U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2014

113–132 

Calendar No. 291 

PIRATE FISHING ELIMINATION ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 267 

JANUARY 8, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

ED MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ELLEN DONESKI, Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 291 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–132 

PIRATE FISHING ELIMINATION ACT 

JANUARY 8, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 267] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 267) to prevent, deter, and eliminate 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing through port State 

measures, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 267, the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, is to 

make the changes to domestic law necessary for the United States 

to implement the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, 

Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Many fish stocks around the world have become depleted in the 

last several decades as a result of fleet overcapacity, overfishing, 

and ineffective fisheries law enforcement regimes. Coastal fishing 

nations are responsible for managing the fish stocks that fall within their domestic waters, which extend 200 nautical miles from 

their coastline, also known as their exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Unfortunately, many coastal nations do not manage fish stocks 

sustainably, enforce their fishery conservation and management 

measures effectively, or coordinate management of shared fish 

stocks with other fishing nations. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA), enacted in 1976 as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, provides the primary architecture for the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Jan 10, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR132.XXX SR132

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§1801-1884 

(2012) (first enacted as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94— 

265, 90 Stat. 331 (1976)). 2 6 U.S.C. § 468(a)(1)(D) (2012). 3 See generally Presidential Directive 27, Jan. 19, 1978 (establishing uniform procedures within the United States Government for dealing with non-military incidents which could have an 

adverse impact upon the conduct of U.S. foreign relations). 

servation and management of fisheries in U.S. Federal waters.1

Under the MSA, the U.S. Government exercises sovereign rights 

and exclusive management authority over fish and Continental 

Shelf fishery resources within the United States EEZ. The MSA 

vests the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) with overall authority 

for the management of these resources. The Secretary generally 

carries out these responsibilities through the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). The MSA calls for Regional Fishery Management Councils 

established by the Act (and the Secretary in certain cases) to develop fishery management plans, subject to the Secretary’s approval, that follow the Act’s requirements, including rebuilding 

overfished stocks and setting sustainable harvest levels using catch 

limits based on the best available science. The requirements of the 

MSA and the fishery management plans promulgated thereunder 

are enforced by the Secretary and the Secretary of the department 

in which the Coast Guard is operating. 

Coordinated management of fish stocks harvested on the high 

seas (i.e., waters beyond the jurisdiction of any nation) is accomplished by nations participating in Regional Fisheries Management 

Organizations (RFMOs) or through international agreements created to guide and coordinate the fishery management activities of 

multiple nations that target common stocks in specific regions. 

Each nation that chooses to participate in an RFMO or an international fishery agreement retains its sovereignty, yet is expected 

to develop domestic fisheries laws and regulations consistent with 

each agreement. The United States follows this practice and seeks 

to enact implementing legislation and promulgate regulations 

where necessary in order to meet its commitments in RFMOs and 

under international fisheries agreements. Short of such an agreement or implementing legislation, U.S. fisheries managers seek discussions with foreign counterparts to address concerns on interjurisdictional stock management. 

U.S. international fishery enforcement activities are conducted 

by the Coast Guard and NMFS under a longstanding interagency 

agreement. The Coast Guard, whose eleven statutory missions include fisheries law enforcement2, is responsible for conducting 

international (as well as domestic) fishery patrols and all other atsea enforcement, while NMFS is responsible for dockside and 

landside enforcement. The Coast Guard conducts its international 

enforcement operations in close coordination with the State Department, as required by Presidential Directive 27.3 NMFS and the 

Coast Guard also provide input to the State Department for the negotiation of international fishery agreements and the review and 

approval of foreign fishing vessel permit applications. 

Foreign Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing 

The term ‘‘IUU fishing’’ describes a range of fishing activities, including: the failure to report, or the misreporting of, catches; fishVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Jan 10, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR132.XXX SR132

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

4 David J. Agnew et al., Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing, PLoS ONE, Feb. 

2009, at 4. 5 See, e.g., Jeffrey Gettleman, Pirates Tell Their Side: They Want Only Money, N.Y. TIMES, 

Oct. 1, 2008, at A6; Paul Salopek, Somali Pirates Say It’s All about Payback, Exacting Tax for 

Years of Fish Poaching, They Say Waters Became Dumping Ground, SEATTLE TIMES, Oct. 15, 

2008, at A9; Todd Pittman, Somali Pirates a Far Cry from Buccaneers of Old, ASSOCIATED 

Continued 

ing without the permission of a coastal country; the reflagging of 

vessels to countries that are unable or unwilling to adequately control their fishing activity; and noncompliance with fishing gear and 

area rules. The extent to which IUU fishing occurs is not fully 

known, but some have estimated that it accounts for as much as 

a fourth of the world’s fish catch and, as such, represents one of 

the greatest challenges to sustainable global fishery conservation 

and management. It has been estimated in recent years that worldwide IUU fish harvests are worth between $10 billion and $23.5 

billion annually, and represent between 11 million and 26 million 

tons.4 Annual IUU harvests at these levels likely create significant 

ecological impacts. 

Worldwide, the amount of IUU fishing appears to be increasing 

as IUU fishermen attempt to avoid stricter fishing rules created to 

address declining fish stocks. Preventing IUU fishing on the high 

seas is difficult due to the vast areas of ocean to monitor, enforcement resource limitations, and a high volume of operating fishing 

vessels. Current international efforts to eliminate IUU fishing are 

mainly led through the United Nations (U.N.) Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO), and are primarily focused on persuading individual nations to better control and manage their fishing fleets. 

RFMOs generally strive to follow guidelines established by the 

U.N. to combat IUU fishing. The U.N. also plays an important role 

in addressing labor abuses on fishing vessels. 

IUU Challenges for Developing Countries 

In an effort to generate revenue, the governments of many developing coastal countries have negotiated agreements that allow developed countries, including European countries, China, and Russia, to harvest their fishery resources. In many instances, officials 

from developing countries have oversold fishing rights, thereby increasing potential total catches of their fish stocks well beyond sustainable levels. Fishing under these circumstances inevitably leads 

to overexploitation of fishery resources, and this problem is exacerbated by the fact that many developing coastal countries lack the 

capacity to conduct fish stock assessments, define sustainable harvest levels, and monitor compliance with and enforce fishery conservation and management measures. Taken together, these factors 

can result in rapid declines in abundance of local fish stocks which, 

in turn, threaten the livelihoods of local fishermen. Such circumstances have also led to illegal trafficking, exploitation, and 

physical abuse of what are often migrant workers on fishing vessels 

operating in the waters of developing nations. 

In some cases, these circumstances have even caused fishermen 

to turn to piracy. A prime example is the coastal country of Somalia. It has been widely reported that there are direct connections 

between the significant increases in piratical activity off the Horn 

of Africa in the past decade and reduced fishing opportunities 

among Somali fishermen during the same time period.5 The inVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:27 Jan 10, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR132.XXX SR132

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

PRESS ONLINE, Apr. 11, 2009; Jason Straziuso, Fishermen See Benefits to Pirates, the Trawlers That Used to Scoop up All the Fish, Kenyan Fishermen Say, Have Been Scared Away, L.A. 

TIMES, Mar. 7, 2010, at 11; and Abdiqani Hassan, A Pirate’s Life of Luxury Comes with Risk, 

Scorn, Ex-fisherman Lured to Sea by Huge Ransom Payouts, CHI. TRIB., Mar. 13, 2011, at 30. 6 U.N. Security Council, Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 751 (1992) and 

1907 (2009) concerning Somalia and Eritrea, Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and 

Eritrea pursuant to Security Council resolution 2060 (2012): Somalia, 42, U.N. Doc. S/2013/413 

(Jul. 12, 2013). 7 Id. ¶ 41. 8 Id. ¶ 43. 

creased pirate attacks seem to have originated as a response to foreign IUU fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters, 

both of which had a negative impact on fishing for Somali fishermen, and subsequently expanded into a ransom-driven, hostagetaking enterprise. More recently, it has been reported that the relationship between Somali piracy and IUU fishing has come full circle. In July 2013, the U.N. Security Council published a special report on Somalia which indicates that Somali pirates are now turning from hijacking ships to providing ‘‘private security’’ for vessels 

illegally fishing in Somali waters.6 Specifically, the report states 

that in northern Somalia a number of these individuals are reverting to prior, familiar patterns of illicit behavior, including armed 

protection of fishing activities and illegal fishing, arms trafficking, 

human trafficking, and transshipment of narcotics.7 The U.N. report also notes that illegal fishing has been reported to facilitate 

other forms of contraband, including weapons smuggling.8 The situation in Somalia makes clear that foreign IUU fishing has broader 

implications beyond international fishery conservation and management. 

In recent years, marine policy experts have recommended a number of measures to combat IUU fishing, particularly along the 

coasts of developing countries. These recommendations have included ending the system of flags of convenience, improving port 

inspections and strengthening port state controls, and reducing the 

fishing pressure caused by large fishing fleets from industrialized 

nations. These measures require resources, including funding, staff, 

technology, and expertise, that remain largely unavailable in many 

developing countries. Many foreign aid organizations, such as the 

World Bank, attempt to direct foreign financial and technical assistance to improve the sustainability of coastal nations’ fisheries, 

but the United States has undertaken only limited efforts to assist 

developing countries in targeting IUU fishing. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA), Pub. L. 109—479, 120 Stat. 

3575 (2006), which was passed by the 109th Congress and signed 

into law in January 2007, made significant improvements in the 

area of international fisheries conservation. The overarching theme 

of these improvements was the enhancement and expansion of the 

authority of the Secretary to work through various multilateral organizations, such as RFMOs, to address IUU fishing and bycatch 

of protected living marine resources (PLMR). 

Specifically, title IV of the MSRA amended the High Seas 

Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (Moratorium Protection Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1826d-1826k (2012), to require the Secretary 

to produce a biennial report to Congress which includes: the state 

of knowledge on the status of international living marine resources 

that are shared by the United States or are subject to a treaty or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

agreement to which the United States is a party, including a list 

of all fish stocks classified as overfished, overexploited, depleted, 

endangered, or threatened with extinction by international or other 

authorities charged with management or conservation of living marine resources; a list of nations the United States has identified as 

having vessels engaged in IUU fishing, bycatch of PLMR, or both; 

a description of efforts taken by listed nations to take appropriate 

corrective action; progress in strengthening the efforts of international fishery management organizations to end IUU fishing; 

and the steps taken by the Secretary at the international level to 

adopt measures comparable to those of the United States to reduce 

the impacts of fishing and other practices on PLMR. 

The MSRA also amended the Moratorium Protection Act to, 

among other things: require the Secretary to pursue specific improvements to strengthen international fishery management organizations through the adoption of IUU vessel lists, stronger port 

State controls, and market-related measures; require the Secretary 

to promote improved monitoring and surveillance of international 

fisheries; authorize the Secretary to promulgate implementing 

rules relating to certification for listed nations; and provide authority to prohibit the importation into the United States of fish and 

fish products from listed nations that fail to address deficiencies in 

preventing IUU fishing and PLMR bycatch. 

The Agreement on Port State Measures 

Internationally, the United States has actively worked to 

strengthen existing RFMOs through renegotiation of their underlying agreements or the negotiation of new protocols. With substantial U.S. involvement, international fishery management organizations have adopted and shared IUU vessel lists; used observers and 

technologies to monitor compliance; promoted and used centralized 

vessel monitoring systems (VMS); established trade tracking and 

documentation schemes; prevented trade in or importation of IUUcaught fish or other living marine resources; and protected vulnerable marine ecosystems. Additionally, at the thirty-sixth session of 

the U.N. Conference of the FAO in 2009, 92 participating nations, 

including the United States, took a significant step towards curtailing IUU fishing by adopting the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (Agreement on Port State Measures or Agreement). The Agreement, of which the United States was a primary 

negotiator and one of its first signatories, is the first global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU fishing. It sets forth 

minimum standards for the conduct of dockside inspections and 

training of inspectors and, most significantly, would require parties 

to restrict port entry and port services to foreign vessels known or 

suspected of having been involved in IUU fishing, particularly 

those on the IUU vessel list maintained by an RFMO. Since all fish 

must be brought to port to enter into trade, closing ports to illegal 

product is an effective way to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU 

fishing. The Agreement would also require information sharing, including the sharing of inspection results, with Parties and other 

relevant actors to the Agreement when evidence of IUU fishing is 

found during the course of an inspection. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

On November 14, 2011, President Obama transmitted the text of 

the Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent, where it is 

currently pending before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Broad ratification and implementation of the Agreement was 

called for at the United Nations General Assembly in December 

2010 (Res. 65/38), at the twenty-ninth meeting of the FAO’s Committee on Fisheries in February 2012, and at the Joint Meeting of 

the Tuna RFMOs in La Jolla, CA in July 2012. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, S. 267, would make the 

changes to domestic law necessary for the United States to implement the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and 

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing. The Secretary would have primary responsibility for promulgating regulations and developing procedures necessary to carry out the purposes and requirements of the Act, with the Coast Guard and 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service serving as primary enforcement authorities for the requirements of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Act would authorize the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating, to: (1) designate ports to 

which foreign-flagged fishing or fishing-related vessels may seek 

entry, and establish uniform information-gathering and review 

processes for granting or denying port entry and use of port services to such vessels; (2) conduct inspections of such vessels suspected of IUU fishing or related activities; (3) deny port entry or 

port services to such vessels that have been engaged in IUU fishing; and (4) provide notice, acting through the Secretary of State, 

to relevant flag states, coastal nations, RFMOs, and other nations 

and international organizations regarding a vessel that is believed 

to have engaged in IUU fishing or related activities or has been denied port entry or port services. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Rockefeller introduced S. 267, the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act, on February 11, 2013. S. 267 is cosponsored by Senators Begich, Blumenthal, Cantwell, Hirono, Merkley, Murkowski, 

Nelson, Schatz, Whitehouse, and Wyden. Similar legislation, S. 

1980, was introduced by Senator Inouye during the 112th Congress 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On July 30, 2013, the Committee met in open executive 

session and, by a voice vote, ordered S. 267 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. 267—Pirate Fishing Elimination Act 

S. 267 would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) to implement an international agreement 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

to reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Under 

the bill, NOAA would be required to identify ports that can be used 

by foreign vessels, coordinate inspections of those vessels with the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), deny port entry to vessels that have engaged in IUU fishing, and share information with foreign governments and other entities regarding the results of inspections and 

any actions taken if IUU fishing is discovered. S. 267 also would 

establish civil and criminal penalties for entities that violate provisions in the bill. 

Based on information provided by NOAA and the USCG, CBO 

estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Implementing S. 267 would not 

significantly affect the workload of NOAA and the USCG because 

those agencies already carry out the activities required under the 

bill. Enacting the legislation could increase revenues (from civil 

and criminal penalties) and associated direct spending; therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that such 

increases would be small and would offset each other in most 

years. 

CBO has not reviewed S. 267 for intergovernmental and privatesector mandates because section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from the application of that act any legislative 

provisions that are necessary for the ratification or implementation 

of international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that the 

bill falls within that exclusion. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeff LaFave and 

Sarah Puro. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 

Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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. 267 would make refinements to NOAA and the Coast Guard’s 

existing statutory authorities to better enable them to limit and 

regulate access to U.S. ports and port services in order to curtail 

IUU fishing activity. It would authorize the Secretary to designate 

ports to which foreign vessels involved in fishing or fishing-related 

activity may request entry, and to require such vessels to provide 

advance notice for such requests. It would generally require the 

Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating to deny port entry to those vessels known to 

have engaged in or supported IUU fishing, as well as to prohibit 

vessels already in U.S. ports from landing, transshipping, packaging, or processing fish where there is evidence they have engaged 

in or supported IUU fishing. 

The provisions of the bill would generally apply with respect to 

foreign vessels seeking entry to or in a port subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, vessels of the United States seeking 

entry to or in a port subject to the jurisdiction of another party to 

the Agreement, and persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

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

Nation’s economy. IUU-caught fish significantly undercut the value 

of legally, sustainably caught fish in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Because S. 267 would substantially curtail 

the entry of IUU-caught fish into the stream of commerce in the 

United States, it is expected to have a positive impact on the domestic fishing and seafood industries. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would not have any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 267 would require a vessel covered by the Act to submit to the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port certain basic information about 

the vessel when it is requesting port entry. However, much of the 

information (such as a vessel’s name, type, flag state, dimensions, 

destination, estimated date and time of arrival, IMO ship identification number, international radio call sign) is already reported 

and available to the Coast Guard via automated information system transmissions, the Coast Guard’s Marine Information Safety 

and Law Enforcement System, and other sources. Because the bill 

would require that the procedure for submitting vessel information 

utilize existing Coast Guard reporting mechanisms to the maximum extent possible, S. 267 is not expected to impose any new paperwork requirements on private citizens or businesses. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

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

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. 

This section would provide that this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pirate Fishing Elimination Act,’’ and would set forth a table of contents for the Act. 

Section 2. Purpose. 

This section provides that the purpose of the Act is to implement 

the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and 

Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, done at 

the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 

Rome, Italy, on November 22, 2009. 

Section 3. Definitions. 

This section would define the following terms: ‘‘Agreement,’’ ‘‘authorized officer,’’ ‘‘conservation and management measures,’’ ‘‘container vessel,’’ ‘‘FAO,’’ ‘‘fish,’’ ‘‘fishing,’’ ‘‘fishing-related activity,’’ 

‘‘foreign vessel,’’ ‘‘illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing’’ or 

‘‘IUU fishing,’’ ‘‘landing,’’ ‘‘listed IUU vessel,’’ ‘‘Party,’’ ‘‘person,’’ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

‘‘port,’’ ‘‘previously landed,’’ ‘‘processing,’’ ‘‘regional fisheries management organization’’ or ‘‘RFMO,’’ ‘‘Secretary,’’ ‘‘State,’’ ‘‘transshipment,’’ ‘‘vessel,’’ and ‘‘vessel of the United States.’’ 

Section 4. Application. 

This section would delineate the vessels and persons to which 

this Act would apply, including foreign vessels seeking entry to a 

port subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, U.S. vessels 

seeking entry to a port subject to the jurisdiction of another Party 

to the Agreement, and each person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States. The Act would not apply to a container vessel that 

is not carrying fish or to a container vessel with previously landed 

fish or for which the Secretary of Commerce has no clear grounds 

to suspect it of having been engaged in IUU fishing or related activities. 

Section 5. Duties of the Secretary. 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, to develop regulations and procedures as may be necessary to carry out the purposes 

of this Act and to designate and publicly list each port to which a 

vessel described in section 4 may seek entry. This section would 

also authorize the Secretary of Commerce to designate a point of 

contact to the FAO for adhering to the Agreement’s requirements 

regarding the electronic exchange of information and to cooperate 

in establishing information-sharing mechanisms relevant to the 

Agreement. The Secretary of Commerce would also be required to 

provide information regarding the legal remedies afforded to persons affected by an action under this Act. 

Section 6. Advance Notice of Vessel Arrival, Authorization, or Denial of Port Entry. 

This section would require covered vessels to submit to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating information required under the Agreement in advance of the vessel’s 

arrival to a port. It would direct the Secretary of Commerce, coordinating with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 

Guard is operating and the Secretary of State, to develop a procedure for such vessels to submit this information, ideally through 

existing reporting mechanisms, and to authorize or deny port 

entry. The Secretary of Commerce would be authorized to deny 

entry to any listed IUU vessel or any vessel that the Secretary has 

reasonable grounds to believe that has engaged in IUU fishing or 

IUU-related activities or has violated this Act. Such vessels would 

be provided notice of the denial of port entry, as would relevant 

coastal nations, RFMOs, and other international organizations. 

Port entry may be permissible to such vessels if they are under duress and require assistance, for scrapping purposes, or for inspection or other enforcement. 

Section 7. Denial of Port Services. 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to deny 

covered vessels that have been authorized to enter port under section 6 use of port services (i.e., landing, transshipment, packaging 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

and processing of fish, refueling, resupplying maintenance, and 

drydocking) if: (1) the vessel previously entered port without section 6 authorization; (2) is a listed IUU vessel; or (3) is under reasonable suspicion by the Secretary of Commerce of lacking authorization to fish, having taken fish on board in violation of foreign 

law or any conservation and management measures, or engaging in 

IUU fishing or IUU related activities. Port services could be authorized for such vessels if these services are essential to the safety 

of the vessel or health of its crew, for scrapping purposes, or for 

inspection or other enforcement. Should the Secretary of Commerce 

determine denial of port services was based on inadequate, erroneous, or non-applicable grounds, the Secretary would be required 

to notify the vessel and withdraw the denial. 

Section 8. Inspections. 

This section would require the Secretary of Commerce and the 

Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating 

to conduct vessel inspections for the purposes of the Agreement and 

this Act. The Secretary would be required to prioritize these inspections based on whether the vessel has been denied entry or use of 

the port in accordance with the Agreement; a request from another 

relevant Party, State or RFMO that a certain vessel be inspected; 

and whether there are clear grounds to suspect the vessel of being 

engaged in IUU fishing or related activities. Under this section, the 

Secretary of Commerce would be required to transmit the results 

of an inspection to the flag nation of the inspected vessel, and, as 

appropriate, each relevant Party, nation, RFMO, international organization, and the FAO. Should the inspection provide reasonable 

grounds to believe that the vessel has engaged in IUU fishing or 

related activities, the Secretary would be authorized to take enforcement actions under this Act or other applicable law and deny 

the vessel the use of port services. 

Section 9. Prohibited Acts. 

This section would make it unlawful for any person to impede or 

refuse to permit boarding to an authorized officer conducting investigation or enforcement activities; resist lawful arrest; interfere 

with the detection of a person violating this Act; submit false information; forcibly assault, resist, harass, or bribe authorized observers or data collectors; import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or 

fish product taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of 

any foreign law or treaty addressing the conservation or management of living marine resources, or any conservation and management measures; falsify records or identifications of fish; or carry 

out other acts prohibited by this Act. 

Section 10. Enforcement. 

This section would require the Secretary of Commerce and the 

Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating 

to enforce the provisions of this Act and to authorize officers to conduct the enforcement activities of this Act. Authorized officers 

would be permitted to make appropriate arrests, searches, inspections, seizures, and detentions of persons, vessels, fish or fish products, or information relevant to the enforcement of this Act. This 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

section also would set forth forfeiture procedures and administrative, civil and criminal penalties that would be associated with the 

enforcement and violation of this Act. 

Section 11. International Cooperation and Assistance. 

This section would require the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate and feasible, to provide assistance to developing nations and 

international organizations of which such nations are members 

with meeting their obligations under the Agreement, including 

through the use of grants and the transfer of funds, subject to the 

limits of available appropriations, to any relevant foreign government, international, non-governmental, or intergovernmental organization. The Secretary may, by Agreement, utilize the personnel, 

services, equipment, and facilities of any individual, corporation, 

partnership, association, or other entity, and any Federal, State, 

local, or foreign government or any entity of any such government 

to this end. 

Section 12. Relationship to Other Laws. 

This section would provide that nothing in this Act would displace any requirements imposed by the customs laws of the United 

States or any other laws or regulations enforced or administered by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security; that where more stringent requirements regarding port entry or access to port services exist 

under other Federal law, the more stringent requirements would 

apply; and that nothing in this Act would affect a vessel’s entry 

into port, in accordance with international law, for reasons of force 

majeure or distress. 

Section 13. Authorization of Appropriations. 

This section would authorize such sums as are necessary to be 

appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the provisions of this Act for fiscal years 2013–2017. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS