[Senate Report 115-430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     Calendar No. 729
115th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session         }                                   {      115-430
_______________________________________________________________________


            DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 2773







[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






               December 11, 2018.--Ordered to be printed
                                   ______
		 
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
		 
89-010                    WASHINGTON : 2018                 




























       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
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
           Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director



















                                                      Calendar No. 729
115th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session         }                                   {      115-430

======================================================================



 
            DRIFTNET MODERNIZATION AND BYCATCH REDUCTION ACT

                                _______
                                

               December 11, 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. 2773]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 2773) to improve the management 
of driftnet fishing, 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. 2773 is to phase out the U.S. West Coast 
large-scale driftnet fishery, which primarily targets 
swordfish, and to implement a program to help the affected 
fishers transition to alternative gear types.

                          Background and Needs

    Large-scale driftnet fishing, as defined by the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), is a 
method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a panel or 
panels of webbing, or a series of such gillnets, with a total 
length of two and one-half kilometers (just over one and one 
half statute miles) or more is placed in the water and allowed 
to drift with the currents and winds for the purpose of 
entangling fish.\1\ The only such large-scale drift gillnet 
fishery in the United States is on the west coast and primarily 
targets swordfish, but also harvests other commercially 
valuable species, such as thresher and mako shark and opah 
(also known as moonfish).

              BYCATCH ISSUES IN THE DRIFT GILLNET FISHERY

    The term ``bycatch'' refers to species that are harvested 
in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, 
and includes both unmarketable and regulatory discards.\2\ In 
the early 1990s, the U.S. swordfish gillnet fishery off the 
west coast killed hundreds of whales, sea turtles, and dolphins 
annually.\3\ Beginning in 1996, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take 
Reduction Team under the authority of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act to develop strategies to reduce entanglement of 
protected species, which included net modifications and sound-
emitting devices. NMFS also designated two large conservation 
areas off the west coast that are closed to drift gillnet 
fishing when endangered sea turtles are known to be frequently 
present. These measures have resulted in a decline of bycatch 
of protected species to levels comparable to other U.S. 
fisheries, including the U.S. Atlantic swordfish longline 
fishery.\4\

                           PERMITTING HISTORY

    The MSA prohibits large-scale driftnet fishing that is 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., in 
waters where U.S. law applies) and by U.S. vessels beyond the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ)\5\ of any nation.\6\ Within the 
U.S. EEZ, the drift gillnet fishery on the west coast\7\ is co-
managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) NMFS, the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council (PFMC), and California, operating under a limited entry 
permit system.\8\ Federal management of the West Coast drift 
gillnet fishery occurs under the PFMC's Highly Migratory 
Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS partially 
approved the HMS FMP in 2004, except for the recommendation to 
implement Federal permitting of the fishery. Until 2018, West 
Coast drift gillnet fishery permits were issued only by States. 
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission managed the drift 
gillnet fishery for swordfish under the Developmental Fisheries 
Program. In 2009, Oregon removed swordfish from the 
Developmental Fisheries Program and, consequently, State 
permits to fish with drift gillnet gear off Oregon are no 
longer allowed, leaving California as the only State permitting 
this fishery.\9\ More recently, in September 2018, California 
enacted legislation to phase out the use of large-mesh drift 
gillnets under California law and compensate a permit holder 
set amounts for a permit ($10,000) and gear ($100,000).\10\
    At the Federal level, in March 2017, the PFMC recommended 
amending the HMS FMP to implement a limited entry drift gillnet 
permit, which would put all aspects of the drift gillnet 
fishery under MSA authority. In March 2018, NMFS issued a final 
rule to implement this recommendation to create a Federal 
limited entry permit for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift 
gillnet fishery.\11\ Under the FMP as amended, the relatively 
few remaining California permit holders (the number of active 
participating vessels in the fishery has remained low, with 
under 50 vessels since 2003, and an average of only 20 active 
vessels per year from 2010 through 2015\12\) have until March 
31, 2019, to obtain their Federal permits. If such a permit 
holder does not obtain a Federal permit by this deadline, he or 
she will lose the opportunity to do so.

                            ALTERNATIVE GEAR

    The only other gear currently authorized for targeting 
swordfish in the U.S. West Coast EEZ is harpoon gear. In 2014, 
the PFMC recommended, and in 2015 NMFS approved, the first of 
several exempted fishing permits to evaluate the success and 
economic viability of alternative gears to target swordfish in 
the Eastern Pacific Ocean.\13\ These alternative gears include 
deep-set buoys and deep-set longlines. The West Coast design 
for deep-set buoy gear uses heavy weights to lower baited hooks 
to depths of more than 1,000 feet during the day, avoiding 
unmarketable or federally protected species that reside in 
shallower waters. The buoy gear uses an electronic strike 
detection system to alert fishermen when a fish is on the line 
and allows for quick retrieval when hooked.\14\ Swordfish 
caught by deep-set buoy gear can fetch higher market prices for 
fishermen with a lower rate of bycatch of nonmarketable species 
and protected species,\15\ though it is yet unknown if this 
would translate to higher market value for all permitted 
fishers if the entire fishery were to transition to deep-set 
buoy gear.

                          PREVIOUS RULEMAKING

    In 2016, the PFMC recommended that NMFS implement 
regulations for the California/Oregon large-mesh drift gillnet 
fishery to establish hard caps on the number of certain 
protected species (sea turtles, Endangered Species Act-listed 
marine mammals, bottlenose dolphins, and short-finned pilot 
whales) caught, and close the fishery for the remainder of the 
season if the caps are met or exceeded within a rolling 2-year 
period. NOAA proposed this rulemaking in October 2016,\16\ but 
later withdrew it in June 2017,\17\ having concluded that the 
proposal would have likely imposed significant new costs while 
also overlapping existing conservation measures already in 
place and therefore not providing significant conservation 
benefit.\18\ The Marine Mammal Commission found the proposed 
regulations inadequately justified, and expressed concern about 
potentially undermining the integrity of the take reduction 
process of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.\19\ On October 24, 
2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California held that NOAA's withdrawal of the October 2016 
rulemaking exceeded the agency's authority under the MSA and 
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\20\ The court remanded 
the matter for further action by NOAA consistent with the 
requirements of section 304 of the MSA (16 U.S.C. 1854) and the 
APA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(25).
    \2\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(2).
    \3\NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, ``Two Decades Later, 
Focused Efforts on Reducing Entanglements in Gillnet Fishery Still 
Paying Off,'' June 2017 (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
stories/2017/09_06082017_drift_gillnet.html) (accessed July 18, 2018).
    \4\Id.
    \5\The U.S. EEZ is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea of the 
United States, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. 
overseas territories and possessions that extends 200 nautical miles 
from shore, as established by Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 
10, 1983. For purposes of the MSA, the inner boundary of the EEZ is a 
line coterminous with the seaward boundary of each of the coastal 
States.
    \6\16 U.S.C. Sec. 1857(1)(M).
    \7\As defined in 60 CFR 660.702, a drift gillnet is a panel of 
netting, 14 inch (35.5 cm) stretched mesh or greater, suspended 
vertically in the water by floats along the top and weights along the 
bottom. A drift gillnet is not stationary or anchored to the bottom.
    \8\NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, 
``Swordfish Large Mesh Drift Gillnet'' (http://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/migratory_species/hms_DGN_
gear.html) (accessed July 18, 2018).
    \9\Pacific Fishery Management Council, Current HMS SAFE Report: 
Commercial Fisheries Descriptions, May 3, 2018 (https://
www.pcouncil.org/highly-migratory-species/stock-assessment-and-fishery-
evaluation-safe-documents/current-hms-safe-document/commercial-
fisheries-
descriptions/#dgn) (accessed July 20, 2018).
    \10\See 2018 Cal.Stat. ch. 844.
    \11\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries Off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Implementation of a 
Federal Limited Entry Drift Gillnet Permit, 85 83 Federal Register 
11146 (Mar. 14, 2018).
    \12\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, Final Regulatory Impact Review and 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery 
Proposed Rule, RIN 0648-BG23, May 2017.
    \13\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``Status of Exempted Fishing 
Permits'' (http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/
migratory_species/status_exempted_permits.html) (accessed February 23, 
2018).
    \14\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``Innovation in Swordfish Fishery 
Fetches a Higher Market Price,'' February 2017 (http://
www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2017/
06_02062017_swordfish_efp_tagging.html).
    \15\Id.
    \16\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery, RIN 
0648-BG23, 81 Federal Register 70660 (Oct. 1, 2016).
    \17\NOAA NMFS, Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory 
Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard 
Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery, RIN 
0648-BG23, 82 Federal Register 26902 (June 12, 2017).
    \18\NOAA NMFS West Coast Region, ``FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet 
(DGN) fishery & protected species,'' June 8, 2017.
    \19\Marine Mammal Commission letter to NMFS West Coast Region Re: 
NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123. December 28, 2016 (http://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/
uploads/16-12-28Enriques-DGN-Fishery-Hard-Caps-.pdf).
    \20\See generally Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 
(DE 54) and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Oceana Inc. 
v. Ross, Case No. 2:17-cv-05146-RGK-JEM (C.D.Cal. 2018).
    \21\50 CFR 660.702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    If enacted, S. 2773, the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch 
Reduction Act, as amended, would do the following:
     Direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a 
            transition program for existing driftnet permit 
            holders to facilitate the adoption of alternative 
            fishing gear and to make grants to affected fishers 
            through the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program.
     Prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing 
            by U.S. vessels within the U.S. EEZ not later than 
            5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          Legislative History

    S. 2773 was introduced on April 26, 2018, by Senator 
Feinstein (for herself and Senators Capito and Harris) and was 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate. Senators Wicker and Blumenthal 
joined as cosponsors on June 21, 2018. On September 5, 2018, 
the Committee met in open Executive Session and by voice vote 
ordered S. 2773 reported favorably with an amendment (in the 
nature of a substitute).
    A companion bill, H.R. 5638, was introduced by 
Representative Lieu, of California, in the House of 
Representatives on April 26, 2018, which was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans of the Committee on 
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives.

                            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:

Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act

    S. 2773 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act to require the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct a transition 
program to facilitate the phaseout of large-scale driftnet 
fishing. The bill would authorize NOAA to provide grants to 
operators of driftnet fishing vessels with federal permits to 
cover the cost of permitting fees, forfeited fishing gear, and 
new alternative fishing gear.
    According to NOAA, 56 vessels currently have driftnet 
fishing permits. CBO expects that most but not all of those 
vessels would apply for grants. Using information from NOAA on 
the expected costs to vessels of forfeiting fishing gear and 
purchasing alternate gear, CBO estimates that implementing S. 
2773 would cost $4 million over the 2019-2023 period. Such 
spending would be subject to the appropriation of the necessary 
amounts.
    Enacting S. 2773 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 2773 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
    S. 2773 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    The bill would impose a private-sector mandate on certain 
fishing operations by limiting the type of nets that may be 
used in the drift gillnet (DGN) fishery off of the West Coast. 
Current law limits only the driftnets length. S. 2773 would 
amend the definition of large-scale driftnet fishing to include 
nets with a mesh size that is at least 14 inches. The new 
definition would effectively prohibit large driftnets in the 
DGN fishery. The cost of the mandate would be any revenue 
forgone by fishing operations whose catch decreases as a result 
of the new limitation. CBO expects that 56 entities with 
driftnet fishing permits would be affected, and the loss of 
revenue would be small. As a result, CBO estimates that the 
aggregate cost of the mandate would fall well below the annual 
threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($160 
million in 2018, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese 
(for federal costs) and Zachary Byrum (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, 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. 2773, as reported, would impose new regulatory 
requirements on Federal drift gillnet permit holders, which has 
numbered an average of 20 active permitted vessels per year 
from 2010 through 2015.

                            economic impact

    Enactment of this legislation is not expected to have a 
negative impact on the Nation's economy. Current permit holders 
may be able to transition to other fisheries or gear types, but 
it is likely at least some of them will go out of business.

                                privacy

    The reported bill is not expected to impact the personal 
privacy of individuals.

                               paperwork

    S. 2773 would not create increases in paperwork burdens if 
enacted.

                   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 bill may be cited as 
the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.''

Section 2. Definition.

    This section would amend section 3(25) of the MSA to define 
large-scale driftnet fishing to specify that it also includes 
nets with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater, aligning with 
the drift gillnet definition in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\50 CFR 660.702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3. Findings and policy.

    This section would amend section 206 of the MSA, the 
Driftnet Act Amendments of 1990, to add that Congress finds 
that large-scale driftnet fishing causes significant 
entanglement and mortality of living marine resources. This 
section also would amend section 206 to declare that it is the 
policy of Congress to prioritize the phase out of large-scale 
driftnet fishing in the EEZ and promote development of 
alternative gear types that reduce incidental bycatch of living 
marine resources.

Section 4. Transition program.

    This section would amend section 206 of the MSA to direct 
the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a transition program to 
facilitate the phase-out of large-scale driftnet fishing and 
make affected permit holders eligible to receive grants through 
the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program to cover fees 
associated with permit fees, forfeiture of fishing gear, and 
purchase of alternative gear with minimal incidental catch of 
living marine resources.

Section 5. Exception.

    This section would add an exception to section 307 of the 
MSA that would prohibit the use of large-scale driftnet fishing 
by U.S. vessels within the U.S. EEZ not later than 5 years 
after the date of enactment of this 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 is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

        MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT


                        [16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.]

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

                            [16 U.S.C. 1802]

  As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--
          (1) The term ``anadromous species'' means species of 
        fish which spawn in fresh or estuarine waters of the 
        United States and which migrate to ocean waters.
          (2) * * *
          (25) The term ``large-scale driftnet fishing'' means 
        a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a 
        panel or panels of webbing, or a series of such 
        gillnets, with a total length of two and one-half 
        kilometers or more, or with a mesh size of 14 inches or 
        greater, is placed in the water and allowed to drift 
        with the currents and winds for the purpose of 
        entangling fish in the webbing.
          (26) * * *

SEC. 206. LARGE-SCALE DRIFTNET FISHING.

                            [16 U.S.C. 1826]

  (a) Short Title.--This section incorporates and expands upon 
provisions of the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and 
Control Act of 1987 and may be cited as the ``Driftnet Act 
Amendments of 1990''.
  (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) the continued widespread use of large-scale 
        driftnets beyond the exclusive economic zone of any 
        nation is a destructive fishing practice that poses a 
        threat to living marine resources of the world's 
        oceans, including but not limited to the North and 
        South Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea;
          (2) the use of large-scale driftnets is expanding 
        into new regions of the world's oceans, including the 
        Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea;
          (3) there is a pressing need for detailed and 
        reliable information on the number of seabirds, sea 
        turtles, nontarget fish, and marine mammals that become 
        entangled and die in actively fished large-scale 
        driftnets and in large-scale driftnets that are lost, 
        abandoned, or discarded;
          (4) increased efforts, including reliable observer 
        data and enforcement mechanisms, are needed to monitor, 
        assess, control, and reduce the adverse impact of 
        large-scale driftnet fishing on living marine 
        resources;
          (5) the nations of the world have agreed in the 
        United Nations, through General Assembly Resolution 
        Numbered 44-225, approved December 22, 1989, by the 
        General Assembly, that a moratorium should be imposed 
        by June 30, 1992, on the use of large-scale driftnets 
        beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation;
          (6) the nations of the South Pacific have agreed to a 
        moratorium on the use of large-scale driftnets in the 
        South Pacific through the Convention for the 
        Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South 
        Pacific, which was agreed to in Wellington, New 
        Zealand, on November 29, 1989; [and]
          (7) increasing population pressures and new knowledge 
        of the importance of living marine resources to the 
        health of the global ecosystem demand that greater 
        responsibility be exercised by persons fishing or 
        developing new fisheries beyond the exclusive economic 
        zone of any nation[.]; and
          (8) within the exclusive economic zone, large-scale 
        driftnet fishing that deploys nets with large mesh 
        sizes causes significant entanglement and mortality of 
        living marine resources, including myriad protected 
        species, despite limitations on the lengths of such 
        nets.
  (c) Policy.--It is declared to be the policy of the Congress 
in this section that the United States should--
          (1) implement the moratorium called for by the United 
        Nations General Assembly in Resolution Numbered 44-225;
          (2) support the Tarawa Declaration and the Wellington 
        Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long 
        Driftnets in the South Pacific; [and]
          (3) secure a permanent ban on the use of destructive 
        fishing practices, and in particular large-scale 
        driftnets, by persons or vessels fishing beyond the 
        exclusive economic zone of any nation[.]; and
          (4) prioritize the phase out of large-scale driftnet 
        fishing in the exclusive economic zone and promote the 
        development and adoption of alternative fishing methods 
        and gear types that minimize the incidental catch of 
        living marine resources.
  (d) * * *
  (i) Fishing Gear Transition Program.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
        transition program to facilitate the phase-out of 
        large-scale driftnet fishing and adoption of 
        alternative fishing practices that minimize the 
        incidental catch of living marine resources.
          (2) Permissible uses.--Any permit holder 
        participating in the transition program under paragraph 
        (1) is eligible for a grant under section 316, if--
                  (A) the grant is used only the purpose of 
                covering--
                          (i) any fee originally associated 
                        with a permit authorizing participation 
                        in a large-scale driftnet fishery, if 
                        such permit is surrendered for 
                        permanent revocation, and such permit 
                        holder relinquishes any claim 
                        associated with the permit;
                          (ii) a forfeiture of fishing gear 
                        associated with a permit described in 
                        clause (i); or
                          (iii) the purchase of alternative 
                        gear with minimal incidental catch of 
                        living marine resources, if the fishery 
                        participant is authorized to continue 
                        fishing using such alternative gears; 
                        and
                  (B) the Secretary certifies that the permit 
                authorizing participation has been permanently 
                revoked and that no new permits will be issued 
                to authorize such fishing.

SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS.

                            [16 U.S.C. 1857]

  It is unlawful--
          (1) for any person--
                  (A) to violate any provision of this Act or 
                any regulation or permit issued pursuant to 
                this Act;
                  (B) * * *
                  (M) to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing 
                that is subject to the jurisdiction of the 
                United States, including use of a fishing 
                vessel of the United States to engage in such 
                fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of 
                any nation,  unless such large-scale driftnet 
                fishing--
                          (i) deploys, within the exclusive 
                        economic zone, a net with a total 
                        length of less than two and one-half 
                        kilometers and a mesh size of 14 inches 
                        or greater; and
                          (ii) is conducted within 5 years of 
                        the date of enactment of the Driftnet 
                        Modernization and Bycatch Reduction 
                        Act;
                  (N) to strip pollock of its roe and discard 
                the flesh of the pollock;
                  (O) to knowingly and willfully fail to 
                disclose, or to falsely disclose, any financial 
                interest as required under section 302(j), or 
                to knowingly vote on a Council decision in 
                violation of section 302(j)(7)(A);
                  (P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark 
                (including the tail) at sea;
                          (ii) to have custody, control, or 
                        possession of any such fin aboard a 
                        fishing vessel unless it is naturally 
                        attached to the corresponding carcass;
                          (iii) to transfer any such fin from 
                        one vessel to another vessel at sea, or 
                        to receive any such fin in such 
                        transfer, without the fin naturally 
                        attached to the corresponding carcass; 
                        or
                          (iv) to land any such fin that is not 
                        naturally attached to the corresponding 
                        carcass, or to land any shark carcass 
                        without such fins naturally attached;
                  (Q) to import, export, transport, sell, 
                receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or 
                foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed, 
                transported, or sold in violation of any 
                foreign law or regulation or any treaty or in 
                contravention of any binding conservation 
                measure adopted by an international agreement 
                or organization to which the United States is a 
                party; or
                  (R) to use any fishing vessel to engage in 
                fishing in Federal or State waters, or on the 
                high seas or in the waters of another country, 
                after the Secretary has made a payment to the 
                owner of that fishing vessel under section 
                312(b)(2).
          For purposes of subparagraph (P), there shall be a 
        rebuttable presumption that if any shark fin (including 
        the tail) is found aboard a vessel, other than a 
        fishing vessel, without being naturally attached to the 
        corresponding carcass, such fin was transferred in 
        violation of subparagraph (P)(iii) or that if, after 
        landing, the total weight of shark fins (including the 
        tail) landed from any vessel exceeds five percent of 
        the total weight of shark carcasses landed, such fins 
        were taken, held, or landed in violation of 
        subparagraph (P). In such subparagraph, the term 
        ``naturally attached'', with respect to a shark fin, 
        means attached to the corresponding shark carcass 
        through some portion of uncut skin.
          (2) for any vessel other than a vessel of the United 
        States, and for the owner or operator of any vessel 
        other than a vessel of the United States, to engage--
                  (A) in fishing within the boundaries of any 
                State, except--
                          (i) recreational fishing permitted 
                        under section 201(i);
                          (ii) fish processing permitted under 
                        section 306(c); or
                          (iii) transshipment at sea of fish or 
                        fish products within the boundaries of 
                        any State in accordance with a permit 
                        approved under section 204(d);
                  (B) in fishing, except recreational fishing 
                permitted under section 201(i), within the 
                exclusive economic zone, or for any anadromous 
                species or Continental Shelf fishery resources 
                beyond such zone, unless such fishing is 
                authorized by, and conducted in accordance 
                with, a valid and applicable permit issued 
                pursuant to section 204(b), (c), or (d); or
                  (C) except as permitted under section 306(c), 
                in fish processing (as defined in paragraph 
                (4)(A) of such section) within the internal 
                waters of a State (as defined in paragraph 
                (4)(B) of such section);
          (3) for any vessel of the United States, and for the 
        owner or operator of any vessel of the United States, 
        to transfer at sea directly or indirectly, or attempt 
        to so transfer at sea, any United States harvested fish 
        to any foreign fishing vessel, while such foreign 
        vessel is within the exclusive economic zone or within 
        the boundaries of any State except to the extent that 
        the foreign fishing vessel has been permitted under 
        section 204(d) or section 306(c) to receive such fish;
          (4) for any fishing vessel other than a vessel of the 
        United States to operate, and for the owner or operator 
        of a fishing vessel other than a vessel of the United 
        States to operate such vessel, in the exclusive 
        economic zone or within the boundaries of any State, 
        if--
                  (A) all fishing gear on the vessel is not 
                stored below deck or in an area where it is not 
                normally used, and not readily available, for 
                fishing; or
                  (B) all fishing gear on the vessel which is 
                not so stored is not secured and covered so as 
                to render it unusable for fishing;
          unless such vessel is authorized to engage in fishing 
        in the area in which the vessel is operating; and
          (5) for any vessel of the United States, and for the 
        owner or operator of any vessel of the United States, 
        to engage in fishing in the waters of a foreign nation 
        in a manner that violates an international fishery 
        agreement between that nation and the United States 
        that has been subject to Congressional oversight in the 
        manner described in section 203, or any regulations 
        issued to implement such an agreement; except that the 
        binding provisions of such agreement and implementing 
        regulations shall have been published in the Federal 
        Register prior to such violation.

                                  [all]