Ursack, Inc. v. Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group
639 F.3d 949
9th Cir.2011Background
- NPS and the Forest Service require bear-resistant containers in certain Sierra areas; SIBBG tests and recommends containers for approval.
- Ursack made a bear-resistant container (the Ursack S29) and urged SIBBG to recommend it for approval; SIBBG granted conditional approval for 2007 with a three-failures withdrawal trigger.
- SIBBG ultimately found six failures in 2007 and recommended withdrawal of conditional approval; Park Service withdrew conditional approval, but Forest Service did not revoke its approval.
- Ursack and three users sued under the APA, arguing arbitrary/capricious review, and the district court granted summary judgment for the agencies; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The court narrowed review to the Park Service and SEKI Yosemite decisions, holding SIBBG’s actions as the decision-maker under review; it addressed claims about three-strikes, equal protection, tree-tie prohibition, and whether the action constituted a licensing process under §558.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SIBBG's three-strikes standard was arbitrary or capricious. | Ursack argues failure count ignored important aspects (compliance impact). | SIBBG weighed compliance and risks; three-strikes were rational. | Not arbitrary or capricious; rational connection to data. |
| Whether SIBBG’s treatment of Ursack vs BearVault violated equal protection (rational basis). | BearVault failures were numerous; Ursack treated differently without rational basis. | BearVault incidents were due to one bear; Ursack failures involved multiple bears; distinctions rational. | Rational basis for different treatment; no equal-protection violation. |
| Whether prohibiting tying Ursacks to trees was capricious. | Changing course from tying to not tying shows capricious action; tree-damage concerns inconsistent. | Tree-damage concerns and wilderness impact rationally justify prohibition; change was reasoned. | Not capricious; decision supported by concerns about tree damage and human impact. |
| Whether revocation of conditional approval constituted a licensing action requiring §558(c) process. | Ursack argues conditional approval was a license and required notice and opportunity to comply. | Even if license, Ursack not seeking §558(c) process; licensing criteria challenges are arbitrary-and-capricious review. | No §558(c) license entitlement; review under APA arbitrary-and-capacious standard suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review requires consideration of important aspects of the problem)
- United States v. Weston, 255 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (rational basis and arbitrary-capricious analyses are analogues)
- Anchustegui v. Department of Agriculture, 257 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (APA license-like obligations in credit or gatekeeper contexts)
- Air North America v. Department of Transportation, 937 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991) (agency decisions with financial consequences; licensing concepts debated)
- New York Pathological & X-Ray Laboratories, Inc. v. INS, 523 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1975) (APA license concept extended to approvals with financial effect)
- Horn Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, 397 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2005) (whether subsidy eligibility constitutes a license under §558(c) varies by gatekeeping role)