15 C.F.R. § 6.4
Effective date of adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties
The Department of Commerce's 2025 adjustments for inflation made by § 6.3, of the civil monetary penalties there specified, are effective on January 15, 2025, and said civil monetary penalties, as thus adjusted by the adjustments for inflation made by § 6.3, apply only to those civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such adjustment, which are assessed by the Department of Commerce after the effective date of the new civil monetary penalty level, and before the effective date of any future adjustments for inflation to civil monetary penalties thereto made subsequent to January 15, 2025 as provided in § 6.5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2010–2016 · leading case: Pac. Ranger, LLC v. Pritzker, 211 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D.D.C. 2016).
Pac. Ranger, LLC v. Pritzker, 211 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D.D.C. 2016). “§ 1375 (a)(1) (setting civil penalty cap and hearing requirement); see also 15 C.F.R. § 6.4 (e)(10) (2010) (setting statutory penalty cap at $11,000 to account for inflation).”
Duckworth v. United States, 418 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “§ 1858 (a); 15 C.F.R. § 6.4 (f)(14) (2007), rather than a punitive damages jury award, thus rendering the Exxon 1:1 ratio rule inapplicable.”
Black v. Pritzker, 121 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2015). “; 15 C.F.R. § 6.4 (f)(14). The AT Plaintiffs were thus subject to a statutory maximum penalty of $980,000 for them seven proven FAD violations; the Pacific Ranger Plaintiffs were subject to a total maximum of $140,000 for their proven FAD violation; the Ocean Conquest Plaintiffs…”
H & L Axelsson, Inc. v. Pritzker, 16 F. Supp. 3d 353 (D.N.J. 2014). “§ 1858 (a) (setting the civil penalty maximum at $100,000 per violation); 15 C.F.R. § 6.4 (f)(14) (adjusting the maximum penalty up to $140,000 per violation, due to inflation).”
Salisbury v. United States, 368 F. App'x 310 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Applying Baja-kajian, the administrative law judge considered that Van Salisbury’s “acts were not accidental or unintentional” and that his prior citation for removing lobster traps rendered him “acutely aware of the proscriptions concerning fishing gear and lobsters.”
Salisbury v. United States, 368 F. App'x 310 (3rd Cir. 2010). “Applying Baja-kajian, the administrative law judge considered that Van Salisbury’s “acts were not accidental or unintentional” and that his prior citation for removing lobster traps rendered him “acutely aware of the proscriptions concerning fishing gear and lobsters.”
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.