HR-3340-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 438.
Sponsored by Russell Fry (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, to develop standardized geospatial data on fishing restrictions, recreational vessel access, and navigation within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — the federally managed ocean area extending up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The Secretary would have 31 months to adopt data standards and 4 years to publish the data on a publicly accessible website, updated at least twice yearly (or in real time for certain boundary and protected area data). The bill would also require the Secretary to coordinate with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and private-sector partners, and to create a public comment mechanism for improving data accessibility.
Who benefits
Recreational boaters, anglers, divers, and other ocean users who would gain a single, standardized source for fishing restrictions, open/closed zones, and navigation data. Fishing charter and tourism businesses that depend on clear access information. Coastal communities and state agencies that coordinate ocean recreation. Technology and geospatial data companies that could partner with NOAA under the bill's cooperation provisions. Nonprofit conservation and recreation organizations. Researchers and institutions of higher education using federal ocean data. Tribal nations and Native Hawaiian organizations, whose waters and fishing rights are explicitly protected from the bill's data publication requirements.
Who is hurt
Federal agency staff at NOAA and partner agencies who would bear implementation workload and costs. Taxpayers who would fund the data infrastructure build-out, though no specific appropriation is included. Commercial fishing interests whose proprietary data is explicitly protected from disclosure but who may face indirect effects if recreational access data increases competition for shared waters. State agencies that may need to align their own data systems with new federal standards. Potentially, users who rely on existing data systems that may be reorganized or consolidated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that recreational ocean users currently face a fragmented patchwork of data sources — spread across multiple federal agencies — making it difficult to know where fishing is permitted, what areas are protected, and what vessel restrictions apply. They contend that centralizing and standardizing this information would reduce unintentional violations of fishing closures, improve safety by including hazard data such as harmful algal bloom locations, and expand equitable access to public ocean resources for everyday boaters and anglers. The bill's broad bipartisan sponsorship across coastal and inland districts reflects wide agreement that better public data serves both conservation and recreation goals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates new federal mandates — including real-time data updates and biannual refreshes — without authorizing dedicated funding, raising concerns that NOAA would be required to meet ambitious timelines with existing, already-stretched resources. They contend that the interagency coordination requirements across eight federal departments and multiple tribal and state partners could prove administratively burdensome and slow, and that the bill's broad definition of "fishing restriction" may inadvertently expand the perceived scope of federal data authority over ocean use in ways that could affect future regulatory interpretations, despite the bill's rule-of-construction provisions.