conservation and management measures based on ‘‘the best scientific information available.’’ 

To meet these National Standards, Councils prepare a fishery 

management plan (FMP) for each fishery (except for Atlantic highly migratory species—tunas, swordfish, marlins, etc.—which are 

managed by the Secretary). FMPs are often developed for more 

than one stock of fish. As an example, the Bering Sea groundfish 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

FMP covers more than 19 stocks of fish. These FMPs require scientific assessments of the fishery resources and then the issuance 

of allocations of catch for the domestic fishing fleet—often requiring 

separate allocations between different sectors of the fishing industry (commercial, recreational, and charter sectors). 

In addition to the National Standards, the Act includes 15 conservation and management measures that each FMP must contain. 

The Act also includes 14 discretionary authorities for measures 

that a Council may include in each FMP. Each FMP is required, 

among other things, to include: a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved, the type 

and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and 

their location; the cost likely to be incurred in management; actual 

and potential revenues from the fishery; any recreational interest 

in the fishery; a description and identification of essential fish 

habitat; a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter 

fishing sectors which participate in the fishery, including its economic impact; and a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits 

in the plan (including a multiyear plan) at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, and which must include measures to ensure accountability. Many FMPs have been modified numerous times; for example, the Bering Sea groundfish FMP has 

been amended more than 90 times. 

Following the development of FMP, a Council forwards the plan 

to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary must approve the 

plan, disapprove the plan, or partially disapprove the plan. If the 

Secretary disapproves or partially disapproves a plan, it is sent 

back to the Council for further consideration. If the plan is approved, NMFS then issues regulations to implement the plan. 

There are currently 46 fishery management plans that cover 528 

individual fish stocks or stock complexes. 

Overview of the 2006/2007 amendments 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act was last reauthorized at the end of 

the 109th Congress in 2006 and was signed into law in early 2007. 

Appropriations for the Act are currently authorized through Fiscal 

Year 2013. 

The main provisions of the 2006/2007 reauthorization included: 

a requirement that Councils not set harvest levels above the level 

recommended by the Council’s Science and Statistical Committee 

(SSC); that each fishery management plan have, by 2011, a mechanism for setting an Annual Catch Limit (ACL) at a level to ensure 

overfishing is not taking place; that the fishery management plans 

also have measures for ensuring accountability (Accountability 

Measures or AMs); and guidelines for the development of Limited 

Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). The 2006/2007 amendments 

also required NOAA to establish a program to improve the quality 

and accuracy of information generated by the Marine Recreational 

Fishery Statistics Survey no later than January 1, 2009. 

The 2006/2007 amendments were intended to require Councils to 

base harvest levels on the advice of scientists, set annual harvest 

levels for each fishery, and establish methods for ensuring accountability so that the harvest levels were not exceeded. While these 

amendments have improved fisheries conservation and management in many fisheries, in some regions the information necessary 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

to adequately implement these new requirements is not available. 

In these data-poor fisheries and regions, these new requirements 

are viewed as being too rigid and this lack of flexibility is creating 

economic hardship. 

Current reauthorization 

While the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a national law, it delegates 

a significant amount of decision-making to the regions and to the 

states and stakeholders through the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils. These Councils allow the states and the people who are 

affected by the fishery management plans to use their expertise 

and on-the-water knowledge of the fisheries and the marine environment to create management plans that are reasonable, effective, 

and enforceable. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the broad 

framework while allowing each region to react to its own challenges and conditions. This is the key to the Act and one that must 

be maintained while updating this important law. 

Since 2011, ten Full Committee or Subcommittee hearings related either to the reauthorization of the Act or to Federal fisheries 

management have been held: July 26, 2011, Oversight hearing on 

‘‘NOAA’s Fishery Science: Is the Lack of Basic Science Costing 

Jobs?,’’ Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular 

Affairs; December 1, 2011, Legislative hearing on H.R. 594, H.R. 

1013, H.R. 1646, H.R. 2304, H.R. 2610, H.R. 2753, H.R. 2772 and 

H.R. 3061, Full Committee; March 22, 2012, Oversight hearing on 

‘‘Empty Hooks: The National Ocean Policy is the Latest Threat to 

Access for Recreational and Commercial Fishermen,’’ Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs; August 25, 2012, 

Oversight field hearing on ‘‘Fishing = Jobs: How Strengthening 

America’s Fisheries Strengthens Our Economy,’’ Full Committee; 

March 13, 2013, Oversight hearing on the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 

Full Committee; May 21, 2013, Oversight hearing on data collection issues in relation to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs; June 27, 2013, 

Oversight hearing on the management of Red Snapper in the Gulf 

of Mexico under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, Full Committee; September 11, 2013, Oversight 

hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, Full Committee; February 4, 

2014, and February 28, 2014, Legislative hearing on H.R. l 

(Chairman’s Discussion Draft), Full Committee; and April 3, 2014, 

Legislative hearing on H.R. 69, H.R. 2646, and H.R. l, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. 

The Committee heard from 99 total witnesses (74 non-governmental/25 Federal or state governmental witnesses) and 83 different witnesses (63 non-governmental/20 Federal or state governmental witnesses) which included Members of Congress, Federal 

and state governmental witnesses, representatives from the regional fishery management councils and the interstate fisheries 

commissions, representatives from the commercial, recreational, 

charter and processing sectors, academics, environmentalists, and 

others with an interest in federal fisheries management. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

In addition to these hearings, a number of factors contributed to 

the development of this reauthorization legislation. In addition to 

the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries conference and the National 

Academies of Sciences report (discussed below), recommendations 

from a number of papers and conferences also were considered by 

Members of the Committee in developing H.R. 4742. 

Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries, advancing sustainability 

In May 2013, the third Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries conference was convened (previous Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 

conferences had been held in 2003 and 2005). This conference was 

hosted by the eight regional fishery management councils and focused specifically on issues for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Each of 

the eight Councils submitted a list of the conservation and management requirements and activities that work well in their geographic region, a list of those conservation and management requirements and activities that do not work in their region, and recommendations for changes to the Act which would improve conservation and management measures while achieving optimum 

yield from the Nation’s fishery resources. The conference resulted 

in 128 ‘‘findings’’ and many of these were recommendations for 

statutory changes to the Act. 

National Academies of Sciences 

The Ocean Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences 

convened an ad hoc committee to develop a report titled ‘‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.’’ The ad 

hoc committee was charged with undertaking an analysis of the effects of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to rebuild overfished 

stocks, including an evaluation of success in stock rebuilding, and 

the identification of changes made to fisheries management in response to rebuilding requirements. The report was issued on September 5, 2013, and concluded that: 

The current implementation of the MSFMCA relies on a prescriptive approach that has resulted in demonstrated successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks. Fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and stock biomass has generally increased, for 

stocks that were placed under a rebuilding plan. Where they have 

been estimated, the long-term net economic benefits of rebuilding 

appear to be generally positive. Stocks that rebuilt or whose biomass increased appreciably were, in almost all cases reviewed, experiencing fishing mortalities below FMSY [the level of fishing 

mortality that results in the maximum sustainable yield], and 

often lower than 75% of FMSY. More extreme reductions in target 

fishing mortalities have been implemented in situations in which 

rebuilding progress was slower than anticipated when the rebuilding plan was adopted, or the target year for rebuilding was approaching. In some cases rebuilding plans have failed to reduce 

fishing mortality as much as intended, either due to overestimation 

of stock sizes or implementation issues, and rebuilding has been 

slow or has not occurred. 

The legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding mandates forces 

difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively high level of acVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

countability, and can help prevent protracted debate over whether 

and how stocks should be rebuilt. Setting rebuilding times is useful 

for specifying target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding and for 

avoiding delays in initiating rebuilding plans, which would otherwise require more severe management responses. However, the 

focus on trying to achieve a rebuilding target by a given time 

places unrealistic demands on the science, and forces reliance on 

forecasts and estimates of biomass-based reference points, which 

may be very uncertain. Emphasis on meeting fishing mortality targets rather than on exact schedules for attaining biomass targets 

may result in strategies that are more robust to assessment uncertainties, natural variability and ecosystem considerations, and less 

prone to rapid changes in management measures, which have social and economic impacts that may be more severe than more 

gradual changes. The choice between a rapid or gradual response 

involves tradeoffs between economic and social impacts and ecological/resource risks, which should be evaluated. The current approach is designed for the nations’ most valuable, high-volume 

stocks, but over half of the nation’s stocks have not been assessed 

and their status is unknown, rendering application of FMSY-based 

control rules unrealistic. Alternate paradigms should be considered 

for these data-poor stocks. 

The Committee offers comments on major issues of rebuilding 

with a long-term view at further improving the efficiency of the 

current approach to stock rebuilding. These issues directly or indirectly relate to the overarching issue of what is the appropriate 

balance between prescription and flexibility in stock rebuilding. 

Many of our comments could serve as suggestions for research and 

application to future revisions of National Standard Guidelines to 

improve the overall performance of stock rebuilding programs and 

thereby enhance the benefits derived from fisheries in the future. 

In addition, the report provided the following findings: 

The mixed outcomes of rebuilding plans have added to concerns 

about the significant social and economic costs associated with the 

implementation of time-constrained rebuilding plans. To address 

these rebuilding challenges, the committee highlights the following 

key findings for consideration by scientists, managers, and policy 

makers: 

1. Harvest control rules that promptly, but gradually reduce 

fishing mortality as estimated stock size falls below BMSY [the 

biomass of a stock of fish necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield] could result in a lower likelihood of a stock becoming overfished and provide an approach for rebuilding if 

necessary; 

2. Fishing mortality reference points seem to be more robust 

to uncertainty than biomass reference points both in the context of rebuilding and more generally; 

3. Rebuilding plans that focus more on meeting selected fishing mortality targets than on exact schedules for attaining biomass targets may be more robust to assessment uncertainties, 

natural variability and ecosystem considerations, and have 

lower social and economic impact. 

a. The rate at which a fish stock rebuilds depends on ecological and other environmental conditions, in addition to 

the fishing-induced mortality 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

b. A rebuilding strategy that maintains reduced fishing 

mortality for an extended period (e.g., longer than the 

mean generation time) would rebuild the stock’s age structure and be less dependent on environmental conditions 

than one that requires rebuilding to pre-specified biomass 

targets, and 

c. When rebuilding is slower than expected, keeping fishing mortality at a constant level below FMSY may forgo 

less yield and have fewer social and economic impacts than 

a rule that requires ever more severe controls to meet a 

predetermined schedule for reaching a biomass target. 

4. In the case of data-poor stocks for which analytical assessments are not available and catch limits are therefore difficult 

to establish, empirical rebuilding strategies that rely on input 

controls to reduce fishing mortality may be more effective and 

defensible than strategies based on annual catch limits and 

BMSY targets. 

5. Retrospective reviews of the socioeconomic impacts of rebuilding plans are rare, in part due to data availability. Such 

reviews would help in refining rebuilding plans and objectives 

and ameliorating for the consequences of such actions. 

H.R. 4742, THE STRENGTHENING FISHING COMMUNITIES AND

INCREASING FLEXIBILITY IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is based on a few fundamental policies—that the management of fisheries needs to be governed by 

broad, general principles (embodied in the 10 National Standards) 

and that the Act needs to be implemented at the regional level by 

those who best understand the fisheries. The Act needs to remain 

flexible enough that the regional differences and challenges can be 

addressed by each region. In addition, the Act requires a balance 

between achieving the optimum yield from the Nation’s fishery resources and the need to prevent overfishing. 

In addition to reauthorizing this important natural resource statute, this legislation provides a number of important changes to ensure that this law remains a science-driven, transparent, regionally 

flexible, and responsive statute that recognizes the need to conserve and manage the fisheries while at the same time provide economic activity and jobs for coastal communities and a sustainable 

source of food for the Nation. 

Flexibility 

One of the key factors in the success of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act is the regional flexibility that the Act provides. Differing ocean 

conditions, different types of fisheries, different harvest methods, 

and different community impacts are all taken into account by the 

Councils. The 2006 amendments attempted to create a uniform, 

science-based management system that required sound scientific 

advice and accountability from fishermen. This required the Councils to have a significantly increased level of information—both on 

the biology of the fishery resources, and on the harvest activities 

of the managed sectors. 

With this in mind, the 2006 amendments to the Act attempted 

to impose the ‘‘Alaska Model’’ of fisheries management on the other 

seven Regional Fishery Management Councils. The ‘‘Alaska Model’’ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

had been very successful in the management and utilization of the 

fisheries in both the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf 

of Alaska. The key components of the 2006 amendments were a requirement that harvest levels be set based on scientific recommendations, that annual catch limits be set for fisheries and 

sectors, and that there be accountability measures in place to ensure that the annual catch limits were adhered to. 

The National Standard 1 Guidelines, written by NOAA to implement the new provisions of the 2006 amendments, included provisions detailing how Councils and their Scientific and Statistical 

Committees (SSC) should factor uncertainty into the development 

of harvest levels. These Guidelines requires the SSCs to incorporate precautionary buffers in cases where either scientific or 

management uncertainty existed. In some fisheries, this resulted in 

multiple levels of buffers being incorporated and harvest levels set 

artificially low which resulted in economic instability to communities dependent on these fisheries. This became particularly difficult for regions where landing information, stock surveys, and 

stock assessments were either inadequate or out-of-date. As noted 

above, this management concept was based on the ‘‘Alaska Model’’ 

of fisheries conservation and management developed by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. This Council was able to use 

decades of annual surveys as well as a high level of on-board observer data to meet these goals. Unfortunately, testimony heard by 

the Natural Resources Committee indicated that this high level of 

information was not available in other regions and for other Councils. This has made compliance with the 2006 amendments difficult 

and, in some regions, has caused hardship for fishermen and fishery-dependent communities. 

In particular, the requirement to rebuild overfished fisheries 

within specific timelines, combined with inadequate data and the 

imposition of uncertainty buffers, became one of the most often discussed concerns with the current Act. As noted above, this issue 

was examined by the National Academy of Sciences and the Committee heard testimony and recommendations from Councils, 

States, communities, and fishermen suggesting additional flexibility in the rebuilding requirements of the Act. 

While flexibility in the rebuilding provisions would allow Councils to extend the timeframe for rebuilding overfished/depleted fisheries and lessen the economic impact on communities, in making 

the change the bill would not change the requirement in current 

law that requires harvest levels be based on science and at a level 

that overfishing will not occur. 

It is important to note that according to the ‘‘2013 Annual Report 

on the Status of U.S. Fisheries,’’ 83 percent of the managed stocks 

or stock complexes are not overfished, and in 91 percent of those 

stocks or stock complexes, overfishing is not taking place. So while 

this bill would allow flexibility in rebuilding some fisheries, the 

number of fisheries affected is limited. 

While some have opposed any changes in the current rebuilding 

requirement, in 2006 Congress recognized that some fisheries 

might not be able to meet the 10-year rebuilding timeframe even 

if the biology of the species indicated that it should be able to. At 

that time, the summer flounder fishery was undergoing rebuilding. 

The biomass was increasing, the spawning biomass was increasing, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

and the fishing effort had decreased. Despite these positive trends, 

the fishery was unlikely to meet the rebuilding deadline. Recognizing this, the 2006 amendments to the Act specifically extended 

the time for rebuilding this fishery. At the time the House passed 

the 2006 amendments, Congressman Barney Frank (D–MA), noted 

that while Congress was addressing this rebuilding timeframe 

problem for this one fishery, this was not likely to be an isolated 

experience. 

In addition to requiring that most fisheries be rebuilt within 10 

years, the current Act also requires that overfished fisheries be rebuilt in a time period that is ‘‘as short as possible’’ while taking 

into account certain factors. This requirement has, in some cases, 

caused unnecessary harvest restrictions. In one case, the Pacific 

Council’s SSC recommended several harvest alternatives for the 

2002 groundfish fishery which would result in rebuilding an overfished fishery while providing a reasonable, science-based harvest. 

In a decision regarding those alternatives, the Federal 9th Circuit 

Court required the Pacific Council to pick the lower harvest level 

recommended by the Council’s SSC despite the fact that the lower 

harvest level would cause economic harm. In other words, the 

Council was forced to take an action that harmed the fishing industry when the alternative advocated by the Council was biologically 

acceptable and would not have adversely affected rebuilding. 

Although this court decision was made years ago, its effect continues to cause economic harm. According to a witness at one of the 

Committee’s hearings, ‘‘This has led to absurdities where the Council has been forced to choose lower harvest limits even though analysis provided by its Scientific and Statistical Committee shows that 

a higher limit would allow rebuilding in the same year, albeit a few 

months later than the lower limit. In two cases involving harvest 

levels for 2013—canary rockfish and darkblotched rockfish—this 

was a difference of 30 metric tons’’. These species are caught incidentally in the West Coast groundfish fishery and as incidental 

species, they affect how much of the target species can be caught. 

The 30-metric tons represent 75% of the incidental harvest limit for 

the fishery and could severely limit the amount of the target species that could be caught—causing unnecessary economic harm to 

West Coast fishermen. 

The bill would replace the word ‘‘possible’’ with ‘‘practicable’’ to 

allow Councils the flexibility to choose harvest levels that will minimize economic harm as long as rebuilding will continue within the 

statutory time constraints. This change would not impose a new 

legal standard in the Act and would not undermine rebuilding efforts. In fact, the word ‘‘practicable’’ is already used 28 times in the 

Act—including in six of the ten National Standards. It is not a new 

concept or one that the agency will not know how to interpret. Nor 

will this provision allow Councils to ignore the need to rebuild 

overfished fisheries. 

Finally, the bill provides some flexibility in how the requirement 

to set Annual Catch Limits may be implemented by Councils. 

Science-based management and the need for increased information 

A recurring theme in the Committee’s hearings on the reauthorization was the need for better data on which management decisions are made. This bill attempts to address this concern by focusVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

ing scarce resources within regions toward those fisheries that are 

considered data poor while at the same time recognizing the need 

to continue to fund data collection programs for commercially-important and recreationally-important fisheries. 

The bill would require Councils to identify data-poor fisheries, 

encourage the use of electronic monitoring and other emerging 

technologies and electronic catch reporting programs, identify critical regional fishery management and research needs, require partnerships with states for increased recreational data collection, and 

encourage the use of cooperative research to address any identified 

research needs. 

In addition, the bill would require specific measures to meet the 

Gulf of Mexico fisheries’ research and data collection needs and to 

require that new information collected through RESTORE Act 

(Subtitle F of Division A of Public Law 112–141) funding be incorporated into stock assessments as soon as possible. 

Data collection and confidentiality 

In 2006, Congress recognized that the NOAA’s recreational data 

collection program was inadequate and lacked the confidence of 

fishermen and many fishery managers. The 2006/2007 amendments required that the Secretary, within 24 months and in consultation with representatives of the recreational fishing industry 

and experts in statistics, technology, and other appropriate fields, 

to improve the quality and accuracy of information generated by 

the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, with a goal of 

achieving acceptable accuracy and utility for each individual fishery. The amendments also required that the program take into consideration and implement the recommendations of the National Research Council in its report Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods (2006). 

Unfortunately, in 2014, many of the same criticisms of data collection remain. In the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the recreational data collection program’s inadequacies have resulted in 

greatly reduced harvest seasons, conflicts between states, and lawsuits. In the last two years, two states have undertaken data collection programs which have proven to be more timely and more accurate than the federal data collection programs for the recreational 

sector. The Committee continues to be concerned with the recreational data collection programs, and this bill includes requirements that the Secretary work with the Gulf of Mexico states to 

develop and implement a real-time recreational data collection program. In addition, the bill would transfer the authority for providing stock assessments for the Gulf reef fish fishery management 

plan to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

In addition to the need for better data collection programs, the 

Committee also heard testimony concerning the need to protect the 

confidentiality of data that is provided to fishery managers for fishery conservation and management purposes. NOAA has been increasing the types and amount of data—including proprietary 

data—collected from fishermen and processors in an attempt to 

provide fishery managers with more socio-economic information. In 

some cases, NOAA has been requesting information on product 

types, pricing information, and markets. This information, if disclosed, could put U.S. fishermen and seafood processors at a comVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

petitive disadvantage both in U.S. markets and in international 

markets. In addition, NOAA’s confidentiality regulations do not 

necessarily apply to information that is being collected using new 

technologies such as electronic monitoring. 

Many fisheries are now monitored through the use of on-board 

observers, electronic logbooks, fish tickets, shore-side observers and 

other methods. The Committee recognizes that emerging technologies may offer better data collection alternatives and provide 

more cost effective options for fishermen; however, it is important 

that the information provided to fishery managers through these 

new sources also be protected. 

Although NOAA has begun the process of updating the data confidentiality regulations, the Committee notes that increasing 

sources of data and increasing data requirements by fishery managers require that confidentiality regulations keep pace with technology and not place fishermen or other components of the seafood 

industry at a disadvantage due to the release of proprietary and 

sensitive information. While the Committee recognizes NOAA’s efforts to update the confidentiality regulations, statutory changes 

are necessary for the Act to keep pace with data provided through 

emerging technologies and increasing information needs of fishery 

managers. 

Enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is done by NOAA, the 

Coast Guard and some state agencies through Joint Enforcement 

Agreements. These require that a certain amount of information 

collected by NOAA for fishery management purposes will be shared 

with these other enforcement entities. The bill requires that these 

other enforcement entities follow the same confidentiality standards that NOAA is required to follow. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act and the relationship to other Federal 

statutes 

In 2006, both houses of Congress agreed that there was a problem with the way the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirements interacted with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements, and both houses agreed that the Secretary of Commerce 

needed to fix this conflict. 

The 2006/2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the Secretary to: consult with the regional fishery management councils and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ); 

update NOAA’s procedures for complying with NEPA; conform the 

timelines for review and approval of fishery management plans and 

amendments under section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act; integrate the environmental analytical procedures (including the timeframes for public input) with the Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures 

for the preparation and dissemination of fishery management plans 

and plan amendments; provide for timely, clear and concise analysis that is useful to decision-makers and the public; reduce extraneous paperwork; effectively involve the public; and ensure that 

the updated agency procedures would be the ‘‘sole environmental 

impact assessment procedure’’ for fishery management plans or 

plan amendments or other actions taken or approved under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. This provision clearly intended that the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act procedures and timelines would be suffiVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

cient to meet the requirements of NEPA once the Secretary issued 

the revised procedures. 

The Secretary was given six months to propose revised procedures and was required to finalize the procedures within 12 

months (beginning on January 12, 2007). Within the initial sixmonth period, the Secretary was to provide 90 days for public review and comment and to involve the public in cooperation with 

the Councils and CEQ through workshops or other appropriate 

means. 

It is now 2014 and NOAA has published proposals for complying 

with this requirement twice. In both cases, the proposal did not 

fully comply with the statutory requirements and in both cases, the 

agency subsequently withdrew the proposal. 

In addition, the creation of a policy directive in 2013—seven 

years after the requirement to fix this conflict was enacted into law 

and created without the input of either the Councils or the CEQ— 

is insufficient. The policy directive, which merely restates existing 

practices, does nothing to streamline the NEPA process, nor does 

it incorporate the NEPA regulatory timelines into the MagnusonStevens Act statutory timelines. Therefore the actions taken by the 

Secretary do not meet the statutory requirements of the 2006 

amendments. Merely telling the Secretary to start the process 

again as has been suggested, when it has not been done correctly 

in seven years, is also not sufficient. 

In addition to the concerns with the relationship between NEPA 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, conflicts between Endangered Species Act implementation and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements have been raised in testimony before the Committee. Under 

current law, if a fishery is determined to cause jeopardy to any endangered species, changes to that fishery’s conservation and management measures must be made. As the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

delegates the creation of conservation and management measures 

through the fishery management plan and plan amendment process to the Regional Fishery Management Councils, any changes required to be made to a fishery management plan should be done 

through the Council process. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

Secretary is required to determine whether a fishery management 

plan or plan amendment is consistent with ‘‘any other applicable 

law.’’ This ensures that any action taken by a Council to amend a 

fishery management plan, including modifying activities authorized 

through the plan which have been identified as likely to jeopardize 

the ‘‘continued existence’’ of an endangered species, will be adequate to remove the likelihood of jeopardy as a result of those fishing activities. If the Council action does not, the Secretary could 

not approve it. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is the appropriate authority to conserve and manage fishery resources through the 

Council process—ensuring adequate transparency and public participation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides the Secretary 

with ample authority to disapprove any action taken by a Council 

that is not consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species Act, or any other applicable federal law. 

Finally, conflicts between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act over fishery regulations have occurred in certain sanctuaries. In addition, the increasing use of the 

Antiquities Act in the marine environment has raised questions reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

garding the management of fishery resources and fishing activities 

within these marine monuments. There are currently 13 National 

Marine Sanctuaries and four Marine National Monuments that encompass more than 170,000 square miles. These were created 

under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act, or 

through individual act of Congress. 

The Administration is proposing to expand three of the existing 

marine sanctuaries—including expanding the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary from 448 square miles to 4,300 square 

miles—which could increase the conflicts over fisheries management in some of these sanctuaries. NOAA has also announced that 

it will begin the nomination process for additional national marine 

sanctuaries to be created through the administrative process, potentially creating similar fishery management conflicts in additional regions of the country. 

In addition to the proposed expansion of a number of marine 

sanctuaries, in June 2014, President Obama announced a proposal 

to increase the size of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National 

Monument from approximately 87,000 square miles to nearly 

782,000 square miles, and to prohibit a number of activities within 

the Monument including fishing. 

At the time of the announcement, only the limited information 

provided by the White House was available. This included a lack 

of information available from NOAA—the agency which is responsible for the conservation and management of living marine resources. No information on the number of fisheries affected, the 

number of U.S. fishing vessels to be affected, or the economic impact of the proposed additional closures was available at the time 

of the announcement. There was no scientific explanation for the 

additional closed areas to be included within the monument, and 

certainly no scientific basis for banning fishing within the increased monument area. In fact, at the same time the President 

was announcing the closure of this area to fishing activities, including those by U.S. tuna fleet, the U.S. State Department was negotiating changes to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that would allow 

access to other countries’ exclusive economic zones, and require the 

U.S. government to pay more than $20 million per year for that access. At the same time the Administration is attempting to commit 

Federal taxpayer dollars so that our tuna fleet can fish in foreign 

waters, the President is announcing that we are kicking the same 

U.S. fishing fleet out of U.S. waters—and with no scientific justification. 

Administration officials have been quoted in the press that the 

Antiquities Act authority was going to be used increasingly in the 

remainder of the Obama Administration. With the ban on fishing 

in the latest announcement, fishermen and fishing communities 

are concerned that the increased use of the Antiquities Act will result in the closure of productive fishing grounds with little or no 

public input and with little or no scientific basis. 

For all of these reasons, it is important that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that fisheries conservation and management measures be developed in a transparent manner and based 

on science, be the controlling authority for fisheries management in 

any marine national monument or national marine sanctuary. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act 

In an effort to reduce pressure on West Coast groundfish stocks 

in the 1990s, NMFS implemented large spatial closures and trip 

limits as well a license limitation program in the West Coast 

groundfish fishery that covered water offshore Washington, Oregon 

and California. Despite these measures, in 2000, the Secretary of 

Commerce declared the West Coast Groundfish fishery a disaster 

and in 2003 initiated a buyback program to further reduce fishing 

capacity. To fund the buyback program, a $30 million loan was authorized by Congress and financed by the NMFS Fisheries Finance 

Program. The program resulted in the removal of 91 vessels and 

permits that represented 50% of total landings at the time. 

The 2003 federal buy back loan period was set at 30 years with 

an interest rate of 6.95% (Treasury Rate + 2%). Unfortunately, the 

federal Fisheries Finance Program did not establish a mechanism 

to collect loan payments for this buyback program until 2005, allowing over $4 million dollars in interest to accrue before the fleet 

was able to start paying down the loan with a 5% assessment of 

the ex-vessel value of the catch at the dock. The result was that 

in the last seven years, the industry has made almost $24 million 

in loan payments that have not kept pace with even the interest 

obligations, let alone the principal balance of the loan. As a result, 

the fleet has been making payments on the loan for eight years and 

yet currently owes the U.S. government over $32 million on a $30 

million loan. 

In addition, as a result of the transition to an Individual Fishing 

Quota (IFQ) management system, 100% accountability was required beginning in 2011. This accountability meant that fishermen were facing the expense of carrying a federal observer on 

every trip in addition to a 3% cost recovery fee to support the IFQ 

program. While the federal government is subsidizing the approximately $450 per day observer expense until 2015, the costs of the 

at-sea observers will become the responsibility of the vessel owners. 

This means that the fleet is now required to pay for the loan repayment based on a 6.95% interest rate, the NOAA-imposed observer 

fee requirements, and the cost recovery fee for the catch share program. This is placing a burden on the West Coast groundfish fleet 

that would be reduced by bringing the loan payment terms to a 

more realistic and manageable level while ensuring that the federal 

government will see a return for the buyback loan. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4742 was introduced on May 23, 2014, by Congressman Doc 

Hastings (R–WA) and was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources. On May 29, 2014, the Natural Resources Committee 

met to consider the bill. Congressman Bradley Byrne (R–AL) offered an amendment designated .005 to the bill; the amendment 

was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Don Young (R–AK) offered 

an amendment designated .097 to the bill; the amendment was 

adopted by voice vote. Congressman Steve Southerland (R–FL) offered an amendment designated .019 to the bill; the amendment 

was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Southerland offered an 

amendment designated .022 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Southerland offered an amendment 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

designated .024 to the bill; the amendment was withdrawn. Congressman Southerland offered an amendment designated .029 to 

the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman 

Southerland offered an amendment designated .030 to the bill; the 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Jon Runyan 

(R–NJ) offered an amendment designated .037 to the bill; the 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Frank Pallone (D–NJ) offered an amendment designated .039 to the bill; the 

amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Southerland 

offered an amendment designated .026 to the bill; the amendment 

was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D–OR) offered an amendment designated .001 to the bill; the amendment 

was not adopted by voice vote. Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered an amendment designated .007 to the bill; the amendment 

was not adopted by a roll call vote of 18 to 20, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here HR711.001
31 

Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D–GU) offered an amendment designated .004 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

Delegate Gregorio Sablan (D–MP) offered an amendment designated .002 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by voice 

vote. Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D–MA) offered an amendment 

designated .003 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by 

voice vote. Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D–CA) offered an 

amendment designated .005 to the bill; the amendment was not 

adopted by a roll call vote of 18 to 23, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 33 here HR711.002
33 

Congressman Joe Garcia (D–FL) offered an amendment designated .041 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

No further amendments were offered and the bill, as amended, was 

then adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 24 to 17, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here HR711.003
35 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

Section 101. Definitions 

This section clarifies that terms used in the bill have the same 

meaning as those terms are defined by section 3 of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

1802). 

Section 102. References 

This section clarifies that unless otherwise specified, the amendments made by the bill are made to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

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

Section 103. Flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks 

The bill would remove the language requiring a 10-year time 

frame for rebuilding overfished/depleted fisheries and replace it 

with a requirement that the rebuilding timeframe be the time it 

would take for the fishery to rebuild without any fishing occurring 

plus one mean generation time. The bill would also allow Councils 

to phase in a rebuilding plan for highly dynamic fisheries over a 

three-year period to lessen the economic harm to fishing communities. In addition, the bill would remove the term ‘‘possible’’ and 

replace it with ‘‘practicable’’ in the requirement that rebuilding period ‘‘be as short as possible.’’ This phrase has already been cited 

in a court decision that required the Pacific Council to adopt the 

shorter of several timeframes being considered, resulting in economic harm. 

The bill would also provide flexibility in the rebuilding timeframe 

for fisheries if the fishery is one component of a multi-species complex. As an example, the Northeast groundfish fishery is made up 

of 19 species—if one component is overfished, the harvest of all of 

the other species might be severely limited to allow the one component to rebuild, causing unnecessary economic harm. In addition, 

the bill would provide flexibility for fisheries which are transboundary or managed under an international treaty, for fisheries for 

which the cause of the overfished/depleted condition is outside the 

jurisdiction of the Council, and for those fisheries for which the 

Secretary determines have been affected by unusual events that 

make rebuilding the fishery within the specified timeframe improbable without significant economic harm to fishing communities. 

The bill would allow Councils to take into account environmental 

conditions and predator/prey relationships when developing rebuilding plans. 

The bill would also require that the fishery management plan for 

any fishery that is considered overfished/depleted must specify a 

schedule for reviewing the rebuilding targets, evaluating environmental impacts on rebuilding progress, and evaluating the progress 

that is being made toward reaching the rebuilding targets. 

The bill would allow a fishery management plan for any fishery 

that is considered overfished/depleted to use alternative rebuilding 

strategies, including harvest control rules and fishing mortality 

rate targets. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

The bill would allow a Council to terminate any rebuilding plan 

for a fishery that was initially determined to be overfished/depleted 

and then found not to be overfished/depleted within two years or 

at the next stock assessment. 

Finally, current law allows the Secretary to implement emergency interim measures for fisheries in which overfishing is taking 

place. If the action is taken for a fishery that is under a fishery 

management plan, the interim measure may only remain in place 

for 180 days; however, the measure may then be extended for an 

additional 186 days (with the extension, this allows the Secretary 

to implement interim measures for a year and a day). The bill 

would modify this authority to allow the Secretary to implement 

the interim measures for one year with the ability to extend for a 

second year. Current law allows a Council to take up to two years 

to prepare and implement a fishery management plan or plan 

amendment to address a fishery that is overfished, yet current law 

only allows interim measure to be implemented for one year (assuming the extension is granted). This provision would allow the 

interim measures authority to be consistent with the time period 

allowed for a Council to prepare and implement a rebuilding plan 

for a fishery identified as overfished. 

Section 104. Modifications to the Annual Catch Limit requirements 

The bill would allow Councils to consider changes in the ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing communities when 

setting Annual Catch Limits (ACLs). This will allow flexibility but 

not allow Councils to set ACLs at a level that allows overfishing. 

The bill would also add a new exception to the requirement that 

Councils set an ACL for ‘‘ecosystem component species’’—those species of fish that are not targeted and are caught incidentally as 

long as that stock of fish is not subject to overfishing and is not 

likely to become subject to overfishing. The bill includes a definition of ‘‘ecosystem component species’’ based on NOAA’s National 

Standard #1 Guidelines. The bill would also provide an exemption 

for those short-lived stocks of fish for which a single year class will 

complete their lifecycle in less than 18 months as long as fishing 

mortality will have little impact on the stock. 

The bill would also require that Councils, when setting ACLs, 

take into account management measures under international 

agreements and treaties and informal transboundary agreements 

under which fishing by foreign fishermen outside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone might hinder conservation efforts by U.S. fishermen. 

While the current Act implies that ACLs will be set for each 

managed species each year and for only one year, the bill would 

clarify that Councils may establish ACLs for multi-species stock 

complexes (such as New England groundfish) and may set ACLs for 

up to three years. 

Section 105. Distinguishing between overfished and depleted 

The bill would replace the term ‘‘overfished’’ with the term ‘‘depleted’’ throughout the Act and add a definition of ‘‘depleted’’. 

The bill would require the Secretary, when issuing the annual report on the status of fisheries, note if a stock was ‘‘depleted’’ as a 

result of something other than fishing. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

The bill would require that when the Secretary reports annually 

to Congress on the status of fisheries and identifies fisheries that 

are overfished or approaching a condition of being overfished, the 

report will distinguish between fisheries that are depleted (or approaching a condition of being depleted) as a result of fishing and 

those fisheries that are depleted (or approaching a condition of 

being depleted) as a result of factors other than fishing. The bill 

would also require that the report state, for each fishery identified 

as depleted, whether the fishery is a target of directed fishing. 

Section 106. Transparency and public process. 

The bill would require that Scientific and Statistical Committees 

(SSCs) develop the scientific advice provided to the Councils in a 

transparent manner and to allow for public involvement in the 

process. 

The bill would also require that each Council, to the extent practicable, provide a webcast, an audio recording or a live broadcast 

of each Council meeting and impose the same requirements for the 

Council Coordination Committee meetings. In addition, the bill 

would require audio, video, searchable audio or written transcript 

for each Council and SSC meeting on the Council’s website not 

more than 30 days after the conclusion of the meeting. The bill 

would require that the Secretary maintain these audios, videos and 

transcripts and make them available to the public. 

Current law requires that each fishery management plan contain 

a fishery impact statement which is required to assess, specify, and 

analyze the likely effects, if any, including cumulative conservation, 

economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management 

measures on and possible mitigation measures for participant and 

fishing communities affected by the plan, participants in fisheries 

conducted in adjacent areas, and safety of human life at sea and 

to what extent the measures in the plan may affect the safety of 

participants in the fishery. 

The bill would require that any fishery management plan, plan 

amendment or proposed regulations include a fishery impact statement that would, in addition to the existing requirements, now also 

include: the purpose of the proposed action, the environmental impact of the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects 

which cannot be avoided, a reasonable range of alternatives, and 

the relationship between short-term use of the fishery resources 

and the enhancement of long-term productivity. 

The bill would require that a ‘‘substantially complete’’ fishery impact statement be available not less than 14 days before the beginning of the meeting at which the Council makes its final decision 

on the proposal. The bill would require that the availability of this 

fishery impact statement be announced by the same methods currently used by Councils to disseminate public information and that 

relevant government agencies and the public be invited to comment 

on the fishery impact statement. 

Section 107. Limitation on future Catch Share Programs 

The bill would define the term ‘‘catch share’’ and create a pilot 

program for four Councils—the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South 

Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Councils—which would prohibit those 

Councils from submitting to the Secretary and prohibit the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

retary from approving or implementing any new catch share program from those Councils unless the program has been approved 

in a referendum. The bill would also require that prior to the referendum, the Secretary must provide all eligible permit holders 

with a copy of the proposed program, an estimate of the costs of 

the program (including the costs to participants), an estimate of the 

amount of fish or percentage of the quota each permit holder would 

be allocated, and information on the schedule, procedures and eligibility criteria for the referendum. The bill defines ‘‘permit holder eligible to participate’’ in a referendum as a permit holder who has 

fished in at least three of the five years preceding the referendum 

unless sickness, injury or other unavoidable hardship prevented 

the permit holder from fishing. The bill clarifies that the requirement for the referendum does not apply to any catch share program that is submitted to or proposed by the Secretary before the 

date of enactment of the bill. 

The bill would allow the Secretary at the request of the New 

England Council to include crew members who derive a significant 

portion of their livelihood from fishing to participate in a referendum. 

The bill would also prevent the Secretary from implementing a 

catch share program for any fishery managed by the Secretary 

(highly migratory species) unless first petitioned by a majority of 

those eligible to participate in the fishery. 

The bill would require the Secretary to issue regulations and provide for public comment on a referendum prior to conducting any 

such referendum. 

Section 108. Report on fee 

The bill would require the Secretary to report annually—to both 

Congress and each of the Councils from whose fisheries fee were 

paid—on the amount collected from each of the fisheries managed 

under a limited access privilege program and community development quota program and detail how the funds were spent, on a 

fishery-by-fishery basis. 

Section 109. Data collection and data confidentiality 

The bill would require the Secretary to issue regulations governing the use of electronic monitoring. The bill would require that 

the regulations distinguish between monitoring for data collection 

and research purposes and monitoring for compliance and enforcement purposes. The bill would require that the regulations also include minimum criteria, objectives, or performance standards for 

electronic monitoring. The bill would require the Secretary to issue 

the final regulations no later than 12 months after the enactment 

of this Act. 

The bill would require that in issuing the regulations, the Secretary consult with the Councils and fishery management commissions, publish the proposed regulations, and provide an opportunity 

for public comment on the proposed regulations. 

The bill would allow the Councils, on a fishery-by-fishery basis, 

consistent with the objectives and management goals of the fishery 

management plan and the Act, and after the final regulations are 

issued, to incorporate electronic monitoring as an alternative tool 

for data collection and monitoring purposes or for compliance and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

enforcement purposes and replace a percentage of on-board observers with electronic monitoring if the Councils and the Secretary determine that such monitoring will yield comparable data collection 

and compliance results. 

The bill would allow Councils, prior to the issuance of the final 

regulations, to conduct pilot projects for the use of electronic monitoring on a fishery-by-fishery basis as long as the projects are consistent with the objectives and management goals of the fishery 

management plan and the Act. 

The bill would also require the Secretary to work with the Councils and non-governmental organizations to develop and implement 

the use of video survey technologies and to expand the use of 

acoustic survey technologies. 

The Act currently contains provisions dealing with the confidentiality of data collected by fisheries managers. The bill would update the existing confidentiality provisions of the Act. In particular, 

the bill would replace the term ‘‘limited access program’’ with 

‘‘catch share program.’’ The bill would clarify that information submitted to the Secretary, a State fisheries management agency, or 

a Marine Fisheries Commission under the requirements of this Act 

(including confidential information) may only be used for the purposes of fisheries management, monitoring and enforcement under 

this Act. The bill would clarify that the Secretary may release information to a Council or a state if the person submitting the information authorizes the Secretary to do so in writing. The bill clarifies that the Secretary may enter into a memoranda of understanding with the heads other Federal agencies for sharing confidential information necessary to ensure the safety of life at sea 

or for fisheries management purposes if there is a compelling need 

to do so and if the other agencies maintain the confidentiality of 

the information and use the information only for the purposes for 

which it was shared. The bill would clarify that observer information, information collected by a Vessel Monitoring System or other 

vessel tracking technology, or other on-board data collection or enforcement programs shall be considered confidential. The bill would 

define the terms ‘‘confidential information’’ and ‘‘observer information.’’ 

The bill would prohibit the Secretary from providing any vesselspecific or aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is collected for monitoring and enforcement purposes for the use by any 

person for coastal and marine spatial planning under Executive 

Order 13547 unless the Secretary determines that providing such 

information is important for maintaining or enhancing national security or for ensuring fishermen continued access to fishing 

grounds. 

The bill would require each Council to identify those fisheries 

that are considered data-poor in their region and prioritize those 

fisheries based on the need for up-to-date information. Each Council is required to submit those priorities to the Secretary. The 

terms ‘‘data-poor’’ and ‘‘fisheries enforcement penalties’’ are defined. 

The bill would allow the Secretary, subject to the availability of 

appropriations, to obligate up to 80 percent of the fishery fines and 

penalties collected under any marine resource law enforced by the 

Secretary to be used by states to survey or assess data-poor fishVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

eries for which a fishery management plan is in place or for cooperative research activities to improve or enhance fishery independent 

data used in stock assessments. The funds obligated may only be 

used in the region where the fines and penalties were collected. 

Section 110. Cooperative research and management program 

The bill would amend section 318 of the Act to require the Secretary, within one year of the enactment of this Act and after consulting with the Councils, to publish a plan for implementing and 

conducting a cooperative research and management program. The 

bill would require that the plan identify and describe critical regional fishery management and research needs, possible projects to 

address the identified needs, and the estimated costs for such 

projects. 

The bill would require that the plan be updated every five years 

and each update must include a description of projects that were 

funded during the previous five years and which management and 

research needs were addressed by those projects. 

The bill would add would also amend current language to give 

priority to projects that use fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine technology, expand the use of electronic catch reporting programs and technology, and improve monitoring and observer coverage through the expanded use of electronic monitoring devices. 

Section 111. Council jurisdiction for overlapping fisheries 

The bill would add one voting seat to the New England Council 

to provide a liaison—who is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Council—to represent the interests of fisheries under the jurisdiction of 

the Mid-Atlantic Council, and add one voting seat to the Mid-Atlantic Council to provide a liaison—who is a member of the New 

England Council—to represent the interests of fisheries under the 

jurisdiction of the New England Council. 

Section 112. Gulf of Mexico cooperative research and red snapper 

management 

The bill would strike section 407 in the current Act. These provisions have been superseded by the Annual Catch Limit provisions 

adopted in the 2006/2007 amendments and by provisions in the bill 

which would establish the requirements for a referendum for any 

new catch share plan or amendment for the Gulf of Mexico region. 

The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce—in conjunction with the Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico Council, and the charter and recreational fishing sectors—to develop and implement a 

real-time reporting and data collection program for the Gulf of 

Mexico red snapper fishery using available technology. The Secretary is required to make this a priority for funds received by 

NOAA through the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act (15 U.S.C. 713c–3). 

The bill would also require the Secretary—in conjunction with 

the Gulf States, the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic Councils, and the commercial, charter and recreational fishing sectors— 

to develop and implement a cooperative research program for fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic regions giving 

priority to those fisheries that are considered data poor. The Secretary would be authorized, subject to the availability of appropriaVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

tions, to make funds received by NOAA from the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act available for the research for this region. 

The bill would require the Secretary, acting through the NMFS 

Regional Administrator of the Southeast Region, to develop a 

schedule of stock surveys and stock assessments for the Gulf of 

Mexico region and the Southeast region for the five-year period beginning on the date of enactment and for every five-year period 

thereafter, giving priority to those stocks that are commercially or 

recreationally important and ensuring that each important stock is 

surveyed at least once every five years. The Secretary is required 

to direct the Science Center Director of the Southeast region to implement the schedule of stock surveys and stock assessments. 

The bill also would require that the Science Center Director of 

the Southeast region ensure that the information gathered as a result of research funded through the RESTORE Act (Public Law 

112–141) be incorporated as soon as possible into any stock assessments conducted after the date of enactment. 

The bill would extend state management out to nine nautical 

miles for the recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper 

fishery. 

Section 113. North Pacific Fishery Management clarification 

The bill would remove the citation of a specific date that is currently in the Act. The Act allows certain actions to be authorized 

if there was a fishery management plan in place on that date that 

did not delegate management of the fishery. The inclusion of the 

date has caused confusion in the implementation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s salmon fishery management 

plan. 

Section 114. Ensuring consistent management for fisheries throughout their range 

The bill would clarify that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act would be the controlling fishery 

management authority in the case of any conflict within a national 

marine sanctuary or an area designated under the Antiquities Act 

of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). 

To ensure transparency and consistent management for fisheries 

throughout their range, the bill would clarify that if any restrictions on the management of fish in the exclusive economic zone are 

required to implement a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the restrictions would be 

implemented under the authorities, processes, and timelines of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

Section 115. Limitation on harvest in North Pacific Directed Pollock 

Fishery 

The bill would allow the North Pacific Council to change the harvest limitation under the American Fisheries Act for entities engaged in the directed pollock fishery as long as that percentage 

does not exceed 24%. 

Section 116. Recreational fishing data 

The bill would require the Secretary to establish partnerships 

with states to develop best practices for implementing state recVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

reational fisheries programs. The bill would require the Secretary 

to develop guidance, in cooperation with the states, that detail best 

practices for administering state programs and to provide the guidance to the states. 

The bill would require the Secretary to submit a biennial report 

to Congress on the estimated accuracy of the Federal recreational 

registry program, priorities for improving recreational fishing data 

collection programs, and explain the use of information collected by 

state programs and by the Secretary. 

The bill would require a grant program to states to improve implementation of state recreational data collection programs and requires the Secretary to prioritize the grants based on the ability of 

the grant to improve the quality and accuracy of the data collection 

programs. 

The bill would require the Secretary, within 60 days, to enter 

into an agreement with the National Research Council (NRC) to 

study the implementation of the existing recreational data collection programs. The study must provide an updated assessment of 

recreational survey methods, an evaluation of the extent to which 

the 2006 NRC’s recommendations have been implemented, and an 

examination of any limitations to the previous and current NOAA 

recreational data collection programs. 

Finally, the bill would require the Secretary to submit a report 

to Congress on the result of the NRC study within one year of entering into the agreement with the NRC. 

Section 117. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under 

Gulf of Mexico Council’s Reef Fish Management Plan 

The bill would create a new section 409 in the Act to require the 

States located on the Gulf of Mexico, acting through the Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, to act as the entity responsible for providing the stock assessment information for the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council for fisheries managed under 

the Reef Fish Plan. The bill would require that the stock assessments incorporate fisheries survey information collected by university researchers and, to the extent practicable, use state, university, and private assets to conduct fisheries surveys. The bill would 

require that any stock assessments: incorporate fisheries surveys 

and other relevant information collected on and around natural 

and artificial reefs; emphasize constituent and stakeholder participation; contain all of the raw data used in the assessment and a 

description of the methods used to collect the data; and employ a 

transparent process that includes an independent scientific review 

and review by a panel of independent experts of the data and assessments. 

Section 118. Estimation of cost of recovery from fishery resource disaster 

The bill would require the Secretary to publish the estimated 

cost of recovery from a fishery resource disaster within 30 days 

from the time the Secretary makes the disaster determination. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
43 

Section 119. Deadline for action on request by Governor for determination regarding fishery resource disaster 

The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to make a decision regarding a disaster assistance request—submitted under 

the provisions of section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act— 

within 90 days of receiving an estimate of the economic impact of 

the fishery resource disaster from the entity seeking the disaster 

declaration. 

Section 120. Prohibition on considering red snapper killed during 

removal of oil rigs 

The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from counting 

red snapper mortality that is a result of the removal of offshore oil 

rigs against the total allowable catch of that fish and prohibits the 

Secretary from counting those fish toward the quota for U.S. fishermen for the purposes of closing the fishery when the quota has 

been reached. 

Section 121. Prohibition on considering fish seized from foreign 

fishing 

The bill would prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from counting 

any fish seized from a foreign vessel engaging in illegal fishing in 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone against the total allowable catch 

for U.S. fishermen. 

Section 122. Subsistence fishing 

The bill would define ‘‘subsistence fishing’’ and require the Governor of Alaska, when submitting nominations for the North Pacific 

Council, to consult with subsistence fishing interests of the State. 

In addition, the bill would add the knowledge of subsistence fishing 

as a qualification that could be required of Council appointees. In 

addition, the bill would amend the purposes section of the Act to 

add the promotion of subsistence fishing as a purpose of the Act. 

Section 123. Inter-sector trading of commercial catch share allocations in the Gulf of Mexico 

The bill would prohibit any commercial quota shares allocated 

under a catch share program in the Gulf of Mexico from being traded—by sale or lease—for use by the recreational fishing sector, including any charter-for-hire vessel, head boat, or private recreational fisherman. 

Section 124. Authorization of appropriations 

The bill would authorize appropriations for the Act for Fiscal 

Years 2014 through 2018 at the existing authorized level. 

TITLE II—REVITALIZING THE ECONOMY OF FISHERIES IN THE PACIFIC

Section 201. Short title 

This section provides that this title may be cited as the ‘‘Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act’’ or the ‘‘REFI Pacific Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

Section 202. Findings; purpose 

The bill contains a number of findings related to the existing Pacific Coast groundfish fishing capacity reduction program and the 

loan obligations incurred as a result of that program. 

The bill notes that it is the purpose of this title to refinance the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery fishing capacity reduction program, to protect and conserve the West Coast groundfish fishery 

and the coastal economies in California, Oregon, and Washington 

that rely on the groundfish fishery. 

Section 203. Refinancing of Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishing Capacity Reduction Loan 

The bill would require the Secretary of Commerce (upon receipt 

of such assurances as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States) to issue a loan to refinance 

the existing debt obligation funding the fishing capacity reduction 

program for the West Coast groundfish fishery implemented under 

the Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 2003. 

The bill would require that the loan to have a maturity that expires 45 years after the date of issuance, subject to extension if 

there is an outstanding balance after such period. 

The bill would prohibit the fee with respect to such loan from exceeding 3% of the ex-vessel value of the harvest from each fishery 

for which the loan is issued. 

The bill would set forth requirements for direct loan interest 

rates, subloans, the calculation of the ex-vessel landing fee to be 

collected for payment of such loan, and allows any subloan to be 

paid off early. 

The bill would require the Secretary to recalculate the ex-vessel 

landing fee within 60 days after the issuance of the loan based on 

the most recent value of the fishery. 

The bill authorizes an amount equal to 1% of the amount of the 

loan to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 

for the purposes of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

mittee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4742—Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing 

Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act 

Summary: H.R. 4742 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and authorize the 

appropriation of $1.6 billion through 2018 to carry out that act. 

The bill also would direct the Secretary of Commerce, upon an affirmative vote in a referendum, to amend the terms for repayment 

of an advance made in 2003 to buy back fishing permits in the Pacific Coast fishery for groundfish. Finally, the legislation would set 

a new limit on fees that are assessed on members of the affected 

fishery to repay the advance. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4742 would cost $1.5 bil- lion over the 2015–2019 period and $72 million after 2019, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. CBO estimates that 

implementing the bill would increase direct spending by $7 million 

over the 2015–2024 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 4742 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 4742 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and environment) and 370 (commerce and housing credit). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—— 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015– 

2019 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 397 397 397 397 0 1,588 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 258 337 385 397 139 1,516 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ......................................................... 7 0 0 0 0 7 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 7 0 0 0 0 7 

a CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4742 would have no effect on direct spending in the 2020–2024 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted by the end of 2014 and that the authorized 

amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

H.R. 4742 would authorize the appropriation of $1.6 billion over 

the 2015–2018 period to carry out activities under the MSA. CBO 

estimates that implementing the legislation would cost about $1.5 

billion over the 2015–2019 period and $72 million after 2019, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

Title I of the bill would authorize the appropriation of $397 million a year over the 2015–2018 period to carry out activities under 

the MSA. That act requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) to preserve sustainable fish populations in 

waters off the coasts of the United States using various methods, 

including limiting the amount of fish that can be harvested annually and enforcing laws that prohibit foreign fishing. In 2014, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

1 Although the original advance was treated as a loan in the budget, CBO considers that treatment inappropriate. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, a direct loan is defined as a disbursement of funds to a nonfederal borrower under a contract that requires repayment. A disbursement by the government should not be considered a direct loan, however, if the duty to repay 

the government arises from an exercise of sovereign power, tort liability, or some other noncontractual obligation. 

Therefore, in CBO’s view, such an advance should be recorded as an outlay when it is made, 

and the subsequent stream of annual repayments should be shown in the budget on a cash basis 

as federal revenues because the requirement to pay the assessment is compulsory. The government’s sovereign power is used to establish and enforce this assessment, which must be paid 

by all members of the fishery regardless of how they voted in the referendum. If the 2003 advance had been recorded in the budget to reflect these circumstances, then the proposed change 

to the repayment schedule under H.R. 4742 would be reflected in the budget as a change in 

revenues. 

NOAA received appropriations totaling $507 million to carry out 

activities under the MSA. 

Title I also would make amendments to the MSA, including provisions that would create new guidelines for establishing or modifying annual catch limits, require regional fishery management 

councils to make publicly-available audio or video recordings of 

their meetings, and direct NOAA to issue new regulations related 

to the collection of data from fisheries. 

Title II would direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a referendum that would allow members of the affected fishery to agree 

to a new, lower assessment rate to repay the advance. Based on information from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

CBO estimates that the costs of conducting that referendum would 

not be significant. 

Direct spending 

H.R. 4742 would direct the Secretary of Commerce to hold a referendum that would allow eligible members of a Pacific Coast fishery to vote to assess themselves at a lower rate to repay an advance that the government made in 2003. At that time, NMFS provided $46 million in funds to buy out certain fishing permits in an 

effort to remove excess fishing capacity in the fishery. Of that 

amount, $36 million was considered a loan to the remaining members of the Pacific Coast fishery, which was made after a referendum in which eligible members of the fishery agreed to assess 

themselves to repay the advance based on the value of the catch 

(‘‘ex-vessel’’ value) in the affected fishery. 

Assuming that the lower rate for assessments would be approved 

in the referendum, and based on information from NMFS, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 4742 would result in a change in cash 

flows associated with the advance made to fishery members in 

2003. Under current law, CBO expects the members of the fishery 

to remit about $2.5 million per year to fully repay the advance 

under the original terms. Under H.R. 4742, CBO expects the annual assessment would fall to about $1.5 million and that the advance would be repaid over the next 45 years (compared with 30 

years under current law). 

Consistent with the way the original advance and subsequent repayments have been treated in the budget, CBO considers those effects to be a modification to the terms of an existing loan.1 Hence, 

the net cost to the government is measured as the difference between the discounted present value of the stream of assessment 

payments anticipated under current law and the stream of payments that would occur under the bill. Because the payments 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

would be stretched out over a longer period of time, their value to 

the government on a present-value basis would be smaller. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4742 would increase the 

cost of the original advance by $7 million, which would be recorded 

in the budget in the year of enactment. Because the modification 

to the repayment agreement can be made without a subsequent appropriation, the cost of this legislation would be an increase in direct spending. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in revenues that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4742, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON MAY 29, 2014 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2014– 

2019 

2014– 

2024 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact .... 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4742 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. The bill would benefit states by reauthorizing a number of 

programs that support fish conservation and management initiatives. Any costs they might incur would result from complying with 

conditions for receiving federal assistance. 

Previous CBO estimate: On September 8, 2014, CBO transmitted 

a cost estimate for S. 1275, the Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act (REFI Pacific Act), as ordered reported by 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on April 

9, 2014. S. 1275 is similar to the provisions in title II of H.R. 4742, 

and the CBO cost estimates for those provisions are the same. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susan Willie and Jeff 

LaFave; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Jon Sperl; 

Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4742 would cost $1.5 billion over the 2015–2019 period and $72 million after 2019, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. CBO estimates that 

implementing the bill would increase direct spending by $7 million 

over the 2015–2024 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman estimates that this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct two rulemakings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another federal program. Such program was not included 

in a report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 but was identified 

in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public 

Law 95–220, as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to 

other programs. Specifically, this program is the Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program. In addition, for habitat conservation, 

the related programs are Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards, Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal 

Ocean Science, Regional Fishery Management Councils, Chesapeake Bay Studies, and Congressionally Identified Awards and 

Projects. However, this bill’s reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also provides new focus and guidance to ensure that fisheries are managed more appropriately, effectively and efficiently. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, 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 matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 5. Ensuring consistent fisheries management under certain other Federal laws. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

TITLE IV—FISHERY MONITORING AND RESEARCH 

* * * * * * * 

øSec. 407. Gulf of Mexico red snapper research.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 409. Stock assessments used for fisheries managed under Gulf of Mexico Council’s Reef Fish Management Plan. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES AND POLICY. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares the following: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) A national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States is necessary 

to prevent overfishing, to rebuild øoverfished¿ depleted stocks, 

to insure conservation, to facilitate long-term protection of essential fish habitats, and to realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery resources. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PURPOSES.—It is therefore declared to be the purposes of the 

Congress in this Act— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) to promote domestic commercial øand recreational¿, recreational, and subsistence fishing under sound conservation 

and management principles, including the promotion of catch 

and release programs in recreational fishing; 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2a) The term ‘‘catch share’’ means any fishery management 

program that allocates a specific percentage of the total allowable catch for a fishery, or a specific fishing area, to an individual, cooperative, community, processor, representative of a 

commercial sector, or regional fishery association established in 

accordance with section 303A(c)(4), or other entity. 

* * * * * * * 

(4a) The term ‘‘confidential information’’ means— 

(A) trade secrets; 

(B) proprietary information; 

(C) observer information; and 

(D) commercial or financial information the disclosure of 

which is likely to result in harm to the competitive position 

of the person that submitted the information to the Secretary. 

* * * * * * * 

(8a) The term ‘‘depleted’’ means, with respect to a stock of fish 

or stock complex, that the stock or stock complex has a biomass 

that has declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

the stock or stock complex to produce maximum sustainable 

yield on a continuing basis. 

* * * * * * * 

(33) The term ‘‘optimum’’, with respect to the yield from a 

fishery, means the amount of fish which— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) in the case of an øoverfished¿ depleted fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing 

the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery. 

(34) øThe terms ‘‘overfishing’’ and ‘‘overfished’’ mean¿ The 

term ‘‘overfishing’’ means a rate or level of fishing mortality 

that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. 

* * * * * * * 

(43a)(A) The term ‘‘subsistence fishing’’ means fishing in 

which the fish harvested are intended for customary and traditional uses, including for direct personal or family consumption 

as food or clothing; for the making or selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible byproducts taken for personal or family 

consumption, for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade. 

(B) In this paragraph— 

(i) the term ‘‘family’’ means all persons related by blood, 

marriage, or adoption, or any person living within the 

household on a permanent basis; and 

(ii) the term ‘‘barter’’ means the exchange of a fish or fish 

part— 

(I) for another fish or fish part; or 

(II) for other food or for nonedible items other than 

money if the exchange is of a limited and noncommercial nature. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 

out the provisions of øthis Act— 

ø(1) $337,844,000 for fiscal year 2007; 

ø(2) $347,684,000 for fiscal year 2008; 

ø(3) $357,524,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

ø(4) $367,364,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

ø(5) $377,204,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

ø(6) $387,044,000 for fiscal year 2012; and¿ 

ø(7)¿ this Act $396,875,000 for øfiscal year 2013¿ each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018. 

SEC. 5. ENSURING CONSISTENT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNDER 

CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL LAWS. 

(a) NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT AND ANTIQUITIES ACT

OF 1906.—In any case of a conflict between this Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) or the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), this Act shall control. 

(b) FISHERIES RESTRICTIONS UNDER ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

OF 1973.—To ensure transparency and consistent management of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

fisheries throughout their range, any restriction on the management 

of fish in the exclusive economic zone that is necessary to implement 

a recovery plan under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) shall be implemented— 

(1) using authority under this Act; and 

(2) in accordance with processes and time schedules required 

under this Act. 

TITLE I—UNITED STATES RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY 

REGARDING FISH AND FISHERY RESOURCES 

SEC. 102. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PROMOTION OF STOCK MANAGEMENT.—If a relevant international fisheries organization does not have a process for developing a formal plan to rebuild a depleted stock, an øoverfished¿ depleted stock, or a stock that is approaching a condition of being 

øoverfished¿ depleted, the provisions of this Act in this regard shall 

be communicated to and promoted by the United States in the 

international or regional fisheries organization. 

TITLE II—FOREIGN FISHING AND 

INTERNATIONAL FISHERY AGREEMENTS 

TITLE III—NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM 

SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any fishery management plan prepared, and 

any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant 

to this title shall be consistent with the following national standards for fishery conservation and management: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent 

with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the 

prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of øoverfished¿ depleted stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social 

data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to 

(A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) INTER-SECTOR TRADING OF COMMERCIAL CATCH SHARE ALLOCATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any commercial fishing catch share allocation in 

a fishery in the Gulf of Mexico may only be traded by sale or lease 

within the same commercial fishing sector. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) There shall be established, within 120 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, eight Regional 

Fishery Management Councils, as follows: 

(A) NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL.—The New England Fishery 

Management Council shall consist of the States of Maine, New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and 

shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean 

seaward of such States (except as provided in paragraph (3)). 

The New England Council shall have ø18¿ 19 voting members, 

including 12 appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 

subsection (b)(2) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from 

each such State) and a liaison who is a member of the MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council to represent the interests 

of fisheries under the jurisdiction of such Council. 

(B) MID-ATLANTIC COUNCIL.—The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of New York, New 

Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and 

North Carolina and shall have authority over the fisheries in 

the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except North Carolina, and as provided in paragraph (3)). The Mid-Atlantic 

Council shall have ø21¿ 22 voting members, including 13 appointed by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (b)(2) 

(at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such State) 

and a liaison who is a member of the New England Fishery 

Management Council to represent the interests of fisheries 

under the jurisdiction of such Council. 

* * * * * * * 

(b) VOTING MEMBERS.—(1) * * * 

(2)(A) The members of each Council required to be appointed by 

the Secretary must be individuals who, by reason of their occupational or other experience, scientific expertise, or training, are 

knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the 

commercial øor recreational¿, recreational, or subsistence fishing 

harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned. Within nine months after the date of enactment of the 

Fishery Conservation Amendments of 1990, the Secretary shall, by 

regulation, prescribe criteria for determining whether an individual 

satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph. 

* * * * * * * 

(C) The Secretary shall appoint the members of each Council 

from a list of individuals submitted by the Governor of each applicable constituent State. A Governor may not submit the names of 

individuals to the Secretary for appointment unless the Governor 

has determined that each such individual is qualified under the requirements of subparagraph (A) and unless the Governor has, to 

the extent practicable, first consulted with representatives of the 

commercial and recreational fishing interests of the State, and in 

the case of the Governor of Alaska with the subsistence fishing interests of the State, regarding those individuals. Each such list shall 

include the names and pertinent biographical data of not less than 

three individuals for each applicable vacancy and shall be accompanied by a statement by the Governor explaining how each such 

individual meets the requirements of subparagraph (A). The SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

retary shall review each list submitted by a Governor to ascertain 

if the individuals on the list are qualified for the vacancy on the 

basis of such requirements. If the Secretary determines that any 

individual is not qualified, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate Governor of that determination. The Governor shall then 

submit a revised list or resubmit the original list with an additional explanation of the qualifications of the individual in question. An individual is not eligible for appointment by the Secretary 

until that individual complies with the applicable financial disclosure requirements under subsection (k). 

* * * * * * * 

(g) COMMITTEES AND ADVISORY PANELS.— 

(1)(A) * * * 

(B) Each scientific and statistical committee shall provide its 

Council ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for acceptable biological 

catch, preventing overfishing, maximum sustainable yield, and 

achieving rebuilding targets, and reports on stock status and 

health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic impacts of 

management measures, and sustainability of fishing practices. 

Each scientific and statistical committee shall develop such advice in a transparent manner and allow for public involvement 

in the process. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) PROCEDURAL MATTERS.—(1) * * * 

(2) The following guidelines apply with respect to the conduct of 

business at meetings of a Council, and of a Council, of the Council 

coordination committee established under subsection (l), and of the 

scientific and statistical committees or other committees or advisory panels established under subsection (g): 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet Web 

site of the Council— 

(i) to the extent practicable, a Webcast, an audio recording, or a live broadcast of each meeting of the Council, and 

of the Council Coordination Committee established under 

subsection (l), that is not closed in accordance with paragraph (3); and 

(ii) audio, video (if the meeting was in person or by video 

conference), or a searchable audio or written transcript of 

each meeting of the Council and of the meetings of committees referred to in section 302(g)(1)(B) of the Council by not 

later than 30 days after the conclusion of the meeting. 

(H) The Secretary shall maintain and make available to the 

public an archive of Council and scientific and statistical committee meeting audios, videos, and transcripts made available 

under clauses (i) and (ii) subparagraph (G). 

* * * * * * * 

(m) CONSIDERATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH

LIMIT REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) CONSIDERATION OF ECOSYSTEM AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS.— 

In establishing annual catch limits a Council may, consistent 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

with section 302(h)(6), consider changes in an ecosystem and 

the economic needs of the fishing communities. 

(2) LIMITATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIREMENT FOR

SPECIAL FISHERIES.—Notwithstanding subsection (h)(6), a 

Council is not required to develop an annual catch limit for— 

(A) an ecosystem component species; 

(B) a fishery for a species that has a life cycle of approximately 1 year, unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to overfishing; or 

(C) a stock for which— 

(i) more than half of a single-year class will complete 

their life cycle in less than 18 months; and 

(ii) fishing mortality will have little impact on the 

stock. 

(3) RELATIONSHIP TO INTERNATIONAL FISHERY EFFORTS.— 

Each annual catch limit may, consistent with section 302(h)(6), 

take into account— 

(A) management measures under international agreements in which the United States participates; 

(B) informal transboundary agreements under which 

fishery management activities by another country outside 

the exclusive economic zone may hinder conservation efforts 

by United States fishermen for a fish species for which any 

of the recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing activities are transboundary; and 

(C) in instances in which no transboundary agreement 

exists, activities by another country outside the exclusive 

economic zone that may hinder conservation efforts by 

United States fisherman for a fish species for which any of 

the recruitment, distribution, life history, or fishing activities are transboundary. 

(4) AUTHORIZATION FOR MULTISPECIES COMPLEXES AND

MULTIYEAR ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS.—For purposes of subsection 

(h)(6), a Council may establish— 

(A) an annual catch limit for a stock complex; or 

(B) annual catch limits for each year in any continuous 

period that is not more than three years in duration. 

(5) ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT SPECIES DEFINED.—In this subsection the term ‘‘ecosystem component species’’ means a stock of 

fish that is a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of fish in 

a fishery, or a nontarget, incidentally harvested stock of fish 

that a Council or the Secretary has determined— 

(A) is not subject to overfishing, approaching a depleted 

condition or depleted; and 

(B) is not likely to become subject to overfishing or depleted in the absence of conservation and management 

measures. 

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

(a) REQUIRED PROVISIONS.—Any fishery management plan which 

is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any 

fishery, shall— 

(1) contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the United 

States, which are— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation and 

management of the fishery, to prevent overfishing and rebuild øoverfished¿ depleted stocks, and to protect, restore, 

and promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery; 

* * * * * * * 

ø(9) include a fishery impact statement for the plan or 

amendment (in the case of a plan or amendment thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after October 1, 1990) 

which shall assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects, if 

any, including the cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management measures 

on, and possible mitigation measures for— 

ø(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment; 

ø(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent 

areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those 

participants; and 

ø(C) the safety of human life at sea, including whether 

and to what extent such measures may affect the safety of 

participants in the fishery;¿ 

ø(10)¿ (9) specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is øoverfished¿ depleted (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case 

of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined 

is approaching an øoverfished¿ depleted condition or is øoverfished¿ depleted, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the 

fishery; 

ø(11)¿ (10) establish a standardized reporting methodology to 

assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, 

and include conservation and management measures that, to 

the extent practicable and in the following priority— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(12)¿ (11) assess the type and amount of fish caught and released alive during recreational fishing under catch and release fishery management programs and the mortality of such 

fish, and include conservation and management measures that, 

to the extent practicable, minimize mortality and ensure the 

extended survival of such fish; 

ø(13)¿ (12) include a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which participate in the 

fishery, including its economic impact, and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the managed fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; 

ø(14)¿ (13) to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall 

harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate, taking into consideration the economic impact of the harvest restrictions or reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

covery benefits on the fishery participants in each sector, any 

harvest restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably 

among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery and; 

ø(15)¿ (14) establish a mechanism for specifying annual 

catch limits in the plan (including a multiyear plan), implementing regulations, or annual specifications, at a level such 

that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) FISHERY IMPACT STATEMENT.— (1) Any fishery management plan (or fishery management 

plan amendment) prepared by any Council or by the Secretary 

pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), or proposed regulations 

deemed necessary pursuant to subsection (c), shall include a 

fishery impact statement which shall assess, specify and analyze the likely effects and impact of the proposed action on the 

quality of the human environment. 

(2) The fishery impact statement shall describe— 

(A) a purpose of the proposed action; 

(B) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 

(C) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposed action be implemented; 

(D) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed action; 

(E) the relationship between short-term use of fishery resources and the enhancement of long-term productivity; 

(F) the cumulative conservation and management effects; 

and 

(G) economic, and social impacts of the proposed action 

on— 

(i) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the proposed action; 

(ii) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after 

consultation with such Council and representatives of 

those participants; and 

(iii) the safety of human life at sea, including whether and to what extent such measures may affect the 

safety of participants in the fishery. 

(3) A substantially complete fishery impact statement, which 

may be in draft form, shall be available not less than 14 days 

before the beginning of the meeting at which a Council makes 

its final decision on the proposal (for plans, plan amendments, 

or proposed regulations prepared by a Council pursuant to subsection (a) or (c)). Availability of this fishery impact statement 

will be announced by the methods used by the council to disseminate public information and the public and relevant government agencies will be invited to comment on the fishery impact statement. 

(4) The completed fishery impact statement shall accompany 

the transmittal of a fishery management plan or plan amendment as specified in section 304(a), as well as the transmittal 

of proposed regulations as specified in section 304(b). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

(5) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the Secretary, 

establish criteria to determine actions or classes of action of 

minor significance regarding subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), 

and (F) of paragraph (2), for which preparation of a fishery impact statement is unnecessary and categorically excluded from 

the requirements of this section, and the documentation required to establish the exclusion. 

(6) The Councils shall, subject to approval by the Secretary, 

prepare procedures for compliance with this section that provide 

for timely, clear, and concise analysis that is useful to decisionmakers and the public, reduce extraneous paperwork and effectively involve the public, including— 

(A) using Council meetings to determine the scope of 

issues to be addressed and identifying significant issues related to the proposed action; 

(B) integration of the fishery impact statement development process with preliminary and final Council decisionmaking in a manner that provides opportunity for comment 

from the public and relevant government agencies prior to 

these decision points; and 

(C) providing scientific, technical, and legal advice at an 

early stage of the development of the fishery impact statement to ensure timely transmittal and Secretarial review of 

the proposed fishery management plan, plan amendment, 

or regulations to the Secretary. 

(7) Actions taken in accordance with the procedures of this 

section shall constitute fulfillment of the requirements the National Environmental Policy Improvement Act of 1970 (42 

U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and all related implementing regulations. 

SEC. 303A. LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Any limited access privilege program to 

harvest fish submitted by a Council or approved by the Secretary under this section shall— 

(A) if established in a fishery that is øoverfished¿ depleted or subject to a rebuilding plan, assist in its rebuilding; 

* * * * * * * 

(6) PROGRAM INITIATION.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(D) NEW ENGLAND AND GULF REFERENDUM.— 

ø(i) Except as provided in clause (iii) for the Gulf of 

Mexico commercial red snapper fishery, the New England and Gulf Councils may not submit, and the Secretary may not approve or implement, a fishery management plan or amendment that creates an individual fishing quota program, including a Secretarial 

plan, unless such a system, as ultimately developed, 

has been approved by more than 2⁄3 of those voting in 

a referendum among eligible permit holders, or other 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

persons described in clause (v), with respect to the 

New England Council, and by a majority of those voting in the referendum among eligible permit holders 

with respect to the Gulf Council. For multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico, only those participants who 

have substantially fished the species proposed to be 

included in the individual fishing quota program shall 

be eligible to vote in such a referendum. If an individual fishing quota program fails to be approved by 

the requisite number of those voting, it may be revised 

and submitted for approval in a subsequent referendum. 

ø(ii) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum 

under this subparagraph, including notifying all persons eligible to participate in the referendum and 

making available to them information concerning the 

schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for 

the referendum process and the proposed individual 

fishing quota program. Within 1 year after the date of 

enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 

2006, the Secretary shall publish guidelines and procedures to determine procedures and voting eligibility 

requirements for referenda and to conduct such 

referenda in a fair and equitable manner. 

ø(iii) The provisions of section 407(c) of this Act 

shall apply in lieu of this subparagraph for an individual fishing quota program for the Gulf of Mexico 

commercial red snapper fishery. 

ø(iv) Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, 

(commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act) 

does not apply to the referenda conducted under this 

subparagraph. 

ø(v) The Secretary shall promulgate criteria for determining whether additional fishery participants are 

eligible to vote in the New England referendum described in clause (i) in order to ensure that crew members who derive a significant percentage of their total 

income from the fishery under the proposed program 

are eligible to vote in the referendum. 

ø(vi) In this subparagraph, the term ‘‘individual 

fishing quota’’ does not include a sector allocation.¿ 

(D) CATCH SHARE REFERENDUM PILOT PROGRAM.— 

(i) The New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, 

and Gulf of Mexico Councils may not submit a fishery 

management plan or amendment that creates a catch 

share program for a fishery, and the Secretary may not 

approve or implement such a plan or amendment submitted by such a Council or a secretarial plan or 

amendment under section 304(c) that creates such a 

program, unless the final program has been approved, 

in a referendum in accordance with this subparagraph, 

by a majority of the permit holders eligible to participate in the fishery. For multispecies permits in the Gulf 

of Mexico, any permit holder with landings from withVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

in the sector of the fishery being considered for the 

catch share program within the 5-year period preceding the date of the referendum and still active in 

fishing in the fishery shall be eligible to participate in 

such a referendum. If a catch share program is not approved by the requisite number of permit holders, it 

may be revised and submitted for approval in a subsequent referendum. 

(ii) The Secretary may, at the request of the New 

England Fishery Management Council, allow participation in such a referendum for a fishery under the 

Council’s authority, by fishing vessel crewmembers who 

derive a significant portion of their livelihood from 

such fishing. 

(iii) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum under 

this subparagraph, including notifying all permit holders eligible to participate in the referendum and making available to them— 

(I) a copy of the proposed program; 

(II) an estimate of the costs of the program, including costs to participants; 

(III) an estimate of the amount of fish or percentage of quota each permit holder would be allocated; and 

(IV) information concerning the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum process. 

(iv) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term 

‘‘permit holder eligible to participate’’ only includes the 

holder of a permit for a fishery under which fishing 

has occurred in 3 of the 5 years preceding a referendum for the fishery, unless sickness, injury, or 

other unavoidable hardship prevented the permit holder from engaging in such fishing. 

(v) The Secretary may not implement any catch share 

program for any fishery managed exclusively by the 

Secretary unless first petitioned by a majority of those 

permit holders eligible to participate in the fishery. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY. 

(a) REVIEW OF PLANS.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) In undertaking the review required under paragraph (1), 

the Secretary shall— 

(A) * * * 

(B) consult with the Secretary of State with respect to 

foreign fishing; øand¿ 

(C) consult with the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to enforcement at sea and to fishery access adjustments referred to in section 303(a)(6)ø.¿; and 

(D) evaluate the adequacy of the accompanying fishery 

impact statement as basis for fully considering the environVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

mental impacts of implementing the fishery management 

plan or plan amendment. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(b) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.—¿ 

ø(1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), the Secretary 

shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, this Act and other applicable law. Within 15 days of initiating such evaluation the 

Secretary shall make a determination and—¿ 

(b) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.— (1)Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of proposed regulations prepared under section 303(c), the Secretary 

shall immediately initiate an evaluation of the proposed regulations to determine whether they are consistent with the fishery 

management plan, plan amendment, this Act and other applicable law. The Secretary shall also immediately initiate an 

evaluation of the accompanying fishery impact statement as a 

basis for fully considering the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed regulations. Within 15 days of initiating 

such evaluation the Secretary shall make a determination 

and— 

(A) if that determination is affirmative, the Secretary 

shall publish such regulations in the Federal Register, 

with such technical changes as may be necessary for clarity and an explanation of those changes, for a public comment period of 15 to 60 days; or 

(B) if that determination is negative, the Secretary shall 

notify the Council in writing of the inconsistencies and 

provide recommendations on revisions that would make 

the proposed regulations consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, this Act, and other applicable law. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES.—(1) * * * 

(2)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) The Secretary shall report annually on the amount collected under this paragraph from each fishery and detail how 

the funds were spent in the prior year on a fishery-by-fishery 

basis, to— 

(i) Congress; and 

(ii) each Council from whose fisheries the fee under this 

paragraph were collected. 

(e) REBUILDING OVERFISHED FISHERIES.— 

(1) The Secretary shall report annually to the Congress and 

the Councils on the status of fisheries within each Council’s 

geographical area of authority and identify those fisheries that 

are øoverfished¿ depleted or are approaching a condition of 

being øoverfished¿ depleted. For those fisheries managed under 

a fishery management plan or international agreement, the 

status shall be determined using the criteria for overfishing 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

specified in such plan or agreement. A fishery shall be classified as approaching a condition of being øoverfished¿ depleted 

if, based on trends in fishing effort, fishery resource size, and 

other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that the 

fishery will become øoverfished¿ depleted within two years. 

The report shall distinguish between fisheries that are depleted 

(or approaching that condition) as a result of fishing and fisheries that are depleted (or approaching that condition) as a result of factors other than fishing. The report shall state, for 

each fishery identified as depleted or approaching that condition, whether the fishery is the target of directed fishing. 

(2) If the Secretary determines at any time that a fishery is 

øoverfished¿ depleted, the Secretary shall immediately notify 

the appropriate Council and request that action be taken to 

end overfishing in the fishery and to implement conservation 

and management measures to rebuild affected stocks of fish. 

The Secretary shall publish each notice under this paragraph 

in the Federal Register. 

(3) Within 2 years after an identification under paragraph 

(1) or notification under paragraphs (2) or (7), the appropriate 

Council (or the Secretary, for fisheries under section 302(a)(3)) 

shall prepare and implement a fishery management plan, plan 

amendment, or proposed regulations for the fishery to which 

the identification or notice applies— 

(A) * * * 

(B) to prevent overfishing from occurring in the fishery 

whenever such fishery is identified as approaching an 

øoverfished¿ depleted condition. 

(4) For a fishery that is øoverfished¿ depleted, any fishery 

management plan, amendment, or proposed regulations prepared pursuant to paragraph (3) or paragraph (5) for such fishery shall— 

(A) specify a time period for rebuilding the fishery that 

shall— 

(i) be as short as øpossible¿ practicable, taking into 

account the status and biology of any øoverfished¿ depleted stocks of fish, the needs of fishing communities, 

recommendations by international organizations in 

which the United States participates, and the interaction of the øoverfished¿ depleted stock of fish within 

the marine ecosystem; and 

ø(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the 

biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise;¿ 

(ii) may not exceed the time the stock would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean generation, except in a case in which— 

(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under 

an international agreement in which the United 

States participates dictate otherwise; 

(II) the Secretary determines that the cause of 

the stock being depleted is outside the jurisdiction 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

of the Council or the rebuilding program cannot be 

effective only by limiting fishing activities; 

(III) the Secretary determines that one or more 

components of a mixed-stock fishery is depleted but 

cannot be rebuilt within that time- frame without 

significant economic harm to the fishery, or cannot 

be rebuilt without causing another component of 

the mixed-stock fishery to approach a depleted status; 

(IV) the Secretary determines that recruitment, 

distribution, or life history of, or fishing activities 

for, the stock are affected by informal transboundary agreements under which management activities outside the exclusive economic zone by another 

country may hinder conservation and management 

efforts by United States fishermen; and 

(V) the Secretary determines that the stock has 

been affected by unusual events that make rebuilding within the specified time period improbable 

without significant economic harm to fishing communities; 

(B) take into account environmental condition including 

predator/prey relationships; 

ø(B)¿ (C) allocate both overfishing restrictions and recovery benefits fairly and equitably among sectors of the fishery; øand¿ 

ø(C)¿ (D) for fisheries managed under an international 

agreement, reflect traditional participation in the fishery, 

relative to other nations, by fishermen of the United 

Statesø.¿; and 

(E) specify a schedule for reviewing the rebuilding targets, evaluating environmental impacts on rebuilding 

progress, and evaluating progress being made toward 

reaching rebuilding targets. 

(5) If, within the 2-year period beginning on the date of identification or notification that a fishery is øoverfished¿ depleted, the Council does not submit to the Secretary a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations required 

by paragraph (3)(A), the Secretary shall prepare a fishery management plan or plan amendment and any accompanying regulations to stop overfishing and rebuild affected stocks of fish 

within 9 months under subsection (c). 

* * * * * * * 

(8) A fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed 

regulations may use alternative rebuilding strategies, including 

harvest control rules and fishing mortality-rate targets to the 

extent they are in compliance with the requirements of this Act. 

(9) A Council may terminate the application of paragraph (3) 

to a fishery if the Council’s scientific and statistical committee 

determines and the Secretary concurs that the original determination that the fishery was depleted was erroneous, either— 

(A) within the 2-year period beginning on the effective 

date a fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulation for a fishery under this subsection takes 

effect; or 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

(B) within 90 days after the completion of the next stock 

assessment after such determination. 

* * * * * * * 

(i) INTERNATIONAL OVERFISHING.—The provisions of this subsection shall apply in lieu of subsection (e) to a fishery that the 

Secretary determines is øoverfished¿ depleted or approaching a 

condition of being øoverfished¿ depleted due to excessive international fishing pressure, and for which there are no management 

measures to end overfishing under an international agreement to 

which the United States is a party. For such fisheries— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 305. OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORITY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) EMERGENCY ACTIONS AND INTERIM MEASURES.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Any emergency regulation or interim measure which changes 

any existing fishery management plan or amendment shall be 

treated as an amendment to such plan for the period in which such 

regulation is in effect. Any emergency regulation or interim measure promulgated under this subsection— 

(A) * * * 

(B) shall, except as provided in subparagraph (C), remain in 

effect for not more than ø180 days after the date of publication, 

and may be extended by publication in the Federal Register for 

one additional period of not more than 186 days, provided¿ 1 

year after the date of publication, and may be extended by publication in the Federal Register for one additional period of not 

more than 1 year, if the public has had an opportunity to comment on the emergency regulation or interim measure, and, in 

the case of a Council recommendation for emergency regulations or interim measures, the Council is actively preparing a 

fishery management plan, plan amendment, or proposed regulations to address the emergency or overfishing on a permanent basis; 

* * * * * * * 

(e) EFFECT OF CERTAIN LAWS ON CERTAIN TIME REQUIREMENTS.—The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

and Executive Order Numbered 12866, dated September 30, 1993, 

shall be complied with within the time limitations specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 304 as they apply to the functions of the Secretary under such provisions. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 306. STATE JURISDICTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

(3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the boundaries of the State in the following circumstances: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) The fishing vessel is not registered under the law of 

the State of Alaska and is operating in a fishery in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska for which there øwas no¿ 

is no fishery management plan in place øon August 1, 

1996¿, and the Secretary and the North Pacific Council 

find that there is a legitimate interest of the State of Alaska in the conservation and management of such fishery. 

The authority provided under this subparagraph shall terminate when a fishery management plan under this Act is 

approved and implemented for such fishery. 

(b) EXCEPTION.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding section 3(11), for the purposes of managing 

the recreational sector of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, the 

seaward boundary of a coastal State in the Gulf of Mexico is a line 

9 miles seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea of 

the United States is measured. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 312. TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES. 

(a) FISHERIES DISASTER RELIEF.—(1) (A) At the discretion of the 

Secretary or at the request of the Governor of an affected State or 

a fishing community, the Secretary shall determine whether there 

is a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster as 

a result of— 

ø(A)¿ (i) natural causes; 

ø(B)¿ (ii) man-made causes beyond the control of fishery 

managers to mitigate through conservation and management 

measures, including regulatory restrictions (including those imposed as a result of judicial action) imposed to protect human 

health or the marine environment; or 

ø(C)¿ (iii) undetermined causes. 

(B) The Secretary shall publish the estimated cost of recovery 

from a fishery resource disaster no later than 30 days after the Secretary makes the determination under subparagraph (A) with respect to such disaster. 

(2) The Secretary shall make a decision regarding a request from 

a Governor under paragraph (1) within 90 days after receiving an 

estimate of the economic impact of the fishery resource disaster from 

the entity requesting the relief. 

ø(2)¿ (3) Upon the determination under paragraph (1) that there 

is a commercial fishery failure, the Secretary is authorized to make 

sums available to be used by the affected State, fishing community, 

or by the Secretary in cooperation with the affected State or fishing 

community for assessing the economic and social effects of the commercial fishery failure, or any activity that the Secretary determines is appropriate to restore the fishery or prevent a similar failure in the future and to assist a fishing community affected by 

such failure. Before making funds available for an activity authorized under this section, the Secretary shall make a determination 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

that such activity will not expand the size or scope of the commercial fishery failure in that fishery or into other fisheries or other 

geographic regions. 

ø(3)¿ (4) The Federal share of the cost of any activity carried out 

under the authority of this subsection shall not exceed 75 percent 

of the cost of that activity. 

ø(4)¿ (5) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 

through 2013. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 314. NORTHWEST ATLANTIC OCEAN FISHERIES REINVESTMENT 

PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM.—(1) Not later than October 1, 1993, the Secretary 

shall establish a Northwest Atlantic Ocean Fisheries Reinvestment 

Program for the purposes of— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) helping to restore øoverfished¿ depleted New England 

groundfish stocks through aquaculture or hatchery programs. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 318. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 

with the Councils, shall establish a cooperative research and management program to address needs identified under this Act and 

under any other marine resource laws enforced by the Secretary. 

The program shall be implemented on a regional basis and shall 

be developed and conducted through partnerships among Federal, 

State, and Tribal managers and scientists (including interstate 

fishery commissions), fishing industry participants (including use 

of commercial charter or recreational vessels for gathering data), 

and educational institutions. 

(2) Within one year after the date of enactment of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries 

Management Act, and after consultation with the Councils, the Secretary shall publish a plan for implementing and conducting the 

program established in paragraph (1). Such plan shall identify and 

describe critical regional fishery management and research needs, 

possible projects that may address those needs, and estimated costs 

for such projects. The plan shall be revised and updated every 5 

years, and updated plans shall include a brief description of 

projects that were funded in the prior 5-year period and the research and management needs that were addressed by those 

projects. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) øFUNDING¿ PRIORITIES.—In making funds available the Secretary shall award funding on a competitive basis and based on regional fishery management needs, select programs that form part 

of a coherent program of research focused on solving priority issues 

identified by the Councils, and shall give priority to the following 

projects: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

(1) Projects to collect data to improve, supplement, or enhance stock assessments, including øthe use of fishing vessels 

or acoustic or other marine technology.¿ — (A) the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine 

technology; 

(B) expanding the use of electronic catch reporting programs and technology; and 

(C) improving monitoring and observer coverage through 

the expanded use of electronic monitoring devices. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—FISHERY MONITORING AND 

RESEARCH 

SEC. 401. REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS.— (A) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish partnerships with States to develop best practices for implementation of State programs established pursuant to paragraph 

(2). 

(B) GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall develop guidance, in 

cooperation with the States, that details best practices for 

administering State programs pursuant to paragraph (2), 

and provide such guidance to the States. 

(C) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the 

Congress and publish biennial reports that include— 

(i) the estimated accuracy of the registry program established under paragraph (1) and of State programs 

that are exempted under paragraph (2); 

(ii) priorities for improving recreational fishing data 

collection; and 

(iii) an explanation of any use of information collected by such State programs and by the Secretary, including a description of any consideration given to the 

information by the Secretary. 

(D) STATES GRANT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall make 

grants to States to improve implementation of State programs consistent with this subsection. The Secretary shall 

prioritize such grants based on the ability of the grant to 

improve the quality and accuracy of such programs. 

ø(4)¿ (5) REPORT.—Within 24 months after establishment of 

the program, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress 

that describes the progress made toward achieving the goals 

and objectives of the program. 

(6) STUDY ON PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall enter into an 

agreement with the National Research Council of the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

tional Academy of Sciences to study the implementation of 

the programs described in this section. The study shall— 

(i) provide an updated assessment of recreational 

survey methods established or improved since the publication of the Council’s report ‘‘Review of Recreational 

Fisheries Survey Methods (2006)’’; 

(ii) evaluate the extent to which the recommendations 

made in that report were implemented pursuant to 

paragraph (3)(B); and 

(iii) examine any limitations of the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey and the Marine 

Recreational Information Program established under 

paragraph (1). 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after entering into an 

agreement under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 

submit a report to Congress on the results of the study 

under subparagraph (A). 

SEC. 402. INFORMATION COLLECTION. 

(a) * * * 

(b) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.— 

(1) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State fishery management agency, or a marine fisheries commission by 

any person in compliance with the requirements of this Act 

shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except— 

(A) * * * 

ø(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees 

as necessary to further the Department’s mission, subject 

to a confidentiality agreement that prohibits public disclosure of the identity of business of any person;¿ 

(B) to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees 

as necessary for achievement of the purposes of this Act, 

subject to a confidentiality agreement between the State or 

Commission, respectively, and the Secretary that prohibits 

public disclosure of the identity of any person and of confidential information; 

* * * * * * * 

(E) when such information is used by State, Council, or 

Marine Fisheries Commission employees to verify catch 

under a ølimited access¿ catch share program, but only to 

the extent that such use is consistent with subparagraph 

(B); 

* * * * * * * 

(G) when such information is required to be submitted 

to the Secretary for any determination under a ølimited 

access¿ catch share program; or 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Any observer information, and information obtained 

through a vessel monitoring system or other technology used onboard a fishing vessel for enforcement or data collection purposes, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except 

in accordance with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 

through (H) of paragraph (1), or— 

(A) * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

(B) when such information is necessary in proceedings to 

adjudicate observer certifications; øor¿ 

ø(C) as authorized by any regulations issued under paragraph (3) allowing the collection of observer information, 

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement between the observers, observer employers, and the Secretary prohibiting 

disclosure of the information by the observers or observer 

employers, in order— 

ø(i) to allow the sharing of observer information 

among observers and between observers and observer 

employers as necessary to train and prepare observers 

for deployments on specific vessels; or 

ø(ii) to validate the accuracy of the observer information collected.¿ 

(C) as authorized by any regulations issued under paragraph (6) allowing the collection of observer information, 

pursuant to a confidentiality agreement between the observers, observer employers, and the Secretary prohibiting disclosure of the information by the observers or observer employers, in order— 

(i) to allow the sharing of observer information 

among observers and between observers and observer 

employers as necessary to train and prepare observers 

for deployments on specific vessels; or 

(ii) to validate the accuracy of the observer information collected; or 

(D) to other persons if the Secretary has obtained written 

authorization from the person who submitted such information or from the person on whose vessel the information 

was collected, to release such information for reasons not 

otherwise provided for in this subsection. 

(3) Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State fisheries management agency, or a Marine Fisheries Commission 

by any person in compliance with the requirements of this Act, 

including confidential information, may only be used for purposes of fisheries management and monitoring and enforcement 

under this Act. 

(4) The Secretary may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the heads of other Federal agencies for the sharing of confidential information to ensure safety of life at sea or 

for fisheries enforcement purposes, including information obtained through a vessel monitoring system or other electronic 

enforcement and monitoring systems, if— 

(A) the Secretary determines there is a compelling need 

to do so; and 

(B) the heads of the other Federal agencies agree— 

(i) to maintain the confidentiality of the information 

in accordance with the requirements that apply to the 

Secretary under this section; and 

(ii) to use the information only for the purposes for 

which it was shared with the agencies. 

(5) The Secretary may not provide any vessel-specific or aggregate vessel information from a fishery that is collected for 

monitoring and enforcement purposes to any person for the purposes of coastal and marine spatial planning under Executive 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

Order 13547, unless the Secretary determines that providing 

such information is important for maintaining or enhancing 

national security or for ensuring fishermen continued access to 

fishing grounds. 

ø(3)¿ (6) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe such 

procedures as may be necessary to preserve the confidentiality 

of information submitted in compliance with any requirement 

or regulation under this Act, except that the Secretary may release or make public any such information in any aggregate or 

summary form which does not directly or indirectly disclose the 

identity or business of any person who submits such information. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted or construed to prevent the use for conservation and management 

purposes by the Secretary, or with the approval of the Secretary, the Council, of any information submitted in compliance with any requirement or regulation under this Act or the 

use, release, or publication of bycatch information pursuant to 

paragraph (2)(A). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 404. FISHERIES RESEARCH. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) USE OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND FOR FISHERY INDE- PENDENT DATA COLLECTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.— (A) The Secretary, subject to appropriations, may obligate 

for data collection purposes in accordance with 

prioritizations under paragraph (3) a portion of amounts 

received by the United States as fisheries enforcement penalties. 

(B) Amounts may be obligated under this paragraph only 

in the fishery management region with respect to which 

they are collected. 

(2) INCLUDED PURPOSES.—The purposes referred to in paragraph (1) include— 

(A) the use of State personnel and resources, including 

fishery survey vessels owned and maintained by States to 

survey or assess data-poor fisheries for which fishery management plans are in effect under this Act; and 

(B) cooperative research activities authorized under section 318 to improve or enhance the fishery independent 

data used in fishery stock assessments. 

(3) DATA-POOR FISHERIES PRIORITY LISTS.—Each Council 

shall— 

(A) identify those fisheries in its region considered to be 

data-poor fisheries; 

(B) prioritize those fisheries based on the need of each 

fishery for up-to-date information; and 

(C) provide those priorities to the Secretary. 

(4) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

(A) The term ‘‘data-poor fishery’’ means a fishery— 

(i) that has not been surveyed in the preceding 5-year 

period; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

(ii) for which a fishery stock assessment has not been 

performed within the preceding 5-year period; or 

(iii) for which limited information on the status of 

the fishery is available for management purposes. 

(B) The term ‘‘fisheries enforcement penalties’’ means any 

fine or penalty imposed, or proceeds of any property seized, 

for a violation of this Act or of any other marine resource 

law enforced by the Secretary. 

(5) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal year to carry 

out this subsection up to 80 percent of the fisheries enforcement 

penalties collected during the preceding fiscal year. 

SEC. 405. INCIDENTAL HARVEST RESEARCH. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC STOCK INFORMATION.—For stocks of fish identified pursuant to subsection (b), with 

priority given to stocks which (based upon the best available scientific information) are considered to be øoverfished¿ depleted, the 

Secretary shall conduct— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 407. GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER RESEARCH. 

ø(a) INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.—(1) Within 30 days of the date 

of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Secretary shall 

initiate an independent peer review to evaluate— 

ø(A) the accuracy and adequacy of fishery statistics used by 

the Secretary for the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico 

to account for all commercial, recreational, and charter fishing 

harvests and fishing effort on the stock; 

ø(B) the appropriateness of the scientific methods, information, and models used by the Secretary to assess the status and 

trends of the Gulf of Mexico red snapper stock and as the basis 

for the fishery management plan for the Gulf of Mexico red 

snapper fishery; 

ø(C) the appropriateness and adequacy of the management 

measures in the fishery management plan for red snapper in 

the Gulf of Mexico for conserving and managing the red snapper fishery under this Act; and 

ø(D) the costs and benefits of all reasonable alternatives to 

a limited access privilege program for the red snapper fishery 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

ø(2) The Secretary shall ensure that commercial, recreational, 

and charter fishermen in the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of 

Mexico are provided an opportunity to— 

ø(A) participate in the peer review under this subsection; 

and 

ø(B) provide information to the Secretary concerning the review of fishery statistics under this subsection without being 

subject to penalty under this Act or other applicable law for 

any past violation of a requirement to report such information 

to the Secretary. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

ø(3) The Secretary shall submit a detailed written report on the 

findings of the peer review conducted under this subsection to the 

Gulf Council no later than one year after the date of enactment of 

the Sustainable Fisheries Act. 

ø(b) PROHIBITION.—In addition to the restrictions under section 

303(d)(1)(A), the Gulf Council may not, prior to October 1, 2002, 

undertake or continue the preparation of any fishery management 

plan, plan amendment or regulation under this Act for the Gulf of 

Mexico commercial red snapper fishery that creates an individual 

fishing quota program or that authorizes the consolidation of licenses, permits, or endorsements that result in different trip limits 

for vessels in the same class. 

ø(c) REFERENDUM.— 

ø(1) On or after October 1, 2002, the Gulf Council may prepare and submit a fishery management plan, plan amendment, 

or regulation for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper 

fishery that creates a limited access privilege program or that 

authorizes the consolidation of licenses, permits, or endorsements that result in different trip limits for vessels in the 

same class, only if the preparation of such plan, amendment, 

or regulation is approved in a referendum conducted under 

paragraph (2) and only if the submission to the Secretary of 

such plan, amendment, or regulation is approved in a subsequent referendum conducted under paragraph (2). 

ø(2) The Secretary, at the request of the Gulf Council, shall 

conduct referendums under this subsection. Only a person who 

held an annual vessel permit with a red snapper endorsement 

for such permit on September 1, 1996 (or any person to whom 

such permit with such endorsement was transferred after such 

date) and vessel captains who harvested red snapper in a commercial fishery using such endorsement in each red snapper 

fishing season occurring between January 1, 1993, and such 

date may vote in a referendum under this subsection. The referendum shall be decided by a majority of the votes cast. The 

Secretary shall develop a formula to weigh votes based on the 

proportional harvest under each such permit and endorsement 

and by each such captain in the fishery between January 1, 

1993, and September 1, 1996. Prior to each referendum, the 

Secretary, in consultation with the Council, shall— 

ø(A) identify and notify all such persons holding permits 

with red snapper endorsements and all such vessel captains; and 

ø(B) make available to all such persons and vessel captains information about the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum and the proposed 

individual fishing quota program. 

ø(d) CATCH LIMITS.—Any fishery management plan, plan amendment, or regulation submitted by the Gulf Council for the red snapper fishery after the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act shall contain conservation and management measures that— 

ø(1) establish separate quotas for recreational fishing (which, 

for the purposes of this subsection shall include charter fishing) and commercial fishing that, when reached, result in a 

prohibition on the retention of fish caught during recreational 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

fishing and commercial fishing, respectively, for the remainder 

of the fishing year; and 

ø(2) ensure that such quotas reflect allocations among such 

sectors and do not reflect any harvests in excess of such allocations.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 409. STOCK ASSESSMENTS USED FOR FISHERIES MANAGED 

UNDER GULF OF MEXICO COUNCIL’S REEF FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

shall conduct all fishery stock assessments used for management 

purposes by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for the 

fisheries managed under the Council’s Reef Fish Management Plan. 

(b) USE OF OTHER INFORMATION AND ASSETS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Such fishery assessments shall— 

(A) incorporate fisheries survey information collected by 

university researchers; and 

(B) to the extent practicable, use State, university, and 

private assets to conduct fisheries surveys. 

(2) SURVEYS AT ARTIFICIAL REEFS.—Any such fishery stock assessment conducted after the date of the enactment of the 

Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility 

in Fisheries Management Act shall incorporate fishery surveys 

conducted, and other relevant fisheries information collected, on 

and around natural and artificial reefs. 

(c) CONSTITUENT AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.—Each such 

fishery assessment shall— 

(1) emphasize constituent and stakeholder participation in 

the development of the assessment; 

(2) contain all of the raw data used in the assessment and 

a description of the methods used to collect that data; and 

(3) employ an assessment process that is transparent and includes— 

(A) includes a rigorous and independent scientific review 

of the completed fishery stock assessment; and 

(B) a panel of independent experts to review the data and 

assessment and make recommendations on the most appropriate values of critical population and management quantities. 

AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—FISHERIES 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle II—Bering Sea Pollock Fishery 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

SEC. 210. FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) EXCESSIVE SHARES.— ø(1) HARVESTING.—No particular individual, corporation, or 

other entity may harvest, through a fishery cooperative or otherwise, a total of more than 17.5 percent of the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock fishery.¿ 

(1) HARVESTING.— 

(A) LIMITATION.—No particular individual, corporation, 

or other entity may harvest, through a fishery cooperative 

or otherwise, a percentage of the pollock available to be 

harvested in the directed pollock fishery that exceeds the 

percentage established for purposes of this paragraph by 

the North Pacific Council. 

(B) MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE.—The percentage established 

by the North Pacific Council shall not exceed 24 percent of 

the pollock available to be harvested in the directed pollock 

fishery. 

* * * * * * * 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(74) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 4742 would reauthorize and amend the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the law that 

governs fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We oppose this legislation because it would roll back important elements 

of the law which are critical to making fisheries and the fishing industry in the United States economically and environmentally sustainable. 

Congress first enacted the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 with two main goals in mind: put an end to unregulated fishing by foreign fleets in U.S. waters, and develop domestic fleets that could reap the economic benefit of our considerable fishery resources. It also set up eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) tasked with developing fishery management plans and conservation and management measures for fisheries in their waters. The law worked well at phasing out foreign 

fishing, and after an initial respite from the enormous pressure of 

foreign factory trawlers, many fish stocks rebounded and provided 

jobs and income for American fishermen. 

However, significant financial investment in the development of 

the U.S. fishing fleet and a failure to limit entry into fisheries by 

U.S. fishermen, or to set catch limits based on what scientists 

knew the stocks could sustain, meant that domestic fishing soon replaced foreign in overexploiting U.S. fisheries. By the mid-1980s, 

many stocks were in decline, and by the early 1990s a number had 

collapsed, devastating fishing communities from coast to coast. 

Taxpayers have found themselves on the hook ever since, doling 

out hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance over the past two 

decades for fishery disasters, many of which could have been prevented with more effective fishery management. 

Recognizing these failures, Congress amended the MSA in 1996 

in an attempt to end overfishing, and to promote rebuilding of overfished stocks, protection of fish habitat, improvement of fisheries 

science, and minimization of bycatch. Some Councils took this direction from Congress to heart, putting in place plans to rebuild 

stocks and manage fisheries based on the best available science. 

Others, however, continued to view the law as advisory. Instead of 

making the tough choices necessary to stabilize and recover the 

fishing economies in their regions, they succumbed to political pressure and allowed their fisheries to further deteriorate, to the detriment of fishermen and their families. 

It was not until 2007, a mere seven years ago, that Congress first 

required all Councils to set science-based annual catch limits 

(ACLs) to prevent overfishing, and to put in place accountability 

measures ensuring that exceeding an ACL meant a reduction in 

harvest the following year. In addition, in cases where a fishery 

may still become overfished, Councils are now required to end overVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
75 

fishing immediately. These changes, coupled with the 1996 reforms, have succeeded in ending overfishing in nearly all fisheries, 

and putting overfished stocks on a path to rebuilding. Most important, they have helped insulate the Councils from pressure to make 

politically-driven management decisions that hurt fishing communities in the long run. 

While the MSA is not perfect, H.R. 4742 is an overreaction to the 

complaints of those in the industry who need the requirements of 

the law the most. Under the guise of providing ‘‘flexibility’’ for fishery managers, H.R. 4742 would undermine the rebuilding requirements in current law. These rollbacks in particular are job-killers. 

NOAA estimates that fully rebuilt fisheries would add an estimated $31 billion to the economy and create 500,000 new jobs—increases of 17 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Rebuilding overfished stocks is the key to improving fishing economies, and we 

must not delay that process. Of further concern, the bill would 

eliminate the requirement to set ACLs for dozens of vulnerable 

stocks, and shield fisheries data not just from public view, but also 

from use by federal agencies that manage other ocean resources. 

Because weakening fisheries policy is apparently not enough, 

H.R. 4742 also attacks bedrock environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Antiquities Act, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act by making the MSA superior to those statutes and establishing fisheries 

management and fishing as a higher priority than other marine 

conservation and management goals. This new campaign in the Republican crusade to weaken these laws ignores the fact that extractive activities are not the only legitimate uses of the oceans, nor 

are they the only economically important ones. This Republican effort also ignores scientific evidence showing that protecting habitat 

and biodiversity in ocean ecosystems leads to more productive fisheries, and therefore to more income for fishermen. 

H.R. 4742 also fails to address a number of issues that should 

be handled in the next MSA reauthorization. The original law 

passed in 1976 used the terms ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘ecosystem’’ a grand 

total of zero times. It mentioned ‘‘habitat’’ once. Subsequent reauthorizations have remedied this to some degree, but management 

has not kept pace with what we know about fish and their surroundings. Science tells us that productive fisheries require healthy 

food webs and high quality habitat. It also tells us that global 

warming and shorter-term changes in ocean conditions will affect 

fisheries, but exactly how and when is unclear. We do not know 

how every interaction will play out, but that should not stop us 

from moving toward incorporating new data and new scientific understanding of ocean ecosystems into fisheries management. H.R. 

4742 uses uncertainty as an excuse for inaction; we should use it 

as an opportunity for improvement. 

Finally, even though marine recreational fishing contributed 

more than $100 million in total economic impacts to the U.S. economy in 2012, it is largely ignored in H.R. 4742. We have heard 

from numerous anglers and related businesses that better data, improved stock assessments, and more responsive management are 

needed, but this bill does little to address these issues. Collecting 

the information needed to manage recreational fisheries effecVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:51 Jan 11, 2015 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR711.XXX HR711

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

tively—and separately from commercial fisheries—will require creative solutions and significant additional funding. 

Democratic members offered a number of amendments to H.R. 

4742 at markup, and we were pleased that Republicans agreed 

with us that data collected by fishermen should be available to help 

protect fishing grounds from haphazard seismic testing, oil drilling, 

and other ill-conceived ocean uses. However, we were disappointed 

that they rejected our commonsense proposal to harmonize environmental review of fishing activities without weakening NEPA. We 

also find it unfortunate that Committee Republicans dismissed our 

amendments to retain science-based annual catch limits and rebuilding requirements for fish stocks, and to resolve conflicts between the MSA and other marine resources conservation laws 

through the existing framework of the National Ocean Policy. 

While we have many healthy fisheries in the United States, we 

also have many that remain in dangerously depleted states or are 

only beginning their recovery. We have heard consistently from 

commercial and recreational fishermen, fishery managers, and the 

conservation community that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working, and that the massive overhaul envisioned by this bill is not 

warranted. Without keeping strong conservation measures in place 

and continuing to improve management through better science, we 

will never realize the full potential of our fishery resources for sustainable economic development. For these reasons, we oppose H.R. 

4742 as reported. 

PETER DEFAZIO. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. RUSH HOLT. NIKI TSONGAS. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO

SABLAN. ALAN LOWENTHAL. 

KATHERINE M. CLARK. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. MATT CARTWRIGHT. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS