U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT 

2017

115–160 

Calendar No. 224 

A BILL TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 

TO CERTAIN MARINE FISH CONSERVATION 

STATUTES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 396 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MIKE LEE, Utah GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

1 16 U.S.C. §1827a 

2P.L. 111–348, 124 Stat. 3668. 

Calendar No. 224 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–160 

A BILL TO MAKE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN 

MARINE FISH CONSERVATION STATUTES, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 396] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 396) to make technical amendments 

to certain marine fish conservation statutes, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 396, a bill to make technical amendments to 

certain marine fish conservation statutes, is to make technical 

amendments that would clarify an exemption in the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 (Act of 2012)1 and clarify the authority of the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under the Shark Conservation 

Act of 2010(Act of 2010)2. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 

More than 2 decades ago, the United States banned the commercial sale and harvest of Atlantic-caught billfish (marlin, sailfish, 

and spearfish) in order to maximize recreational opportunities for 

these relatively rare fish. Catch-and-release recreational angling 

2 

3 Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, ‘‘Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 Passes the House 

of Representatives,’’ press release, September 12, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-mediaroom/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives. 4 16 U.S.C. §1827a 

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

press release, October 16, 2012, at http://sportsmenslink.org/the-media-room/news/billfish-conservation-act-of-2012-passes-the-house-of-representatives. 6 American Sportfishing Association, ‘‘Senators Weigh in on Billfish Conservation Act,’’ press 

release, February 17, 2017, at http://asafishing.org/senators-weigh-billfish-conservation-act. 7P.L. 102–582, 106 Stat. 4900. 

8 18 U.S.C. §1801 

9P.L. 111–348, 124 Stat. 3668. 

for billfish generates many millions of dollars in economic benefits 

to the U.S. economy each year.3 On October 5, 2012, President 

Obama signed into law the Act of 2012, effectively banning the importation of billfish into the continental United States.4 In the Act 

of 2012, the term ‘‘billfish’’ is defined to mean blue marlin, striped 

marlin, black marlin, sailfish, shortbill spearfish, white marlin, 

roundscale spearfish, Mediterranean spearfish, and longbill spearfish, but excludes swordfish. The legislation was in response to declining billfish populations due to overfishing by non-U.S. commercial fishing fleets. In an effort to conserve billfish, the Act of 2012 

prohibits the sale of billfish, as defined, except in the State of Hawaii, in order to respect traditional fisheries.5

While it has been almost 5 years since enactment, the rulemaking required to implement the Act of 2012 has not been completed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

The reason for the delay is that a drafting error in the Act of 2012 

may actually continue to allow billfish caught in other parts of the 

world to be shipped into the United States via Hawaii’s traditional 

fishing exemption.6

Shark Conservation Act of 2010 

In January 2011, the Act of 2010 was signed into law. The Act 

of 2010 amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act7 and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act8 (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to improve the conservation of sharks. The Act of 2010 directs the Secretary to urge 

international fishery management organizations to adopt shark 

conservation measures and requires the Secretary to list a nation 

in the biennial report on international compliance if the nation’s 

fishing vessels are, or have been, engaged in fishing activities that 

target or incidentally catch sharks in waters beyond their jurisdiction. Among other things, provisions of the Act of 2010 prohibits 

any person from removing any of the fins of a shark at sea, possessing shark fins on board a fishing vessel unless they are naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, or transferring or landing shark fins.9

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

If enacted, S. 396 would do the following: 

• Close the exemption loophole in the Act of 2012 by specifying that billfish can only be landed and retained in Hawaii, 

thus ensuring billfish are not routed through Hawaii and sold 

to the U.S. mainland. 

• Remove an expired offset in the Act of 2010 and replace 

that section with language affirming that the Act of 2010 

3 

10 16 U.S.C. §1852 

would not alter or diminish the authority of the Secretary 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.10

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 396 was introduced in the Senate on February 15, 2017, by 

Senator Nelson and is cosponsored by Senators Rubio, Moran, and 

Manchin. On May 18, 2017, the Committee met in open Executive 

Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 396 be reported favorably 

without amendment. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

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

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

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

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 396—A bill to make technical amendments to certain marine fish 

conservation statutes, and for other purposes 

S. 396 would amend the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 to prevent the transfer and sale of billfish caught and landed by U.S. 

vessels in Hawaii or the Pacific Insular Areas to the mainland 

United States. Under current law, billfish caught and landed in 

Hawaii or the Pacific Insular Areas by U.S. vessels can be sold locally or transported and sold in the mainland United States. The 

bill also would amend the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 to affirm 

that the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to regulate shark 

fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 396 would increase revenues from civil penalties resulting from violations of the prohibition 

on selling billfish to the mainland United States; therefore, pay-asyou-go procedures apply. However, based on information from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), CBO 

estimates that the increased revenues would not be significant in 

any year and over the 2018–2027 period. Enacting the bill would 

not affect direct spending. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 396 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 

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

budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The prohibitions in S. 396 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined by UMRA. Based on information from NOAA about 

the value of billfish landed in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas, 

CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would total a few million dollars or less and would fall well below the annual threshold 

established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jacob Fabian (for 

federal costs) and Amy Petz (for private-sector mandates). The estiVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:04 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR160.XXX SR160
4 

11 16 U.S.C. §1852(a)(3) 12 16 U.S.C. §1854(g) 

mate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT

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

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

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

S. 396, as reported, would not create any new programs or impose any new regulatory requirements, and therefore would not 

subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 396 is not expected to have a negative impact on the Nation’s 

economy. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would have no impact on the personal privacy 

of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 396 would not increase paperwork requirements for either the 

private sector or public sector. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

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

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 

This section would clarify that an exemption provided for certain 

traditional fisheries and markets applies to billfish landed and retained locally. 

Section 2. Shark Conservation Act of 2010 

This section would amend section 104 of the Act of 2010 by deleting an expired offset and replacing it with a rule of construction, 

which would ensure that the Act of 2010 would not alter or diminish the authority of the Secretary to conserve and manage highly 

migratory fish species11 and Atlantic highly migratory species12

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

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

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

5 

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING 

MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT AND THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ACT TO IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS 

[Public Law 111–348; 124 Stat. 3668] 

øSEC. 104. OFFSET OF IMPLEMENTATION COST. 

øSection 308(a) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 

(16 U.S.C. 4107(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘2012.’’ and inserting 

‘‘2010, and $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012.’’.¿ 

SEC. 104. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall 

be construed as affecting, altering, or diminishing in any way the 

authority of the Secretary of Commerce to establish such conservation and management measures as the Secretary considers necessary and appropriate under sections 302(a)(3) and 304(g) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 

U.S.C. 1852(a)(3), 1854(g)). 

BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012 

[Public Law 112–183; 126 Stat. 1422] 

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON SALE OF BILLFISH. 

[16 U.S.C. 1827a] 

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

selling billfish or products containing billfish. 

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

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

(c) EXEMPTIONS FOR TRADITIONAL FISHERIES AND MARKETS.— 

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

fishing vessels and landed and retained in the State of Hawaii 

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

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

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

fishing vessels in the Pacific Insular Areas when the foreign 

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

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

(1) means any fish of the species— 

(A) Makaira nigricans (blue marlin); 

(B) Kajikia audax (striped marlin); 

(C) Istiompax indica (black marlin); 

(D) Istiophorus platypterus (sailfish); 

(E) Tetrapturus angustirostris (shortbill spearfish); 

(F) Kajikia albida (white marlin); 

(G) Tetrapturus georgii (roundscale spearfish); 

(H) Tetrapturus belone (Mediterranean spearfish); and 

(I) Tetrapturus pfluegeri (longbill spearfish); and 

6 

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

Æ