C.F.R.
»
Title 50
» CHAPTER VI—FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES › Subpart A—General Provisions
(a) This part implements the fishery management plans (FMPs) for the Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic chub mackerel, longfin squid, Illex squid, and butterfish fisheries (Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP); Atlantic salmon (Atlantic Salmon FMP); the Atlantic sea scallop fishery (Scallop FMP); the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries (Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP); the NE multispecies and monkfish fisheries ((NE Multispecies FMP) and (Monkfish FMP)); the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries (Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP); the Atlantic bluefish fishery (Atlantic Bluefish FMP); the Atlantic herring fishery (Atlantic Herring FMP); the spiny dogfish fishery (Spiny Dogfish FMP); the Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery (Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP); the golden and blueline tilefish fisheries (Tilefish FMP); and the NE skate complex fisheries (Skate FMP). These FMPs and the regulations in this part govern the conservation and management of the above named fisheries of the Northeastern United States.
(b) This part governs domestic fishing only. Foreign fishing is governed under subpart F of part 600 of this chapter.
[61 FR 34968, July 3, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 43424, Aug. 23, 1996; 62 FR 13299, Mar. 20, 1997; 65 FR 1568, Jan. 11, 2000; 65 FR 77464, Dec. 11, 2000; 66 FR 49192, Sept. 26, 2001; 67 FR 63229, Oct. 10, 2002; 68 FR 49699, Aug. 19, 2003; 76 FR 60649, Sept. 29, 2011; 82 FR 52855, Nov. 15, 2017; 85 FR 47109, Aug. 4, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Massachusetts Ex Rel. Div. of Marine Fisheries v. Daley, 170 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 1999).
“43420 ; 50 C.F.R. § 648.1 et seq. The new permanent regulations imposed various scup conservation measures including a moratorium on new entry into scup fishing in the EEZ, permitting and reporting requirements, gear limitations, and exploitation schedules.”
Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker, 70 F. Supp. 3d 427 (D.D.C. 2014).
“The Court also notes that although Plaintiffs now argue, in an apparent attempt to fit their allegations into the limited scope of Section 1855(f), that Bullard's actions were taken "under” 50 C.F.R. § 648.1 , that regulation section is merely an introductory provision…”
Hall v. Evans, 165 F. Supp. 2d 114 (D.R.I. 2001).
“See 50 C.F.R. § 648.1 et seq. (1999). 6 . Several Counts in the various Complaints have not been briefed at all in the plaintiffs' consolidated memorandum of law.”
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.