Sponsors (6)
Makes a narrow change to the Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by replacing the phrase "the State" with "the States" in the statute and inserting additional statutory text. The amendment appears intended to make the provision apply to multiple states (or to clarify multi‑state situations) and to add further direction or requirements where those words appear. The change is technical and focused; immediate effects are procedural and administrative — it alters how the law reads and may affect how state agencies, regional fishery bodies, and federal managers coordinate or implement the statute depending on the new inserted text. Fiscal effects are likely small unless the added text creates new obligations or funding requirements.
Amend Section 317 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by striking the words "the State" and inserting "the States" in place of that phrase.
Insert additional text into Section 317 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act at a point indicated by the bill (the exact inserted text and insertion point are not shown in the available excerpt).
Who is affected and how:
State governments and state fishery agencies: The change to "the States" directly affects state actors by broadening the statutory language to multiple states. That can enable or require joint state actions, shared responsibilities, or multi‑state coordination where the provision applies. State agencies may need to revise procedures or enter inter‑state agreements depending on the inserted text.
Regional Fishery Management Councils and federal fisheries managers (NOAA Fisheries): These entities will be affected operationally because they oversee implementation and coordination across states. They may need to issue guidance, adjust coordination practices, or engage with multiple state partners if the provision now contemplates multi‑state arrangements.
Commercial and recreational fishers, and coastal communities: Indirectly affected through any changes in management, permits, compliance procedures, or coordinated programs that result from multi‑state implementation. If the added language changes access, conservation measures, or administrative processes, fishers and communities could experience altered rules or administrative steps.
Administrative burden and costs: The amendment itself is primarily textual and likely imposes little immediate fiscal cost. However, if the new inserted language creates new duties (e.g., mandates for joint management, reporting, or program administration), then states or federal agencies might face increased administrative costs, potential need for rulemaking, or modest implementation expenses.
Legal and enforcement implications: Broadening to "the States" may change standing or who may act under the statute (e.g., allowing multiple states to participate in actions or to be jointly referenced). Courts and agencies will interpret how the plural form and the new text affect authorities, enforcement, and intergovernmental roles.
Overall assessment: The amendment is narrow and mainly clarifies scope; concrete impacts depend on the specific additional language inserted. If that inserted language is also technical, effects will be minimal; if it imposes new duties or creates new cooperative mechanisms, effects will be broader for state and federal managers and for fisheries stakeholders.
Last progress June 6, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 6, 2025 by Daniel A. Webster
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.