PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 665.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Nov 15, 2016
(Sec. 1) This bill revises the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard's alternate safety compliance program for certain fishing vessels.
Specifically, the bill delays the date when vessels must comply with the program. Vessels must comply by the later of January 1, 2021, or the end of the three-year period after the Coast Guard issues a final rule establishing the program. The bill also requires vessels that are built before July 1, 2012, to comply with the program. Currently, vessels built before July 1, 2013, must comply. Additionally, a vessel built before July 1, 2012 that undergoes a major conversion after such date must comply with the program.
If the requirements of the program change after establishment, the Coast Guard must provide at least a three-year grace period for vessels to be in compliance with such requirements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 2) The Coast Guard must: (1) publish and disseminate a policy to standardize coordination, outreach, and design of the alternate safety compliance program; and (2) publish a public memorandum for the fishing, shipbuilding, and maritime industry and the public including guidance, timelines, and opportunities for public engagement.
(Sec. 4) The Coast Guard must report to Congress by June 1, 2018, on the progress of the design and implementation of the alternate safety compliance program.
People & committees
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 665.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-372.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Thune with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 114-372.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.3088 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.3088 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.3088 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.3088 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.