U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–388 

Calendar No. 675 

SHARK FIN TRADE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 793 

NOVEMBER 27, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND 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 TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA Fisheries, ‘‘2014 Shark 

Finning Report to Congress’’ (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/sca/documents/ 

shark_finning_report_2014.pdf). 2Shark Finning Prohibition Act (16 U.S.C. §1822 note). 3P.L. 111–348 (124 Stat. 3668). 4 16 U.S.C. §1826i. 

Calendar No. 675 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 115–388 

SHARK FIN TRADE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2017 

NOVEMBER 27, 2018.—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. 793] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 793) to prohibit sale of shark fins, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 

and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 793 is to prohibit a person from possessing, 

transporting, offering for sale, selling, or purchasing shark fins or 

products containing shark fins. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Shark finning is the practice of removing and retaining a shark’s 

fin and discarding the carcass at sea. This practice has led to a 

growing concern about the status of certain shark species.1 Shark 

finning has been prohibited under Federal law since 2000.2 The 

Shark Conservation Act of 2010 3 amended section 608 of the High 

Seas Driftnet Fishing Protection Act 4 to further prohibit the removal of any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea. The prohibition focuses on 

2 

5 16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq. 6 NOAA, NOAA Fisheries, ‘‘Shark Conservation in the United States and Abroad’’ (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/07/7_15_13shark_conservation_us_and_abroad.html). 

the removal and custody of a detached fin aboard a fishing vessel 

in U.S.-controlled waters. But, there is no Federal ban on the removal and sale of shark fins once the shark is brought ashore. 

Once a shark fin is detached from the body, it is almost impossible 

to determine whether the shark was legally caught or the fin lawfully removed. Determination of the species also is difficult, which 

is problematic given that some species of sharks are threatened 

with extinction. 

In addition to the nationwide prohibition on shark finning, 11 

States (Texas, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, California, and Washington) and 3 territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) have already implemented bans on the sale, 

and in many cases the possession, of shark fins. A proposed ban 

is currently pending in New Jersey. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA) 5 guides management of Federal fisheries resources 

through the use of fishery management plans within the eight established regional councils. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service works with the 

fishery management councils, commercial and recreational fishermen, and others to conserve and sustainably manage domestic 

shark fisheries in both the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and the Pacific Ocean. Sustainably 

managed shark fisheries, including the selling of legally harvested 

shark fins, provide opportunities for both commercial and recreational fishermen.6

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

If enacted, S. 793 would do the following: 

• Prohibit a person from possessing, transporting, offering for 

sale, selling, or purchasing shark fins or products containing 

shark fins, unless taken lawfully under a State, territorial, 

or Federal license or permit. 

• Establish a maximum penalty for each violation of $100,000, 

or the fair market value of the shark fins, whichever is 

greater. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 793 was introduced on March 30, 2017, by Senator Booker (for 

himself and Senators Capito, Cantwell, McCain, Peters, Inhofe, 

Whitehouse, Wicker, Blumenthal, Portman, and Schatz) and was 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. There are 29 additional cosponsors. A nearly 

identical bill, H.R. 1456, was introduced on March 9, 2017, in the 

House of Representatives. On May 18, 2017, the Committee met in 

open Executive Session and by voice vote ordered S. 793 reported 

favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). 

3 

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. 793—Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 

S. 793 would prohibit the sale, transport, possession, and purchase of shark fins and products containing shark fins. Violators of 

this prohibition would be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

The bill also would allow for the lawful possession of shark fins obtained via a state, territorial, or federal license or permit if the 

shark fin is destroyed or discarded, used for noncommercial purposes, or used for display or research purposes by a museum, college, university, or any permitted researcher. The prohibition in 

the bill would not apply to Mustelus canis (smooth dogfish) or 

Squalus acanthias (spiny dogfish). 

Because S. 793 would prohibit the sale and purchase of shark 

fins, CBO estimates that revenues from customs duties collected on 

imported shark fin products would decline. CBO also estimates 

that penalty collections resulting from violations of the bill’s prohibitions would increase revenues. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, based on information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and from states that 

ban the possession of shark fins, CBO estimates that the net effect 

of those revenue changes would not be significant in any year or 

over the 2018–2027 period. Enacting the bill would not affect direct 

spending. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not significantly increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 

the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

S. 793 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. 793 would impose private-sector mandates 

as defined in UMRA. The cost of complying with those mandates 

would include any loss of income from the sale of shark fins and 

products containing shark fins and the cost to obtain a license or 

permit for noncommercial takings. Based on information from 

NOAA about the value of sharks landed in the United States and 

the value of shark fins imported into the United States, CBO estimates that the loss of income would total less than $3 million annually. Additionally, CBO estimates that the cost of obtaining a 

permit for the possession of shark fins for noncommercial purposes 

would be minimal and would apply to a limited number of entities. 

Consequently, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandates would 

fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million in 2017, 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 estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

4 

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. 793, as reported, would not create any new programs. However, it may impose new regulatory requirements. The prohibition 

of shark finning would likely be detailed in a rulemaking and may 

subject individuals or businesses to new regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The reported bill would not have an adverse economic impact on 

the Nation. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would not have a negative impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

The legislation would not increase paperwork requirements for 

private individuals or businesses. The bill would require one report 

from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) by January 1, 2027, 

discussing the impacts, if any, of the exemption allowing for the 

continued harvest of spiny dogfish and smooth dogfish fins and 

tails. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

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

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

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

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would provide that the Act may be cited as the 

‘‘Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2. Findings. 

This section would provide the sense of Congress that: many 

shark populations are on the decline and the global trade of shark 

fins is one of its greatest threats; shark fins are removed primarily 

to be commercialized as a fungible commodity, and are often removed while the remainder of the shark is discarded; and abolition 

of the shark fin trade in the United States will remove the United 

States from the global market and create a stronger position for advocacy internationally. 

Section 3. Prohibition on sale of shark fins. 

This section would prohibit a person from possessing, transporting, offering for sale, selling, or purchasing shark fins or products containing shark fins, unless taken lawfully under a State, 

5 

territorial, or Federal license or permit as authorized by section 4. 

This section also would align the violation with the penalties under 

the MSA with a maximum civil penalty for each violation of 

$100,000 or the fair market value of the shark fin, whichever is 

greater. 

Section 4. Exceptions. 

This section would provide an exception allowing a person to possess a shark fin that was taken lawfully under a State, territorial, 

or Federal license or permit to take or land sharks, if the shark fin 

is separated from the shark in a manner consistent with the license or permit and is— 

(1) destroyed or discarded upon separation; 

(2) used for noncommercial subsistence purposes in accordance with State or territorial law; 

(3) used solely for display or research purposes by a museum, college, or university, or other person under a State 

or Federal permit to conduct noncommercial scientific research; or 

(4) retained by the license or permit holder for a noncommercial purpose. 

Section 5. Dogfish. 

This section would create an exemption from the prohibition 

under section 3 for the species known as smooth dogfish and spiny 

dogfish and allow a person to possess, transport, offer for sale, sell, 

or purchase a fin or tail from those species. This section also would 

require the Secretary to review the exemption and submit a report 

to Congress with recommendations not later than January 1, 2027. 

Section 6. Definition of shark fin. 

This section would define the term ‘‘shark fin’’ to mean the raw, 

dried, or otherwise processed detached fin or tail of a shark. 

Section 7. State authority. 

This section would clarify that nothing in this Act should be construed to preclude or limit the right of a State or territory to adopt 

or enforce more stringent standards. 

Section 8. Severability. 

This section would specify that if any provision of the Act is 

found invalid it would not affect other provisions of the Act which 

are severable. 

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