16 U.S.C. § 1826

Large-scale driftnet fishing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(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) FindingsThe 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;(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) PolicyIt 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;(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) International agreementsThe Secretary, through the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall seek to secure international agreements to implement immediately the findings, policy, and provisions of this section, and in particular an international ban on large-scale driftnet fishing. The Secretary, through the Secretary of State, shall include, in any agreement which addresses the taking of living marine resources of the United States, provisions to ensure that—(1) each large-scale driftnet fishing vessel of a foreign nation that is party to the agreement, including vessels that may operate independently to develop new fishing areas, which operate beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation, is included in such agreement;(2) each large-scale driftnet fishing vessel of a foreign nation that is party to the agreement, which operates beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation, is equipped with satellite transmitters which provide real-time position information accessible to the United States;(3) statistically reliable monitoring by the United States is carried out, through the use of on-board observers or through dedicated platforms provided by foreign nations that are parties to the agreement, of all target and nontarget fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, and sea birds entangled or killed by large-scale driftnets used by fishing vessels of foreign nations that are parties to the agreement;(4) officials of the United States have the right to board and inspect for violations of the agreement any large-scale driftnet fishing vessels operating under the flag of a foreign nation that is party to the agreement at any time while such vessel is operating in designated areas beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation;(5) all catch landed or transshipped at sea by large-scale driftnet fishing vessels of a foreign nation that is a party to the agreement, and which are operated beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation, is reliably monitored and documented;(6) time and area restrictions are imposed on the use of large-scale driftnets in order to prevent interception of anadromous species;(7) all large-scale driftnets used are constructed, insofar as feasible, with biodegradable materials which break into segments that do not represent a threat to living marine resources;(8) all large-scale driftnets are marked at appropriate intervals in a manner that conclusively identifies the vessel and flag nation responsible for each such driftnet;(9) the taking of nontarget fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and endangered species or other species protected by international agreements to which the United States is a party is minimized and does not pose a threat to existing fisheries or the long-term health of living marine resources; and(10) definitive steps are agreed upon to ensure that parties to the agreement comply with the spirit of other international agreements and resolutions concerning the use of large-scale driftnets beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation.(e) Effect on sovereign rights

This section shall not serve or be construed to expand or diminish the sovereign rights of the United States, as stated by Presidential Proclamation Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and reflected in this chapter or other existing law.

(f) “Living marine resources” defined

As used in this section, the term “living marine resources” includes fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds and other waterfowl.

(i) 11 So in original. See Codification note below. Fishing gear transition program(1) In general

During the 5-year period beginning on December 29, 2022, 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, and shall award grants to eligible permit holders who participate in the program.

(2) Permissible usesAny permit holder receiving a grant under paragraph (1) may use such funds only for the purpose of covering—(A) 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;(B) a forfeiture of fishing gear associated with a permit described in subparagraph (A); or(C) 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.(3) Certification

The Secretary shall certify that, with respect to each participant in the program under this subsection, any permit authorizing participation in a large-scale driftnet fishery has been permanently revoked and that no new permits will be issued to authorize such fishing.

(Pub. L. 94–265, title II, § 206, as added Pub. L. 95–6, § 3(1), Feb. 21, 1977, 91 Stat. 15; amended Pub. L. 99–659, title I, § 101(c)(2), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3707; Pub. L. 101–627, title I, § 107(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4441; Pub. L. 104–297, title I, § 105(f), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3569; Pub. L. 117–328, div. S, title I, §§ 103, 104, title II, § 205(b)(1)(B), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5259, 5270.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act of 1987, referred to in subsec. (a), is title IV of Pub. L. 100–220, which is set out as a note under section 1822 of this title.

Presidential Proclamation Numbered 5030, referred to in subsec. (e), is set out under section 1453 of this title.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (e), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 94–265, Apr. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 331, known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Former subsecs. (g) and (h) were redesignated (e) and (f), respectively, by Pub. L. 117–328, § 205(b)(1)(B). See 2022 Amendment note below.

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b)(8). Pub. L. 117–328, § 103(a), added par. (8).

Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 117–328, § 103(b), added par. (4).

Subsecs. (e) to (h). Pub. L. 117–328, § 205(b)(1)(B), redesignated subsecs. (g) and (h) as (e) and (f), respectively, and struck out former subsecs. (e) and (f), which related, respectively, to reports and certification.

Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 117–328, § 104, added subsec. (i).

1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–297, § 105(f)(1), redesignated pars. (5) and (6) as (3) and (4), respectively, and struck out former pars. (3) and (4) which read as follows:

“(3) identifying and evaluating the effectiveness of unilateral measures and multilateral measures, including sanctions, that are available to encourage nations to agree to and comply with this section, and recommendations for legislation to authorize any additional measures that are needed if those are considered ineffective;

“(4) identifying, evaluating, and making any recommendations considered necessary to improve the effectiveness of the law, policy, and procedures governing enforcement of the exclusive management authority of the United States over anadromous species against fishing vessels engaged in fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation;”.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 104–297, § 105(f)(2), substituted “subsection (e)(4)” for “subsection (e)(6)”.

1990—Pub. L. 101–627 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to large-scale driftnet fishing for provisions relating to transitional provisions.

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–659 substituted “exclusive economic zone” for “fishery conservation zone”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTransfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.

Abolition of House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of House of Representatives abolished and its jurisdiction transferred by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Jan. 4, 1995. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Resources of House of Representatives in case of provisions relating to fisheries, wildlife, international fishing agreements, marine affairs (including coastal zone management) except for measures relating to oil and other pollution of navigable waters, or oceanography by section 1(b)(3) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Resources of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Natural Resources of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2004 · leading case: Paul Conti & Conti Corp. (As Owner of F/v Providenza) v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Paul Conti & Conti Corp. (As Owner of F/v Providenza) v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “A/44/225 (1989); 16 U.S.C. § 1826 (1994). The amendments provided for implementing the international moratorium on the use of drift gillnets of a certain length beyond the EEZ and for the imposition of sanctions against nations whose vessels or nationals were not in compliance.”

Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Brown, 19 Ct. Int'l Trade 1104 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1995). · cites it 3× “] 16 U.S.C. § 1826 (b)(1). The policy of the Congress was declared to be *1108 (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…”

Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Clinton, 236 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “The Court of International Trade denied them *1322 request to issue a writ of mandamus directing the President to impose sanctions on Italy for violation of the Driftnet Fishing Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1826 -1826g (Supp. IV 1998), and denied their request for an order requiring the…”

United States v. Kaiyo Maru No. 53, 503 F. Supp. 1075 (D. Alaska 1980). “16 U.S.C. § 1826 (7). 31 . 3(C) of Operation Order 201 (YR).”

Motion Sys. Corp. v. Bush, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “Clinton, as in Corus Group, plaintiffs sought relief against, and named as defendants, the President of the United States and other government officials (in that case, the Secretaries of State and Commerce).”

Humane Soc. of US v. Brown, 920 F. Supp. 178 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “16 U.S.C. § 1826 (e)(6). Such an identification authorizes imposition of import restrictions against the offending country.”

Ten Taxpayers Citizen Grp. v. Cape Wind Assocs., LLC, 278 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D. Mass. 2003). “16 U.S.C. §§ 1826 ~1826g. 13 . 16 U.S.C. §§ 1851-1854 .”

Corus Grp. PLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 352 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “1999) the plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus directing President Clinton to impose sanctions on Italy for violation of the Driftnet Fishing Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1826 . The Court of International Trade refused to issue the writ, not because it lacked jurisdiction of the President,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.