F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 13 , 2 008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1290 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-02313 - CV -T -26-TB M GULF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, in his o fficial c apacity

as Sec retar

y of the United States D epartm ent of Com m erce , NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERE ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL MARINE FIS HERIES SERVIC E, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 13, 200 8) Be fo re BA RKE T T , F A Y and S T A PL E T O N *, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.

____ ____ ___ * Honora ble Walter K. Stapleton, Senior Circuit J udg e for the United States Court of Appea ls for the Third Circ uit, sit ting by desig nation.2

PE R CU RIA M: Ap p el l an t , t h e G u l f F i s h er m en ’s Association (“ GF A” ), appeals the district co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g th e Appe lle es ’ m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or la ck of j urisdictio n. T he district court held that th e G FA ’ s com plaint was tim e-barr ed unde r the li m itatio ns p ro vis ionof the Ma gnus on- St ev en s F ish er y Co nse rv at ion and Managem ent Act, 16 U. S. C. §§ 18 01 et seq. (the “ Ac t”). O n appeal, the G FA argues that its suit challenging Am endm ent 18A to the Fishery Managem ent Plan for the Re ef F ish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (“ Am endm ent 18A”) w as tim ely under the j udicial review provisi ons of the Act, 16 U. S. C. § 185 5(f), be ca use it w as f ile d w ith in thirty

day s a ft er

a n a ct ionby

the S ec re tary

of Co m m er ce ( the “ Se cr et ar

y ”) . B y it s own te rm s, the A ct

pe rm its ac ha lle nge to a re gul at ionim

ple m en tin g af

ish er y m an ag em en t pl anso l ong as it is fi le d w ith in thirty day s after

the publi cation of the regulation or an action bythe Sec retar y unde r that r eg ulatio n. B ec au se the G FAf ile d it s c ha lle nge to A m en dm en t 18 A nin e day s a ft er

the F ed er al Re gis te r publ ish ed aS ec re tari al a ct ionim

ple m en tin g that r eg ulatio n, w e fi nd the sui t w as ti m el y a nd r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. BACKGROUND T he A ct ve sts in the S ec re tary

the auth or ity

to m ak e fi na l r

ule s and3

am endm ents to fishery

m anagem ent plans. T he Secr etary has delegated that au tho ri ty to the N at ion al Mari ne F ish er ie s S er vic e (“ N MF S” ), adiv isi on o f the D ep ar tm en t of Co m m er ce . O n Augus t 9, 200 6, the N MF S publ ish ed in the Fe de ra l R eg ist er

af ina l r ule im ple m en tin g A m en dm en t 18 A . S ee 71 F ed . Re g. 4542 8. A m en dm en t 18 A r equir es , int er a lia , that owne rs a nd o pe rator s sh al l ins ta ll an d m ai nta in a

N MF S- ap pr ove d V es se l M oni tor ing S y ste m ( “ V MS ”) on an y ve sse l po sse ssi ng a

f ed er al c om

m er ci al pe rm it to h ar

ve st and s el l r ee f fi sh i n the Gulf of M exico. T he initial effec tive date for A m endm ent 18A’ s VMS re qui re m en t w as D ec em

be r 7, 200 6. O n D ec em

be r 6, 200 6, the S ec re tary , thr oughthe N MF S, de lay ed the effe ct iv e d at e fo r im

pl em en ta ti on of t he VMS req ui rem en t u nt il Marc h 7 , 20 07 . See 71 Fed. Re g. 70680. The purpos e of the delay wa s to provi de aff

ected owner s an d o pe rat or s wi th ad di ti on al ti m e to co m pl y wit h t he VMS req ui rem en t. Id . On De cem ber 15, 2006, nine day s after publi cation of the new im plem entation date, the G FAf

ile d su it, pur suant t o § 1 855( f) , c ha lle ngi ng the le ga lity of A m en dm en t 18 A’ s VM S req ui rem en t. T he Appe lle es m ove d to dis m iss the c om pla int f or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 12(b)(1), claim ing it was barre d by the th irt y -d ay li m it at io ns pe rio d i n § 18 55 (f)(1 ). The d is tri ctco ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n.4

The par ties then filed cross m otion s for sum m ary j udgm ent, and the Appellees reas se rte d t he ir c la im

th atth e d is tri ctco ur t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 85 5( f)(1 ). This tim e the district court agree d with Appellees’ argum ent, granting summ ary j udgm en t f

or Appe lle es . T he c ourt c onc lud ed that be ca use the G FA ’ s su it challenges the VMS requirem ent itself, r ather than the delay of the eff ective date, it shou ld h av e be enf

ile d w ith in thirty

day s of A m en dm en t 18 A ’ s pu

bli catio n on Aug us t 9 , 20 06 . DISCUSS ION Se ct ion185 5( f) of

the A ct pr ovi de s f

or j udi ci al r ev ie wof

r eg ulatio ns and Se cr et ar ia l a ct ion s th at

im ple m en t a f ish er y m an ag em en t pl an . I n ou tli nin g th e sc ope of j udi ci al r ev ie w , the statut e inc lud es ali m itatio ns p ro vis ionthat st at es , in re le vant p ar

t, that: Re gul at ion s pr om

ulg at ed by the S ec re tary

und er thi s ch ap te r an d a ct ion s de sc ri be d inpara gr ap h ( 2) sha ll be subject to j udicial review . . . if a petition for such review is f ile d w ith in 3 0 day s a ft er

the da te on whic h th e re gul at ion s are pr om

ulg at ed or the a ct ionis publ ish ed

in th e Fed eral Reg is te r, as ap pl ic ab le . . . . 16 U . S. C. § 18 55( f) (1 ). T he statut e de fi ne s “ ac tio ns” a s “ ac tio ns tha t are take n by the S ec re tary

und er r eg ulatio ns whic h im

ple m en t a f ish er y m an ag em en t pl an . ” I d. § 185 5(f)( 2).5

A s athr es hol d is sue , Appe lle es c ont en d th at the S ec re tary ’ s no tic e de lay ing the e ff ec tiv e da te f

or im ple m en ta tio n of

the V MS r equir em en t w as not a n “ ac tio n” w ith in the m eanin g of

§ 18 55( f) . Appe lle es a rg ue that w e shou ld i nte rp re t the Secr etary ’ s notice as a separate regulation that op erate d to am end the VMS re qui re m en t. T he S ec re tary ’ s no tic e ope rate d to pos tpo ne the e ff ec tiv e da te of

the V MS r equir em en t. T he e ff ec tiv e da te is anind isp en sa ble part of the sub stanc e of th e reg ul at io n b ecau se itde te rm in es when th e reg ul at io n wi ll be im pl em en te d. To the extent that the VMS r equirem ent has no legal effec t prior to its effec tive date, it is o nly log ic al that de lay ing that e ff ec tiv e da te m

ust be c onsi de re d an a ct ion take n un de r the r eg ulatio n, not ase parate r eg ulatio n. A cc ep tin g th at

the S ec re tary ’ s no tic e w as a n a ct ionund er § 18 55( f) , the Appe lle es f

urthe r ar gue that § 1855 (f ) doe s no t a llo wthe G FAto ch al le nge the underly ing regulation when the petition’ s tim eliness is depend ent on a Secr etarial action. H owever , the te xt of the statute states that regulation s and actions are subj ec t t o r ev ie wif

ape tit ionf

or r ev ie w“ is f

ile d w ith in 3 0 day s a ft er

the da te the re gul at ionis pr om

ulg at ed or the a ct ionis publ ish ed . ” 16 U . S. C. § 18 55( f) (1 ) (e m pha sis a dde d) . T hus, if

ape tit ionf

or r ev ie wof

ar eg ulatio n th at

im ple m en ts a fishery m anagem ent plan is filed within thi rty day s of a Se cretarial ac tion u nder th atreg ul at io n, i t i s t im el y .As sumin gthat th e re a so nin gof Or e g on Tr oll e rs re qu ir e s a

pe tit ion e r t o c ha lle ng e bo th 1 the re gulation and the ac tion, rather tha n providingthe petitioner the option to cha lleng e only the re gulatio n, we be lie ve the GF A h a s satis fi e d th at bu rd e n g ive n th e natur e of

the a c tio n in

thi s case . In challeng ing the VMS require ment, the GF A is in essence challeng ing both the underlying r egulation and the ac tion delaying the VMS require ment’s ef fec tive date be cause a succe ssful challeng e to the under lying r egulation would have the e ffe ct of re nderingthe ac tion delay ing the eff

ective da te a nullity . 6 T he pla in t ex t of

§ 18 55( f) doe s no t pr ec lud e j udi ci al r ev ie wof ar eg ulatio n be y ond the thi rty

day s a ft er

it s pu bli catio n w he re the re ha s be ena sub se que nt Se cr et ar ia l a ct ionund er

that r eg ulatio n. O ur

r ea din g of

§ 18 55( f) is co nsi ste nt w iththe N inth C ir cu it’ s r ec en t i nte rp re ta tio n inO re gon T ro lle rs A ss’ n v. G uti er re z, 452 F . 3d 1 104 (9 th C ir . 200 6) , c er t. de nie d, __ U . S. __, 127 S . Ct . 2028 , 167 L. Ed. 2d. 762 (2007 ). In O regon Tr ollers, the N inth Circuit held th at publ ication of a Sec retar ial action in the Federal R egister triggers a newthirty -day lim itatio ns p er iod

in § 18 55( f) (1 ) fo r ch al le nge s to both th e ac tio n and the re gul at ionund er

w hic h th e ac tio n is take n. I d. a t 11 13. T he N inth C ir cu it reasoned, and we agr ee, that “ [t] he conjunctive ‘ and’ –italicized above–in dicates that bo th r eg ulatio ns and a ct ion s are r ev ie w ab le in a tim el y f ile d pe tit ion . T he disjunctive ‘ or’ –also italicized above–i ndicates that a petition is tim ely if it is filed w ith in thirty

day s of e ith er the pr om ulg at ionof

the r eg ulatio n or

pub lic at ionof

the action.” I d. (c itations om itted). 1 A lth oughw e ne ed

not r el y on l eg isl at ive his tor

y be ca use w e fi nd the7

langua ge of

§ 18 55( f) to be pla in and una m big uous , se e Sh otz v. Ci ty of Pl an ta tio n, F la . , 344 F . 3d 1 161, 116 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) , w e not e that the co ngr es sio na l c om

m itt ee r ep orts d em onstrate that “ Co ngr es s sa id wha t i t m eant and m eant what it said. ” U nited States v. S teele, 147 F.3d 1316 , 1318 (11th Cir. 1998 ) (e n banc ). T he S en at e Co m m itt ee Re port e xpl ai ns tha t the 199 0 Am endm ents to the Act addressing judicial re view of a fishery m anagem ent plan regulation cont em

plated that Secre tarial ac tion u nder that regulation would trigg er th e li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r rev ie w of t he reg ul at io n a nd th e act io n t ak en th ereu nd er. T he Co m m itt ee f ound : U nde r curr en t l aw , am an ag em en t pl anor r eg ulatio n on ly can be challenged in court within 30 day s after pu bl ic at io n i n t he Fed eral Reg is te r. Howev er, a subs tantial period m ay

lapse betwe en the tim e a re gul at ionto im

ple m en t a f ish er y m an ag em en t pl anis publ ished and th e tim e action is taken by the Sec retar

y pu rs ua nt to th e reg ul at io n. In m any ins tan ces, it

is onl y wh en suc h an ac tio n is tak en tha t pa rti ci

pant s in the fishery can as sess whether a petitio n for ju dicial review is n ec es sar

y . Th e t i m e l ap s e b et we en p ub l i ca t i o n o [f ] a re gul at ionand S ec re tari al a ct ionm ay de ny ind ivi dua ls t h e o p p o rtu n i t y to c hal le nge re gulati ons at

the poi nt i n tim e w he n th ey

c ande te rm ine that su chac ha lle nge is ne ce ssary . T he a m en dm en ts m ad e by thi s su bse ct ion w oul d a llo wac ha lle nge w ith in 3 0 day s of the ti m e that a Secr et ari al act io n i s p ub li sh ed . S. Re p. N o. 101 -4 14 ( 1990 ), a s r ep ri nte d in199 0 U . S. C. C. A . N . 627 6, 629 88

(em phasis add ed). A s the Ninth Circuit noted, the H ouse Comm ittee Report ind ic at es the sam e int en t t o “ al lowac ha lle nge w ith in 3 0 day s of the ti m e that a re gul at ionis implem ented ,” not m erely publi shed. O regon Tr ollers, 452 F. 3d at 1114 (quoting H. R. Rep. 101-39 3, at 28 (1990)) (e m phasis add ed). Afte r rev ie win g b ot h t he tex t an d t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory of § 18 55 (f), we holdthat a petition filed within thi rty day s of the publi cation of a Se cretarial ac tio n, a s de fi ne d in§ 18 55( f) (2 ), m ay c ha lle nge both th e ac tio n and the r eg ulatio n unde r w hic h th e Se cr et ar ia l a ct ionis take n. I n th is c as e, the S ec re tari al a ct ionto delay the eff ective date of the V MS re quirem ent was an “ action” taken under A m en dm en t 18 A . B ec au se thi s a ct ionw as pub lis he d inthe F ed er al Re gis te r on Decem be r 6, 2 00 6, an d t he GFA fil edit s co m pl ai nt on Decem

be r 15 , 20 06 , we co nc lud e that the c om

pla int w as ti m el y -f

ile d un de r the li m itatio ns p er iod of 16 U . S. C. § 18 55( f) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt thus er re d ingr an tin g th e Appe lle es ’ m oti on fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or la ck of j ur isd ic tio n. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, w e RE VE RSE and RE MAN D to the district court fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on .