[Senate Report 115-388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 675
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 115-388
_______________________________________________________________________
SHARK FIN TRADE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2017
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 793
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 27, 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
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\2\Shark Finning Prohibition Act (16 U.S.C. 1822 note).
\3\P.L. 111 348 (124 Stat. 3668).
\4\16 U.S.C. 1826i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
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.
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, 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.
[all]