Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05308/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 24, 2000 Decided April 25, 2000

No. 99-5308

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.,

Appellants

v.

William M. Daley,

In his official capacity as Secretary of the

United States Department of Commerce, et al.,

Appellees

Pacific Marine Conservation Council and

Alaska Marine Conservation Council,

Amicus Curiae

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 99cv00221)

Monica B. Goldberg argued the cause for appellants. With

her on the briefs were Stephen E. Roady, Eric A. Bilsky, and

Sarah Chasis.

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 1 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Deborah A. Sivas was on the brief for amicus curiae Pacific

Marine Conservation Council and Alaska Marine Conservation Council.

James Eichner, Attorney, United States Department of

Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the

brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and

David C. Shilton, Attorney.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Henderson, Circuit Judge,

and Buckley, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: Paralichthys dentatus, or summer

flounder, a commercially valuable species of flounder, dwell

off the Atlantic coast and are harvested primarily between

May and October from North Carolina to Maine. The summer flounder fishery is an "overfished" fishery, in the process

of recovering from severe depletion prevalent during the late

1980s and early 1990s. The Secretary of Commerce, advised

by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("the Service"), the

principal appellee in this case, annually sets a fishing quota

limiting each year's summer flounder catch, pursuant to the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act ("the Fishery Act"), 16 U.S.C. ss 1801-1883 (1994 &

Supp. IV 1998). This case involves appellants' challenge to

the Service's quota for the 1999 summer flounder harvest.

Before the District Court, appellants alleged that the 1999

quota did not provide sufficient assurance that it would meet

the conservation goals of the Fishery Act and attendant

regulations. Appellants also claimed that the Service's conclusion that the quota had no significant environmental impact was based on an inadequate environmental assessment,

thereby violating the National Environmental Policy Act

("NEPA"). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the

District Court granted judgment in favor of appellees. See

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 2 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Daley, 62

F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 1999).

We reverse the District Court and remand the case to the

Service for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The 1999 quota, when adopted, had a documented 18% likelihood of meeting the statute's conservation goals. We hold

that, under the Fishery Act, the disputed quota is insufficient

to meet Congress' mandate to the Service to prevent overfishing and to assure that specific conservation goals are met.

We also hold that the Service's proposal to supplement the

quota with other purportedly protective measures does not

satisfactorily ameliorate the quota's glaring deficiencies. Because of our disposition on these grounds, we have no need to

reach appellants' NEPA claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Regulatory Background

The Fishery Act was enacted to establish a federal-regional

partnership to manage fishery resources. Under the statute,

there are eight Regional Fishery Management Councils "to

exercise sound judgment in the stewardship of fishery resources." 16 U.S.C. ss 1801(b)(5), 1852(a) (Supp. IV 1998).

Management Councils propose and monitor fishery management plans "which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing

basis, the optimum yield from each fishery." Id. s 1801(b)(4)

(1994). Management Councils submit management plans to

the Secretary of Commerce (functionally the Service), who

may then adopt them through notice and comment rulemaking. See id. s 1854(a) (Supp. IV 1998). An "optimum yield"

under the statute is defined as the "maximum sustainable

yield from the fishery." Id. s 1802(28)(B) (Supp. IV 1998).

If a fishery is "overfished," the management plan must

"provide[ ] for rebuilding to a level consistent with" the

maximum sustainable yield. Id. s 1802(28)(C). A fishery is

"overfished" if the rate of fishing mortality "jeopardizes the

capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable

yield on a continuing basis." Id. s 1802(29).

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 3 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The Service defines overfishing and optimum yield according to the fishing mortality rate ("F"). F represents that

part of a fish species' total mortality rate that is attributable

to harvesting by humans, whether through capture or discard. Fish are "discarded" for many reasons, including, for

example, when they are the wrong species, undersized, or not

valuable enough. Values for F can range anywhere from 0 to

over 2, and only indirectly represent the amount of fish

captured by industry. For instance, an F of 1.4 means that

about 20% of all summer flounder that are alive at year 1 will

be alive at year 2. There is a specific F, termed "Fmax," that

is defined as that fishing mortality rate that will maximize the

harvest of a single class of fish over its entire life span.

Overfishing is fishing in excess of Fmax. See Amendment 7 To

The Fishery Management Plan for The Summer Flounder

Fishery at 9 (May 1995), reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.")

316. Therefore, the basic goal of a management plan is to

achieve Fmax, thereby preventing overfishing and assuring

optimum yield.

B. The Summer Flounder Fishing Quota

From a commercial standpoint, the summer flounder is one

of the most important species of flounder in the United

States. All parties agree that the summer flounder fishery is

"overfished" and has been for some time. The Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council ("MAFMC"), covering New

York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, developed the original summer

flounder management plan with the assistance of two other

regional Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ("the Commission"), a consortium

of 15 coastal states and the District of Columbia. The

Service approved the original management plan in 1988;

however, the Service has amended the plan several times. At

the time relevant to the instant case, the plan was designed to

achieve a fishing mortality rate equal to Fmax by 1998.

Pursuant to the management plan, the Service must set a

quota each year fixing the total weight of summer flounder

that may be harvested by commercial and recreational fishUSCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 4 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ers. This quota is referred to as the "total allowable landings" for the year, or "TAL." The Service allocates 60% of

the TAL to commercial fisheries and 40% of the quota to

recreational fisheries, and states receive allocations based

upon their share of the summer flounder fishery. States may

subdivide their allocated commercial quota between "incidental" and "directed" catch. Directed fisheries intentionally

harvest summer flounder. Fishers who catch juvenile flounder, or who are part of the directed fishery for another species

and catch summer flounder unintentionally, have harvested

incidental catch.

The TAL must meet several requirements. It must be

consistent with the 10 national standards of fishery conservation and management set out in the Fishery Act. See 16

U.S.C. s 1851(a)(1)-(10) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). Most relevant to the instant case, the quota must embody conservation

measures that "shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a

continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the

United States fishing industry." Id. s 1851(a)(1) (1994). The

quota must also be "consistent with" the fishery management

plan. See id. s 1854(b)(1). Finally, under the applicable

regulations, the Regional Administrator of the Service must

annually adopt a final rule "implement[ing] the measures

necessary to assure that the applicable specified F will not be

exceeded." 50 C.F.R. s 648.100(c) (1999) (emphasis added).

The "applicable specified F" is also referred to as the "target

F."

There is a relatively direct relationship between the TAL

and the likelihood of achieving the target F. In general, the

higher the TAL, the less likely a plan is to achieve the target

F. In other words, the lower the target F, the lower the

TAL must be to attain the target F. The basic dispute

between the parties concerns whether the 1999 TAL provides

a sufficient guarantee that the target F for summer flounder

will be achieved.

For 1999, the summer flounder fishery management plan

mandated a target F equivalent to Fmax, which was 0.24. The

Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee, a MAFMC comUSCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 5 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

mittee, had recommended a TAL of 14.645 million pounds,

while MAFMC had recommended a TAL of 20.20 million

pounds. The Service rejected MAFMC's recommendation as

"unacceptably risk-prone" for several reasons: (1) it had an

"unacceptably low probability" of 3% of achieving the target

F; (2) it had a 50% probability of achieving an F of 0.36,

which was "significantly higher" than the target F; (3) the

proposal relied on unpredictable data; and (4) MAFMC had

"yet to specify a harvest level that has achieved the annual

target F." Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;

Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries, 63

Fed. Reg. 56,135, 56,136 (1998) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt.

648) (proposed Oct. 21, 1998) ("Proposed TAL"). The Service

also rejected the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee's

recommendation of a 14.645 million pound TAL. Although

the Committee's recommendation had a 50% chance of achieving the target F, the Service rejected the proposal without

any meaningful explanation.

On October 21, 1998, the Service proposed a TAL of 18.52

million pounds. See id. All parties agree that, at most, the

Service's proposal afforded only an 18% likelihood of achieving the target F. The Service also proposed an incidental

catch restriction "to address discards in this fishery that

should further reduce the overall mortality." Id. This measure provided that, within the commercial fishery, 32.7% of

the allocated quota be committed to incidental catch. In the

end, then, the Service proposed a TAL of 7.41 million pounds

for recreational harvest, 7.47 million pounds for directed

commercial harvesting, and 3.64 million pounds for incidental

commercial catch, for a total of 18.52 million pounds. See id.

The Service also considered recent changes in minimum mesh

size. On this point, the Service noted that, while MAFMC

felt that the "recently adopted mesh provision requiring 5.5

inch" mesh throughout the net would "substantially reduce

discard and discard mortality," the alleged benefits of mesh

had yet to be verified by anyone. Id.

Between the time of proposal of the 1999 TAL and its

adoption, the Service concluded that it did not have the

authority to impose any incidental catch restrictions on the

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 6 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

states. Therefore, the Service merely recommended that the

states adopt the incidental catch proposal, making the proposal entirely voluntary. The Commission, the body representing 15 coastal states and the District of Columbia, also

declined to command the states to adopt the proposal. According to an advisor to the Service's Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, this development "result[ed] in an unknown but

probably substantial reduction in the likelihood that

[MAFMC's] rebuilding schedule will be achieved," and he

therefore recommended that the Service adopt the Summer

Flounder Monitoring Committee's recommended 14.645 million pound TAL. See Memo from Gary Matlock to Rolland

Schmitten (Nov. 25, 1998), reprinted in J.A. 208.

The Service rejected this recommendation and, on December 31, 1998, issued the final TAL, adopting its initial proposal. The Service acknowledged that the Summer Flounder

Monitoring Committee's recommended quota had a 50%

chance of achieving the target F, while the Service's TAL had

only an 18% chance of achieving the target F. See Fisheries

of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup,

and Black Sea Bass Fisheries, 63 Fed. Reg. 72,203, 72,203-04

(1998) (codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 648) ("Final TAL"). The

Service also recognized that the incidental catch provisions

were entirely voluntary. See id. at 72,204. The Service

simply recommended that states adopt the additional incidental catch provisions "[t]o improve the probability of achieving

the target [F]." Id. Nowhere did the Service analyze the

effect on fishing mortality of shifting from a mandatory to a

voluntary incidental catch provision.

The Service responded to comments that the TAL did not

sufficiently assure achievement of the target F by stating

that: (1) the TAL had a higher probability of meeting the

target F than MAFMC's 20.2 million pound recommendation;

and (2) the incidental catch recommendations "would improve

the likelihood that the target fishing mortality rate would be

attained." Id. at 72,206. In response to other comments, the

Service suggested that the 5.5 inch minimum mesh provision

might ameliorate other mortality concerns, but acknowledged

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 7 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that the requirement had not been in effect long enough to

determine its efficacy. See id. at 72,208.

Appellants filed suit in District Court on January 29, 1999,

seeking, inter alia, (1) a declaratory judgment that defendants violated the Fishery Act, the Administrative Procedure

Act ("APA"), and NEPA, and (2) remand to the agency to

impose a new summer flounder TAL. See Complaint at 25-

26, reprinted in J.A. 52-53. The District Court upheld the

Service's adoption of the 18.52 million pound TAL, deferring

to the agency under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The

District Court first determined that ss 1851 (a)(1) and (a)(8)

in the Fishery Act evinced competing interests between advancing conservation and minimizing adverse economic effects

and that Congress offered no insight as to how to balance

these concerns. See Natural Resources Defense Council, 62

F. Supp. 2d at 106-07. In addition, the trial court found that

the Fishery Act expressed no clear intent as to the particular

level of certainty a TAL must guarantee to be consistent with

16 U.S.C. s 1851(a)(1). See id. at 107. Given these perceived

ambiguities, the District Court deferred to the Service pursuant to Chevron Step Two. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

As we recently held in Associated Builders & Contractors,

Inc. v. Herman, 166 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1999),

[i]n a case like the instant one, in which the District

Court reviewed an agency action under the [APA], we

review the administrative action directly. See Troy

Corp. v. Browner, 120 F.3d 277, 281 (D.C. Cir. 1997);

Gas Appliance Mfrs. v. Department of Energy, 998 F.2d

1041, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1993). In other words, we accord

no particular deference to the judgment of the District

Court. See Gas Appliance Mfrs., 998 F.2d at 1045.

Rather, on an independent review of the record, we will

uphold [the agency's] decision unless we find it to be

"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherUSCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 8 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

wise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A)

(1994).

Id. at 1254.

As for the Service's disputed interpretations of the Fishery

Act, we are guided by the Supreme Court's seminal decision

in

Chevron U.S.A., Inc., [467 U.S. at 837], [which] governs

review of agency interpretation of a statute which the

agency administers. Under the first step of Chevron,

the reviewing court "must first exhaust the 'traditional

tools of statutory construction' to determine whether

Congress has spoken to the precise question at issue."

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57

F.3d 1122, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Chevron, 467

U.S. at 843 n.9). The traditional tools include examination of the statute's text, legislative history, and structure, see Southern California Edison Co. v. FERC, 116

F.3d 507, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1997); as well as its purpose, see

First Nat'l Bank & Trust v. National Credit Union, 90

F.3d 525, 529-30 (D.C. Cir. 1996). This inquiry using the

traditional tools of construction may be characterized as

a search for the plain meaning of the statute. If this

search yields a clear result, then Congress has expressed

its intention as to the question, and deference is not

appropriate. See Hammontree v. NLRB, 894 F.2d 438,

441 (D.C. Cir. 1990). If, however, "the statute is silent

or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue," Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, Congress has not spoken clearly,

and a permissible agency interpretation of the statute

merits judicial deference. Id.

Bell Atlantic Tele. Cos. v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir.

1997). Although agencies are entitled to deferential review

under Chevron Step Two, our judicial function is neither rote

nor meaningless:

[W]e will defer to [an agency's] interpretation[ ] if [it is]

reasonable and consistent with the statutory purpose and

legislative history. See Troy Corp. v. Browner, 120 F.3d

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 9 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

277, 285 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that an agency's interpretation must be "reasonable and consistent with the

statutory purpose"); City of Cleveland v. U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Comm'n, 68 F.3d 1361, 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(providing that an agency's interpretation must be "reasonable and consistent with the statutory scheme and

legislative history"). However, a court will not uphold

[an agency's] interpretation "that diverges from any realistic meaning of the statute." Massachusetts v. Department of Transp., 93 F.3d 890, 893 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC, 205 F.3d 416, 421 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

This case presents a situation in which the Service's quota for

the 1999 summer flounder harvest so completely diverges

from any realistic meaning of the Fishery Act that it cannot

survive scrutiny under Chevron Step Two.

As an initial matter, we reject the District Court's suggestion that there is a conflict between the Fishery Act's expressed commitments to conservation and to mitigating adverse economic impacts. Compare 16 U.S.C. s 1851(a)(1)

(directing agency to "prevent overfishing" and ensure "the

optimum yield from each fishery"); with id. s 1851(a)(8)

(directing agency to "minimize adverse economic impacts" on

fishing communities). The Government concedes, and we

agree, that, under the Fishery Act, the Service must give

priority to conservation measures. It is only when two

different plans achieve similar conservation measures that the

Service takes into consideration adverse economic consequences. This is confirmed both by the statute's plain language and the regulations issued pursuant to the statute.

See id. s 1851(a)(8) (requiring fishery management plans,

"consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter," to take into account the effect of management plans on

fishing communities) (emphasis added); 50 C.F.R.

s 600.345(b)(1) (1999) ("[W]here two alternatives achieve similar conservation goals, the alternative that ... minimizes the

adverse impacts on [fishing] communities would be the preferred alternative.") (emphasis added).

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 10 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The real issue in this case is whether the 1999 TAL

satisfied the conservation goals of the Fishery Act, the management plan, and the Service's regulations. In considering

this question, it is important to recall that the Service operates under constraints from three different sources. First,

the statute requires the Service to act both to "prevent

overfishing" and to attain "optimum yield." 16 U.S.C.

s 1851(a)(1). Overfishing is commonly understood as fishing

that results in an F in excess of Fmax. Since Fmax for 1999

was equivalent to 0.24, this constraint required the Service to

issue regulations to prevent F from exceeding 0.24. Second,

any quota must be "consistent with" the fishery management

plan adopted by the Service. See id. s 1854(b)(1). In this

case the fishery management plan called for an F of 0.24.

Therefore, the quota had be to "consistent with" achieving

that F. Third, the Service is required to adopt a quota

"necessary to assure that the applicable specified F will not

be exceeded." 50 C.F.R. s 648.100(c). The "applicable specified F" for 1999 was Fmax, or 0.24.

All of these constraints, then, collapse into an inquiry as to

whether the Service's quota was "consistent with" and at the

level "necessary to assure" the achievement of an F of 0.24,

and whether it reasonably could be expected to "prevent" an

F greater than 0.24. In other words, the question is whether

the quota, as approved, sufficiently ensured that it would

achieve an F of 0.24. Appellants argue that the quota

violates applicable standards under both Chevron Step One

and Chevron Step Two. Because we find appellants' Chevron

Step Two arguments convincing, we have no need to reach

their alternative argument that the Service violated NEPA by

relying on an inadequate environmental assessment in promulgating the final rule.

Appellants' Chevron Step One "plain meaning" argument is

virtually indistinguishable from their Chevron Step Two reasonableness argument. Appellants acknowledge that the

statutory terms "assure," "prevent," and "consistent with" do

not mandate a precise quota figure. However, appellants

contend that a TAL with only an 18% likelihood of achieving

the target F is so inherently unreasonable that it defies the

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 11 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

plain meaning of the statute. This is an appealing argument

on the facts of this case, because, as we explain below, the

Service's action is largely incomprehensible when one considers the principal purposes of the Fishery Act. Nonetheless,

we still view this case as governed by Chevron Step Two.

The statute does not prescribe a precise quota figure, so

there is no plain meaning on this point. Rather, we must

look to see whether the agency's disputed action reflects a

reasonable and permissible construction of the statute. In

light of what the statute does require, short of a specific quota

figure, it is clear here that the Service's position fails the test

of Chevron Step Two.

The 1999 quota is unreasonable, plain and simple. Government counsel conceded at oral argument that, to meet its

statutory and regulatory mandate, the Service must have a

"fairly high level of confidence that the quota it recommends

will not result in an F greater than [the target F]." Fishermen's Dock Coop., Inc. v. Brown, 75 F.3d 164, 169-70 (4th

Cir. 1996). We agree. We also hold that, at the very least,

this means that "to assure" the achievement of the target F,

to "prevent overfishing," and to "be consistent with" the

fishery management plan, the TAL must have had at least a

50% chance of attaining an F of 0.24. This is not a surprising

result, because in related contexts, the Service has articulated

precisely this standard. See National Marine Fisheries Service, Final Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas,

Swordfish and Sharks, Vol. I, at 288, reprinted in J.A. 382

(April 1999) (concluding that the Service should choose management measures that have "at least a 50-percent confidence in target reference points," and when choosing between

two alternatives with a greater than 50% probability, should

choose the higher "unless there are strong reasons to do

otherwise").

The disputed 1999 TAL had at most an 18% likelihood of

achieving the target F. Viewed differently, it had at least an

82% chance of resulting in an F greater than the target F.

Only in Superman Comics' Bizarro world, where reality is

turned upside down, could the Service reasonably conclude

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 12 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that a measure that is at least four times as likely to fail as to

succeed offers a "fairly high level of confidence."

Rather than argue that the quota alone provided enough

assurance, the Service contends instead that two additional

measures were adopted to increase the likelihood of achieving

the target F. These measures were: (1) the provision relating to minimum mesh size; and (2) the recommendation that

states voluntarily allocate a certain portion of the directed

commercial fishery toward incidental catch. There is nothing

in this record, however, to indicate that the proposals on

mesh size and voluntary state action would improve the level

of confidence so as to assure a reasonable likelihood of

achieving the target F.

The Service's reliance on its provision regarding minimum

mesh size for fishing nets is rather perplexing. We do not

question the Service's rational conclusion that it is important

to reduce the number of undersized flounder being captured,

given recent observations, in a species with a potential 20

year life span, that very few adult fish survive past three

years of age. See Projection for 1998 Summer Flounder

Quota at 2 (Aug. 1998), reprinted in J.A. 93. At the time the

1999 TAL was proposed, however, the Service acknowledged

that the mesh size provision's "benefits have not yet been

analyzed." Proposed TAL, 63 Fed. Reg. at 56,136. In fact,

the Service apparently placed little stock in MAFMC's prediction that the minimum mesh size of 5.5 inches would reduce

the number of undersized fish caught. See id. In the final

rule, the Service stated only that the minimum mesh size

provision was "intended to address" discarding due to undersized catch; the Service acknowledged, however, that the

mesh provision had "not been in operation long enough to

determine if an adjustment to the mesh size is warranted."

Final TAL, 63 Fed. Reg. at 72,208. In short, there are no

meaningful data (or even well-founded predictions) to support

the assertion that a larger mesh size would reduce the

number of undersized fish caught. And the Service conducted no analysis whatsoever to determine the likely effect of

this measure on the probability of meeting the target F.

There is certainly nothing in the record to indicate that the

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 13 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

larger mesh size would make it likely that the TAL had at

least a 50% chance of achieving the target F.

The Service's second recommendation, that states set aside

a certain percentage of the commercial fishing quota for

incidental catch instead of directed commercial catch, also

fails to ameliorate the deficient 18% figure. First, in concluding that the TAL had an 18% likelihood of achieving the

target F, the Service assumed that at least 10% of the

commercial fishing quota would be allocated to incidental

catch. When defending its proposal to allocate 32.7% of the

commercial quota to incidental catch against a comment that

instead suggested a 10% figure, the Service observed that "[a]

10-percent incidental catch allocation in combination with the

18.52-million [pound] ... TAL would result in a less than 18-

percent probability of achieving the target F." Id. at 72,211

(emphasis added). Therefore, at least some of the incidental

catch proposal's assumed positive effects were already accounted for in the 18% starting probability. The agency's

"double-counting" here indicates that the Service overstated

the positive effects that might come from the incidental catch

recommendation.

The second, and more serious, flaw in the Service's reliance

on its incidental catch proposal is that the proposal is merely

a recommendation to the states, not a mandatory requirement. The Service initially assumed that the incidental catch

proposal would be mandatory. When it was revised from a

mandatory to voluntary proposal, however, the Service never

assessed the impact of the change. Indeed, the record is

conspicuously silent on this point, almost as if the change

never occurred. At oral argument before this court, counsel

for the Government asserted that the Service could reasonably conclude that the states would comply with the recommendation on incidental catch. But counsel conceded that

there is absolutely no demonstrated history in the relations

between the federal and state agencies to support such an

assumption, and there are no present assurances from the

states that they will comply with the Service's recommendation. Indeed, there is evidence in the record to suggest

resistance from some states to the Service's incidental catch

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 14 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

proposal. See id. at 72,207, 72,209-10 (reflecting comments

from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, and Virginia stating, in sum, that the incidental catch allocation was too high, unenforceable, and beyond

the Service's power). We are left only with the Service's

unsupported conclusion that the incidental catch provision

"increases the probability of meeting the target F." Approval of the Final Rule to Implement the 1999 Specifications for

the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FisheriesDecision Memorandum at 3 (Dec. 14, 1998), reprinted in J.A.

277. This is manifestly insufficient.

As we noted at the outset of this opinion, the Service's

quota for the 1999 summer flounder harvest so completely

"diverges from any realistic meaning" of the Fishery Act that

it cannot survive scrutiny under Chevron Step Two. See

GTE Serv. Corp., 205 F.3d at 421. The Service resists this

result by suggesting that we owe deference to the agency's

"scientific" judgments. See Br. for Appellees at 33. While

this may be so, we do not hear cases merely to rubber stamp

agency actions. To play that role would be "tantamount to

abdicating the judiciary's responsibility under the Administrative Procedure Act." A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala, 62 F.3d

1484, 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The Service cannot rely on

"reminders that its scientific determinations are entitled to

deference" in the absence of reasoned analysis "to 'cogently

explain' " why its additional recommended measures satisfied

the Fishery Act's requirements. Id. at 1492 (quoting Motor

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

463 U.S. 29, 48 (1983)). Indeed, we can divine no scientific

judgment upon which the Service concluded that its measures

would satisfy its statutory mandate.

Here, the adopted quota guaranteed only an 18% probability of achieving the principal conservation goal of the summer

flounder fishery management plan. The Service offered neither analysis nor data to support its claim that the two

additional measures aside from the quota would increase that

assurance beyond the at-least-50% likelihood required by

statute and regulation.

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 15 of 16
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons articulated herein, we reverse the District

Court's judgment and remand the case to the Service for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

USCA Case #99-5308 Document #512742 Filed: 04/25/2000 Page 16 of 16