## Facts

- The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), promulgated regulations restricting lobster fishing in the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ), waters 3–200 nautical miles offshore.
- The regulations were issued under the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which relies on regional fishery management councils and requires consistency with statutory “national standards.”
- The agency proposed expanding a geographically defined restricted area to conserve lobster stocks and solicited public comment through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Commercial fishers submitted comments objecting that the expanded restricted area would impose economic hardship and suggested alternative boundary lines and other less burdensome approaches.
- NMFS finalized the rule largely as proposed, acknowledging economic concerns but not providing a detailed, alternative-by-alternative explanation for rejecting suggested boundary configurations.
- Little Bay Lobster Company and several New Hampshire lobster boat operators sued, alleging the restrictions would substantially impair access to productive fishing grounds and were adopted without adequate consideration of alternatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s adoption of the expanded EEZ lobster restricted area was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
2. Whether the agency’s treatment of public comments and proposed alternative boundaries satisfied APA notice-and-comment requirements.
3. Whether the regulations were consistent with Magnuson–Stevens national standards, including consideration of conservation needs and economic effects.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary and upheld the regulations.
- The court held the rule was not arbitrary and capricious because the agency provided a rational conservation justification supported by the administrative record.
- The court concluded the agency was not required to respond in detail to every proposed alternative boundary line, so long as the record showed reasoned decisionmaking.
- The court found the regulations fell within the discretion granted by Magnuson–Stevens and were consistent with its national standards.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA arbitrary-and-capricious review, courts uphold agency action if the agency examined the relevant considerations and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
- In technical, science-driven regulatory areas such as fisheries management, courts give substantial deference to the agency’s predictive judgments and policy choices made within statutory bounds.
- An agency must respond to significant comments in notice-and-comment rulemaking, but it need not address every suggestion line-by-line when the rule’s explanation and record, considered as a whole, demonstrate adequate consideration.
- Magnuson–Stevens does not require the agency to select the least economically restrictive option; it requires a reasonable measure consistent with conservation objectives and other national standards.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the EEZ lobster restrictions because the agency’s conservation-based rationale and the administrative record supported the chosen boundaries, and the APA did not require a detailed rebuttal of each alternative proposed in public comments.


Little Bay Lobster Co. v. Evans, 352 F.3d 462 (1st Cir. 2003)