## Facts

- NMFS issued the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud through traceability, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for certain “priority” seafood species imported into the United States.
- SIMP required U.S. importers of record to collect and maintain harvest and chain-of-custody data tracing covered seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce.
- Nine seafood importers, processors, and harvesters sued the Secretary of Commerce, the Department of Commerce, and NMFS to invalidate SIMP.
- Plaintiffs alleged NMFS lacked statutory authority under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and related statutes to adopt an import-focused traceability regime, particularly to address “seafood fraud.”
- Plaintiffs also alleged SIMP violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, including challenges to the economic analysis, species selection, burdens, and responses to comments.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of the rule.

## Issues

1. Whether the MSA and related statutes authorized NMFS to adopt an import-based traceability program addressing IUU fishing and fraud-related mislabeling.
2. Whether SIMP impermissibly regulated foreign conduct in violation of limits on extraterritorial regulation.
3. Whether SIMP was arbitrary or capricious under the APA in its cost-benefit analysis, selection of covered species, and assessment of compliance burdens.
4. Whether NMFS satisfied notice-and-comment obligations, including adequate responses to significant comments.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and upheld SIMP in full.
- The court held NMFS acted within statutory authority under the MSA and related provisions, including authority to deter and eliminate IUU fishing.
- The court rejected the extraterritoriality challenge, reasoning SIMP regulates domestic conditions of entry by imposing obligations on U.S. importers rather than directly regulating foreign fishers.
- Applying Chevron, the court concluded that, to the extent the statute did not speak with clarity to the precise mechanism used, NMFS’s interpretation authorizing traceability requirements was reasonable.
- Under APA review, the court held NMFS reasonably explained the rule, considered relevant data and comments, refined the final rule, and provided a rational basis for its policy judgments.

## Legal Principles

- An agency may rely on broad statutory conservation and enforcement mandates to adopt measures reasonably aimed at preventing regulated markets from being supplied by illegal product that undermines conservation efforts.
- An import-condition rule that imposes reporting and recordkeeping duties on U.S. importers as a prerequisite to entry into U.S. commerce is generally treated as domestic regulation, even if it responds to risks arising from foreign harvesting.
- Where a statute is ambiguous on the precise tool used, courts may defer to a reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron.
- Under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, courts defer to agency policy judgments when the agency examines relevant data, responds to significant comments, and provides a reasoned explanation connecting the record to the regulatory choices.
- Overlapping statutory and regulatory regimes do not necessarily preclude agency action when the agency’s program complements, rather than conflicts with, other authorities addressing related problems.

## Conclusion

The court upheld NMFS’s Seafood Import Monitoring Program, concluding that the agency had statutory authority under the MSA and related provisions to require import traceability to deter IUU fishing and associated fraud, that the program did not unlawfully operate extraterritorially, and that NMFS’s rulemaking satisfied deferential APA review.


Alfa Int'l Seafood, Inc. v. Ross, 264 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2017)