Oceana, Inc. v. Gary Locke
399 U.S. App. D.C. 308
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Oceana sues NMFS challenging the Northeast bycatch reporting methodology under the Fisheries Act §1853(a)(11).
- NMFS adopted an omnibus amendment tying observer coverage to funding and a “Prioritization Process” for years with constraints.
- District court granted summary judgment for NMFS; Oceana appeals.
- Court reviews agency action directly, with deferential standard to NMFS’s interpretation if rational and supported by record.
- Amendment requires funding-based discretion to depart from a standardized methodology and lacks objective criteria to trigger case-by-case deviations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment establishes a standardized methodology | Oceana: amendment is optional, not establishing a binding standard | NMFS: amendment establishes a binding methodology unless constrained by external factors | No; amendment fails to establish a standardized methodology |
| Whether external operational constraints invalidate the standard | Oceana: constraint language is vague and gives complete discretion | NMFS: constraints limited and necessary to allow flexibility | Yes; the constraint language does not adequately define when departures may occur |
| Effect of prioritization process on statutory compliance | Oceana: prioritization process undermines statutory directive to establish a standard | NMFS: prioritization is consistent with remaining obligations | Unpersuasive; process fails to meaningfully constrain discretion |
| Appropriate standard of review for agency action | Oceana: district court’s view is not controlling; direct review applies | NMFS: deferential to agency’s interpretation if reasonable | Court reviews agency action directly and finds in favor of Oceana on the issue |
| Remedy for invalid methodology | Oceana: vacatur and remand to adopt proper standard | NMFS: not necessary to strike entirely | Remand with vacatur of the amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 493 F.3d 207 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (establishing process with trigger and standard under agency rulemaking)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (insufficiently established test procedures or methods)
- MST Express v. Dep’t of Transp., 108 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (insufficiently prescribed procedure for safety fitness determinations)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, No. 10-1086 (D.C. Cir. slip op. 2011) (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency must obey statute as written when it cannot justify its approach)
- Fishing Co. of Alaska v. Gutierrez, 510 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (review of agency action under fisheries regulations)