C.F.R. » Title 50 » CHAPTER VI—FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS › Subpart G—Preemption of State Authority Under Section 306(b)

50 C.F.R. § 600.610

Factual findings for Federal preemption

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The two factual findings for Federal preemption of state management authority over a fishery are:

(1) The fishing in a fishery that is covered by an FMP implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is engaged in predominately within the EEZ and beyond such zone.

(2) A state has taken any action, or omitted to take any action, the results of which will substantially and adversely affect the carrying out of such FMP.

(b) Whether fishing is engaged in “predominately” within or beyond the EEZ will be determined after consideration of relevant factors, including but not limited to, the catch (based on numbers, value, or weight of fish caught, or other relevant factors) or fishing effort during the appropriate period, and in light of historical patterns of the distribution of catch or fishing effort for such stock or stocks of fish.

(c) Whether relevant effects are substantial will be determined after consideration of the magnitude of such actual or potential effects. Relevant to this determination are various factors, including but not limited to, the proportion of the fishery (stock or stocks of fish and fishing for such stocks) that is subject to the effects of a particular state's action or omission, the characteristics and status (including migratory patterns and biological condition) of the stock or stocks of fish in the fishery, and the similarity or dissimilarity between the goals, objectives, or policies of the state's action or omission and the management goals or objectives specified in the FMP for the fishery or between the state and Federal conservation and management measures of the fishery.

[61 FR 32540, June 24, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 7075, Feb. 12, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: Fishing Rights All., Inc. v. Pritzker, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fishing Rights All., Inc. v. Pritzker, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (M.D. Fla. 2017). “” 50 C.F.R. § 600.610 (a)(l)-(2). According to Plaintiffs, “[h]ad Defendants elected this remedy, it would, have obviated the ostensible reason for Amendment 40 and prevented] overruns.”
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.