## Facts

- Fishing interests challenged the Secretary of Commerce’s approval of an amendment to the Mid-Atlantic surf-clam and ocean quahog fishery management plan under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
- The amendment created an individual transferable quota (ITQ) system allocating annual catch shares as fixed percentages of the total allowable catch.
- Quota shares were assigned to vessels based on historical catch and vessel size, and could be transferred.
- The amendment also imposed additional limits on ocean quahog fishing to prevent increased effort and expected overfishing as vessels shifted from the more regulated surf-clam fishery.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking judicial review; the actions were consolidated, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants moved to dismiss as untimely.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenges to the amendment and implementing regulations were time-barred.
2. Whether the Magnuson Act authorized an ITQ program and related restrictions as conservation and management measures.
3. Whether vessel-based quota allocation based on historical participation violated National Standard 4’s “fair and equitable” and “no excessive share” requirements.
4. Whether approving preventive quahog restrictions was arbitrary and capricious under APA review.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds.
- The court granted summary judgment for defendants and upheld the amendment and implementing regulations.
- The court held the Magnuson Act authorized the ITQ system and the quahog restrictions as conservation and management tools.
- The court held the vessel-based allocation method was consistent with National Standard 4.
- The court held the Secretary’s approval was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Magnuson Act and the APA, review of the Secretary’s approval of a fishery management plan amendment is deferential; technical and predictive judgments in fisheries management are upheld if rationally connected to the record.
- The Magnuson Act’s authorization of “necessary and appropriate” conservation and management measures permits quota-based management tools, including transferable catch shares, absent a statutory prohibition.
- National Standard 4 does not require equal outcomes; an allocation may be “fair and equitable” if based on rational criteria tied to conservation and fishery conditions, even if it produces distributive differences among participants.
- Assigning catch privileges using vessel-based historical catch data may be reasonable where it reflects available data, administrative feasibility, and historical participation.
- Preventive restrictions to address reasonably anticipated overfishing are permissible conservation measures; agencies need not wait for stock depletion if the expected risk is supported by the administrative record.
- Compliance with National Standard 4 includes considering whether measures prevent any entity from acquiring an “excessive share” of privileges; challengers must show the record supports a likely excessive concentration.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a vessel-based, transferable quota program and forward-looking effort controls as lawful exercises of Magnuson Act authority, rejecting National Standard 4 and APA challenges while allowing the suit to proceed as timely filed.


Sea Watch Int'l v. Mosbacher, 762 F. Supp. 370 (D.D.C. 1991)