The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the *

official caption as set forth above.

09-1594-cv

United Boatmen of New York, Inc. et al. v. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2

3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

4 

5

6 August Term, 2009

7

8 (Argued: March 9, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010)

9

10 Docket No. 09-1594-cv

11 

12

13 STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE

14 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,

15 and ALEXANDER B. GRANNIS, 

16

17 Plaintiffs,

18

19 UNITED BOATMEN OF NEW YORK, INC., NEW YORK

20 FISHING TACKLE TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., and

21 FISHERMEN’S CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION,

22

23 Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees,

24

25 –v.– 

26

27 ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION,

28

29 Defendant-Appellant,

30

31 GARY LOCKE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

32 COMMERCE, CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, NATIONAL

33 OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, and

34 JAMES W. BALSIGER,

35

36 Defendants.

*

37 

38
2

1 Before: LEVAL, SACK, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

2

3 Interlocutory appeal from an order of the United States

4 District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sifton,

5 J.), entered on March 9, 2009, denying the Atlantic States

6 Marine Fisheries Commission’s motion to dismiss the

7 complaint in intervention and certifying to this Court the

8 question of whether the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

9 Commission is subject to suit under the Administrative

10 Procedure Act. We hold that the Atlantic States Marine

11 Fisheries Commission is not a federal agency within the

12 meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. We further

13 hold that, assuming its validity, the “quasi-federal” agency

14 doctrine is inapplicable to the facts of this dispute. 

15 Consequently, intervenor-plaintiffs cannot maintain a cause

16 of action against the Commission under the Administrative

17 Procedure Act.

18

19 REVERSED and REMANDED.

20 

21

22 SEAN H. DONAHUE, Donahue & Goldberg, LLP,

23 Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

24

25 SHAUN M. GEHAN, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,

26 Washington, D.C. (Philip L. Curcio, Melville,

27 N.Y., on the brief), for Appellees.

28 

29

30 WESLEY, Circuit Judge:

31 For 68 years, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

32 Commission (“ASMFC” or the “Commission”) has endeavored to

33 promote the utilization and protection of the fisheries of

34 the Atlantic seaboard. The Commission is the product of a

35 congressionally approved interstate compact authorized by

36 Article I, § 10, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. 
3

1 This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether

2 the intervenor-plaintiffs, United Boatmen of New York, Inc.,

3 New York Fishing Tackle Trade Association, Inc., and the

4 Fishermen’s Conservation Association (collectively

5 “intervenor-plaintiffs” or “United Boatmen”), may assert a

6 claim under section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act,

7 5 U.S.C. § 702 (the “APA”), to seek judicial review of the

8 Commission’s decisions.

9 In essence, the premise of United Boatmen’s complaint

10 in intervention is a simple one: intervenor-plaintiffs

11 maintain that the Commission is more than a congressionally

12 authorized state cooperative agreement. In the view of the

13 intervenor-plaintiffs, ASMFC is a federal agency, or at

14 least acts so much like one that we should treat it as one

15 for purposes of the APA.

16 We hold that the ASMFC is not a federal agency within

17 the meaning of the APA; it is not an “authority of the

18 [g]overnment of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). 

19 We further hold that, in this case, the “quasi-federal”

20 agency doctrine should not be used to expand the statutory

21 definition of an agency under the APA. Thus, United Boatmen

22 are not entitled, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, to seek
4

1 judicial review of the actions of the Commission. We

2 therefore reverse and remand this matter to the district

3 court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of

4 this Court.

5 I. BACKGROUND

6 This case arises from disputes over the management of

7 the summer flounder fishery off of the Atlantic coast. In

8 response to a decrease in the stock of summer flounder, also

9 known as fluke, regulatory “efforts have been made to

10 conserve and restore the population.” Connecticut v. U.S.

11 Dep’t of Commerce, 204 F.3d 413, 414 (2d Cir. 2000). The

12 Atlantic seaboard states retain primary authority over the

13 conservation and management of fisheries within the

14 “territorial sea” — waters within three miles of shore, as

15 well as in rivers and estuaries. The federal government is

16 responsible for regulation of the “exclusive economic zone”

17 — waters from three to 200 miles from shore. See 16 U.S.C.

18 §§ 1801(b)(1), 1856(a), 5102(6); see also Sea Hawk Seafoods,

19 Inc. v. Locke, 568 F.3d 757, 760 (9th Cir. 2009); United

20 Boatmen v. Gutierrez, 429 F. Supp. 2d 543, 546 (E.D.N.Y.

21 2006).
5

1 The facts and procedural history of this controversy

2 are set out in detail in the opinions of the district court. 

3 See New York v. Gutierrez, No. 08 Civ. 2503 (CPS) (RLM),

4 2008 WL 5000493, at *1-4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008); see also

5 New York v. Locke, No. 08 Civ. 2503 (CPS) (RLM), 2009 WL

6 2413463, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2009); New York v. Locke,

7 No. 08 Civ. 2503 (CPS) (RLM), 2009 WL 1194085, at *1-7

8 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2009); New York v. Gutierrez, 623 F.

9 Supp. 2d 301, 305-06 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). A brief review of the

10 facts and history of this case is all that is needed to

11 provide context for our decision.

12 This suit was commenced by the State of New York, the

13 Commissioner of the New York State Department of

14 Environmental Conservation, and the New York State

15 Department of Environmental Conservation (collectively “New

16 York State plaintiffs”), against the Secretary of the United

17 States Department of Commerce, the United States Department

18 of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Commerce and

19 Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

20 Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

21 Administration, and the Acting Assistant Administrator for

22 the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively “federal
As a result of this Court’s holding, intervenor- 1

plaintiffs’ claims against ASMFC must be dismissed. The New

York State plaintiffs’ suit against the federal defendants

will continue in the district court. See 623 F. Supp. 2d at

316. On July 24, 2009, the New York State plaintiffs filed

a complaint challenging the management measures for the 2009

summer flounder season. New York v. Locke, 09 Civ 3196 (NG)

(RLM) (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009). In this iteration of the

litigation, the New York State plaintiffs named as

defendants both the federal defendants and the ASMFC.

 On March 4, 2010 counsel for the New York State 2

plaintiffs sent a letter to the district court arguing that

“[b]ecause the same issues underlying this action are

recurring, . . . the expiration of the 2008 management

measures has not rendered [the case] moot.” Letter to the

Honorable Nina Gershon by Alexander B. Grannis, New York

State Department of Environmental Conservation, Grannis, et

al. v. Locke, et al., 08 Civ. 2503 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2010)

(Gershon, J.) (D. Ct. Doc. No. 148). Although the 2008

management measures have expired, we agree that because “(1)

the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be

fully litigated prior to its . . . expiration, and (2) there

[is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining

party [will] be subjected to the same action again,” the

controversy is not moot. Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109,

114 (2d Cir. 2001) (alterations in original).

6

1 defendants”). The New York State plaintiffs contend that 1

2 the final management rule for the 2008 recreational summer

3 flounder fishery violates the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

4 Conservation and Management Act, as amended in 1996 by the

5 Sustainable Fisheries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. (the

6 “MSA”), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 

2

7 Intervenor-plaintiffs in this action are private groups
7

1 who maintain that the New York State plaintiffs failed to

2 adequately represent their interests in defining the scope

3 of their suit. United Boatmen of New York, Inc. is a

4 professional trade organization that represents the for-hire

5 fishing vessel industry in New York. Members of United

6 Boatmen derive a substantial portion of their revenue from

7 sport fishing for summer flounder. The New York Fishing

8 Tackle Trade Association, Inc. is a professional trade

9 organization that represents the wholesale and retail bait

10 and tackle dealer industry in New York. The Fishermen’s

11 Conservation Association is a non-profit organization whose

12 members are individual recreational anglers who target,

13 among other species, summer flounder in state and federal

14 waters contiguous to New York State.

15 In 1942, the ASMFC was created by a congressionally

16 approved interstate compact (“ASMFC Compact”). See Pub. L.

17 No. 77-539, 56 Stat. 267 (1942), as amended by Pub. L. No.

18 81-721, 64 Stat. 467 (1950); see also U.S. Const. art. I, §

19 10, cl. 3. The purpose of the Compact “is to promote the

20 better utilization of the fisheries . . . of the Atlantic

21 seaboard” through a “joint program for the promotion and

22 protection of such fisheries.” ASMFC Compact, art. I. The
 The ASMFC Compact was ratified by Maine, New 3

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New

York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania,

and the District of Columbia. ASMFC Compact, arts. II, XII,

§ 2; see also R.I. Fishermen’s Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep’t

of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42, 46 (1st Cir. 2009).

8

1 Compact specifically provides that it shall not “be

2 construed to limit the powers of any signatory state or to

3 repeal or prevent the enactment of any legislation or the

4 enforcement of any requirement by any signatory state

5 imposing additional conditions and restrictions to conserve

6 its fisheries.” ASMFC Compact, art. IX. 

7 Each member state appoints three representatives to the

8 Commission. ASMFC Compact, art. III. The Compact requires 3

9 that these representatives be the state’s director of marine

10 fisheries, a state legislator, and a citizen with knowledge

11 relevant to the regulation of marine fisheries. Id. The

12 signatories to the ASMFC “exercise joint regulatory

13 oversight of their fisheries through the development of

14 interstate fishery management plans.” R.I. Fishermen’s

15 Alliance, Inc. v. R.I. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 585 F.3d 42,

16 46 (1st Cir. 2009); accord Medeiros v. Vincent, 431 F.3d 25,

17 27 (1st Cir. 2005). From the inception of the ASMFC until
9

1 1993, participation in the interstate fishery management

2 plans adopted by the Commission was voluntary. Medeiros,

3 431 F.3d at 27. Consequently, “compliance was spotty.” Id.

4 In 1993, Congress adopted the Atlantic Coastal

5 Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5108

6 (the “ACFCMA”), in order to give the ASMFC some “teeth.” 

7 R.I. Fishermen’s Alliance, 585 F.3d at 46. Congress sought

8 to accomplish this goal by mandating state participation in

9 the interstate fishery management plans promulgated by the

10 Commission. 16 U.S.C. § 5104(a)(1). Pursuant to the

11 ACFCMA, a plan must “specify the requirements necessary for

12 [s]tates to be in compliance,” and the ASMFC must “identify

13 each [s]tate that is required to implement and enforce that

14 plan.” Id. The Commission is obligated to review member

15 states’ “implementation and enforcement of coastal fishery

16 management plans” and “report the results of the reviews” to

17 the Secretary of Commerce. Id. § 5104(c).

18 Under the ACFCMA, the Secretary of Commerce is

19 empowered to make an independent finding regarding whether a

20 state has failed to implement management measures and, if

21 so, “whether the measures that the [s]tate has failed to

22 implement and enforce are necessary for the conservation of
10

1 the fishery in question.” Id. § 5106(a)(2). If the

2 Secretary makes a determination of noncompliance with

3 respect to “necessary” measures, he or she “shall declare a

4 moratorium on fishing in the fishery in question within the

5 waters of the noncomplying [s]tate.” Id. § 5106(c)(1).

6 The congressional findings accompanying the ACFCMA note

7 that “[b]ecause no single governmental entity has exclusive

8 management authority for Atlantic coastal fishery resources,

9 harvesting of such resources is frequently subject to

10 disparate, inconsistent, and intermittent [s]tate and

11 [f]ederal regulation that has been detrimental to the

12 conservation and sustainable use of such resources.” Id. §

13 5101(a)(3). The ACFCMA explicitly affirms, however, that

14 the “responsibility for managing Atlantic coastal fisheries

15 rests with the [s]tates, which carry out a cooperative

16 program of fishery oversight and management through the

17 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.” Id. §

18 5101(a)(4).

19 On July 16, 2008, United Boatmen moved to intervene in

20 the action commenced by the New York State plaintiffs and to

21 join the Commission as a defendant. See 2008 WL 5000493, at

22 *5-14. The court granted United Boatmen’s motion and
 The district court improperly concluded that the 4

ASMFC was subject to joinder, by motion of the intervenorplaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

19(a)(1)(A). “Except in extraordinary cases, . . .

intervenors may only join issue on a matter that has been

brought before the court by another party[.] They cannot

expand the proceedings.” Lamprecht v. Fed. Commc’n Comm’n,

958 F.2d 382, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). United Boatmen’s motion should have

been evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). 

Nonetheless, the “general rule that an intervening party may

join issue only on a matter that has been brought before the

court by another party” is only a “prudential restraint,”

and therefore does not impair this Court’s ability to reach

the questions certified for interlocutory review. Synovus

Fin. Corp. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 952

F.2d 426, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and

brackets omitted).

11

1 “decline[d] to limit the scope of [United Boatmen’s]

2 intervention to the parties and issues asserted in [the New

3 York] plaintiffs’ complaint.” Id. at *13. The court 4

4 concluded that the New York State plaintiffs’ “failure to

5 join ASMFC as a defendant constituted nonfeasance,” id.,

6 sufficient to rebut the presumption of adequate

7 representation present when a state brings suit in its

8 capacity as parens patriae, see, e.g., United States v.

9 Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp., 749 F.2d 968, 984-85 (2d Cir.

10 1984); see also United States v. City of N.Y., 198 F.3d 360,

11 367 (2d Cir. 1999). Following the district court’s

12 decision, intervenor-plaintiffs filed their complaint in
By contrast, other interstate compacts do provide for 5

judicial review. E.g., Washington Metropolitan Transit

Regulation Compact, Pub. L. No. 101-505, art. XIII, § 5(a),

104 Stat. 1300, 1312 (1990); Tahoe Regional Planning

Compact, Pub. L. No. 96-551, art. VI(j)(3), 94 Stat. 3233,

3247 (1980); Northeast Dairy Compact, § 16(C), S.J. Res. 28,

104th Cong. (1995).

The district court properly rejected the idea that 6

United Boatmen could avail themselves of an implied right of

action. Gutierrez, 2008 WL 5000493, at *9. “[T]he Supreme

Court has come to view the implication of private remedies

in regulatory statutes with increasing disfavor.” Hallwood

Realty Partners, LP v. Gotham Partners, LP, 286 F.3d 613,

618 (2d Cir. 2002). An implied private right of action

exists only if Congress intended to create such a right. 

Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286-87 (2001). In

looking to the “text and structure,” id. at 288, of the

ASMFC Compact and the ACFCMA, we find no exception to the

ordinary rule is warranted. On appeal, United Boatmen do

not seek to imply a cause of action from the ASMFC Compact

or the ACFCMA.

12

1 intervention on December 19, 2008.

2 ASMFC brought a motion to dismiss United Boatmen’s

3 complaint in intervention for failure to state a claim. 623

4 F. Supp. 2d at 306; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In

5 support of its motion to dismiss, ASMFC pointed out that

6 neither its governing Compact nor any federal statute 5

7 provide a private right of action to seek judicial review of

8 its regulatory decisions. More importantly for purposes of 6

9 this litigation, the Commission maintained that the

10 provisions of the APA, which provide a right of action
 In support of its motion to dismiss, the Commission 7

also made an alternative argument that it should be accorded

Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. The district court

rejected this argument. 623 F. Supp. 2d at 311; see also

Alabama v. N. Carolina, No. 132-orig, 2010 WL 2160786, at

*15 n.5 (June 1, 2010); Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson

Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 40-41 (1994); Gorton v. Gettel, 554 F.3d

60, 62 (2d Cir. 2009). In light of our determination that

the Commission is not subject to suit under the APA, we

decline to address the district court’s sovereign immunity

ruling.

13

1 against federal agencies, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(b)(1), 702, do not

2 apply to action by an interstate compact entity.7

3 The district court denied ASMFC’s motion to dismiss. 

4 623 F. Supp. 2d at 305. The court concluded that

5 intervenor-plaintiffs could maintain a claim against the

6 Commission under section 702 of the APA based on the theory

7 that the Commission is a “quasi-federal” agency. Id. at

8 311. In so holding, the district court concluded that

9 “allowing ASMFC[’s] actions essentially to escape judicial

10 review [would be] inappropriate.” Id. at 312. The district

11 court then granted the Commission’s request for

12 certification of its order for interlocutory appeal. 28

13 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A panel of this Court granted leave to

14 appeal the interlocutory order of the district court.

15 On appeal, the Commission advances largely the same
14

1 arguments that it did before the district court. 

2 Essentially, ASMFC argues that intervenor-plaintiffs’

3 complaint should be dismissed as it pertains to the

4 Commission because it is not a federal agency; therefore,

5 intervenor-plaintiffs may not seek review of the

6 Commission’s fishery management decisions under the APA. By

7 contrast, intervenor-plaintiffs urge us to affirm the

8 district court’s determination that the Commission is a

9 “quasi-federal” agency subject to suit under the APA. 

10 Intervenor-plaintiffs also suggest that this Court take an

11 even stronger position than the one adopted by the district

12 court and find that the Commission is actually a federal

13 agency for the purpose of regulating coastal fishing

14 activities. We hold that the Commission is not subject to

15 suit by United Boatmen under the APA. 

16 II. DISCUSSION 

17 The coverage of the APA, including its judicial review

18 provisions, is governed by the statutory definition of the

19 term “agency.” Thus, we must first look to the text, see

20 Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Dorozhko, 574 F.3d 42, 46 (2d Cir.

21 2009), of section 701(b)(1), which provides a definition of

22 this term. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144
15

1 (1995). Other authorities have “characteriz[ed] the APA

2 definition as ‘not very satisfactory.’” Lee Constr. Co.,

3 Inc. v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 558 F. Supp. 165, 173 (D. Md.

4 1982) (quoting 1 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise §

5 1.01, at 1 & n.1 (1958)); see also Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d

6 1067, 1073 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (stating the APA’s “statutory

7 definition of ‘agency’ is not entirely clear”). We agree

8 that we cannot say that the meaning of agency as defined by

9 the APA is so “plain on its face” as to end our inquiry. 

10 E.g., Barscz v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs &

11 Elec. Boat Corp., 486 F.3d 744, 749 (2d Cir. 2007). While

12 this may not be a case where our “inquiry should end” with

13 the text, but see United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc.,

14 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989), the text of the APA does provide

15 significant guidance. 

16 Examination of the definition of a federal agency, as

17 provided by the APA, reveals that the ASMFC Compact does not

18 fall within the scope of the statute. In reaching this

19 conclusion, “[w]e consider not only the bare meaning of

20 [the] word” agency, Bailey, 516 U.S. at 145, but also the

21 purpose of the APA and the structure and function of the
16

1 Commission. We further hold that, assuming the validity of

2 the “quasi-federal” agency doctrine, even on its own terms,

3 it does not apply to the Commission. 

4 A. The Statutory Definition of Agency Does not Encompass

5 the Commission

6

7 The provisions of the APA “provide[] the statutory

8 structure upon which federal administrative law is built.” 

9 Cornejo-Barreto v. Seifert, 218 F.3d 1004, 1012 (9th Cir.

10 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted and alteration in

11 original). The APA states that “[a] person suffering legal

12 wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or

13 aggrieved by agency action . . . is entitled to judicial

14 review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Under the APA the term

15 “agency” is defined as an “authority of the [g]overnment of

16 the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1); see also Old Town

17 Trolley Tours of Wash., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit

18 Comm’n, 129 F.3d 201, 204 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Despite this

19 express definition, courts that have wrestled with its

20 application have declared that the “law on the simple

21 question of what is an agency is quite complex.” McKinney

22 v. Caldera, 141 F. Supp. 2d 25, 31 (D.D.C. 2001) (quoting

23 Lee Constr. Co., 558 F. Supp. at 172). These courts have
17

1 emphasized “the need to examine the structure, function, and

2 mandate” of the entity in question in determining whether it

3 falls within the definition set out in the APA. Id. at 33;

4 see also Wash. Research Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health,

5 Educ. & Welfare, 504 F.2d 238, 245-46 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

6 The APA definition expressly excludes certain entities,

7 such as Congress and the federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §

8 701(b)(1)(A)-(B); see also id. § 701(b)(1)(C)-(H). Although

9 an interstate compact entity is not specifically exempted

10 from the definition, this “textual silence, when read

11 against the backdrop of . . . the canons of construction

12 applicable to statutes that implicate the separation of

13 powers, points,” Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282, 289 (D.C.

14 Cir. 1991), to the conclusion that the ASMFC is not a

15 federal agency within the meaning of the APA. “It is

16 axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes

17 unstated meanings of that term.” Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S.

18 465, 484 (1987); see also Day v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 1052, 1064

19 & n.12 (6th Cir. 1994) (concluding that a state entity

20 administering a federal program was not subject to the

21 requirements of the APA because the APA applies only to
18

1 federal agencies). In any event, the statutory exclusions

2 from the coverage of the APA applies only to bodies that

3 would otherwise be “authorit[ies] of the [g]overnment of the

4 United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). We find that the

5 Commission is not such an authority.

6 The wording of section 701(b)(1) indicates that we

7 should not give the definition of “agency” a more expansive

8 reading. See United States v. Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23, 31

9 (2d Cir. 1981). The text of the APA tells us what the term

10 agency “means.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1). We have previously

11 interpreted the word “means” as a more restrictive statutory

12 term than another term that could have been selected by

13 Congress in defining surrounding statutory language. 

14 Angelilli, 660 F.2d at 31. We read it that way here. For

15 example, the definitional language of the APA would have a

16 different meaning if it told us that an agency “includes”

17 various governmental authorities. See id.

18 The fact that the ASMFC was created by an interstate

19 compact and approved by Congress does not alter this

20 analysis. We find that the APA’s definition of a federal

21 agency does not fit the Commission. The ASMFC Compact

22 states that the “Commission shall be a body corporate, with
 The MSA establishes “eight Regional Fishery 8

Management Councils,” 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a)(1), that are

responsible for preparing fishery management plans for

federal waters, id. § 1852(h)(1). The Secretary of Commerce

has final authority to approve each plan developed under the

MSA. Id. § 1854. Parties who allege that they are

aggrieved by regulations adopted by the Secretary have a

right to judicial review, id. § 1855(f), conducted in accord

with the review provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et

seq. See Connecticut, 204 F.3d at 414-16. 

19

1 the powers and duties set forth” in the Compact. ASMFC

2 Compact, art. III. Although the Commission acts in parallel

3 with the federal government in managing the stock of summer

4 flounder off of the Atlantic coast, it exists outside the

5 federal administrative law framework. And, it would upset

6 the “federal-state balance,” Armstrong, 924 F.2d at 289, to

7 subject its actions to accountability measures devised to

8 restrain the actions of federal authorities. Cf. Fed.

9 Commc’ns Comm’n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., — U.S. —,

10 129 S. Ct. 1800, 1817 (2009).

11 The regulation of the territorial sea is a matter

12 traditionally left to the states. See In re Air Crash Off

13 Long Island, New York, on July 17, 1996, 209 F.3d 200, 204

14 (2d Cir. 2000). Fishery management in the exclusive

15 economic zone, however, is governed by federal authorities

16 pursuant to the MSA. With one enumerated exception, see 16 8
20

1 U.S.C. § 1856(b), the MSA states that it shall not “be

2 construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or

3 authority of any [s]tate within its boundaries,” id. §

4 1856(a)(1). Of course, summer flounder move freely between

5 state and federal waters. Cf. City of Charleston v. A

6 Fisherman’s Best, Inc., 310 F.3d 155, 160 (4th Cir. 2002)

7 (recognizing that the habitat for swordfish spans both

8 federal and state waters). Thus, coordinated regulatory

9 activities make good sense in this context. However, the

10 fact that federal and state entities act toward a common

11 goal does not convert the state — or interstate — body into

12 a federal one.

13 Although interstate compacts are contemplated by the

14 Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3, and subject

15 to congressional approval, we cannot escape the fact that

16 the entity itself is an aggregation of states. While “an

17 interstate compact or agreement becomes federal law if it is

18 a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact within the

19 meaning of the Compact Clause of the Constitution,” NYSA-ILA

20 Vacation & Holiday Fund v. Waterfront Comm’n, 732 F.2d 292,

21 297 (2d Cir. 1984), it does not follow that the Commission

22 is a federal agency. To hold otherwise would have the
21

1 effect of treating every congressionally authorized

2 interstate compact entity, regardless of the body’s

3 structure and function, into a federal “agency” for purposes

4 of the APA. For reasons explained below, we do not think

5 this result was intended by Congress. 

6 The authority exercised by ASMFC under the Compact is

7 not federal in nature. The signatory states have agreed to

8 coordinate their regulatory activity in order to “promote

9 the better utilization of the fisheries.” ASMFC Compact,

10 art. I. But, there is no indication that the contracting

11 states understood themselves to be compacting to create a

12 federal agency. “Interstate compacts . . . are presumed to

13 be the subject of careful consideration before they are

14 entered into, and are drawn by persons competent to express

15 their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to embody

16 the purposes of the . . . contracting parties.” New Jersey

17 v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597, 615-16 (2008) (internal quotation

18 marks omitted). We therefore decline to find that ASMFC is

19 anything other than a state cooperative agreement, from

20 which states are free to withdraw upon notice to the other

21 member states. ASMFC Compact, art. XII.

22 While it is true that there is a “strong presumption
22

1 that Congress intends judicial review of administrative

2 action,” Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75, 84 (2d Cir.

3 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), that presumption

4 is only available with regard to the administrative acts of

5 federal agencies as defined in the APA. See Bowen v. Mich.

6 Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670-71 (1986),

7 superseded on other grounds by Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

8 Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-509, 100 Stat. 1874, 2037-38

9 (1986). United Boatmen maintain that their claim should be

10 accorded this presumption because the enactment of the

11 ACFCMA rendered ASMFC a federal agency. We disagree. 

12 United Boatmen assume the conclusion they seek to reach. 

13 ASMFC is simply not an authority of the United States. The

14 “primary purpose,” Elliott Assocs., LP v. Banco de la

15 Nacion, 194 F.3d 363, 371 (2d Cir. 1999), of the APA is not

16 to reach contracts between states. And, the language of the

17 ACFCMA makes it clear that the authority to regulate the

18 summer flounder fishery within the territorial sea remains

19 with the states and that the federal government plays only a

20 supporting role in this endeavor. 16 U.S.C. § 5101(a)(4). 

21 Therefore, we hold that ASMFC does not satisfy the

22 definition of an agency as set forth in § 701(b)(1) of the
 While this may be true as a matter of semantics, 9

Congress must do more than authorize the formation of an

interstate body and coordinate its regulatory activities

with this body to bring it within the reach of the APA.

23

1 APA.

2 B. The “Quasi-Federal” Agency Doctrine Does Not Bring the

3 Commission Within the Meaning of the Term Agency under

4 the APA

5

6 The court below maintained that “whether Congress

7 designates an entity as a federal agency does not end the

8 inquiry as to whether the entity in fact operates as a

9 federal agency.” Gutierrez, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 307. The 9

10 district judge opined that if the ASMFC “had become so

11 federal in character” that it should be regarded as a

12 “quasi-federal” agency, then it would be amenable to suit by

13 the intervenor-plaintiffs under the APA. Id. at 308. Thus,

14 the court found that, “[i]n light of [the] substantial

15 federal involvement in the Commission, it is not

16 unreasonable to conclude that, despite state sovereignty

17 concerns, ASMFC should be treated as a ‘quasi-federal

18 agency’ and subjected to a private right of action under the

19 APA.” Id. at 312. 

20 The district court relied on decisions of several other

21 courts that have acknowledged this doctrine. See Am.
 No circuit court of appeals has adopted the “quasi- 10

agency” doctrine in a published decision. Only the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals has endorsed the analysis that

underpins the “quasi-agency” doctrine. Heard Commc’ns, 18

F. App’x at 440. In any event, for the reasons expressed in

this opinion, we are not persuaded that the doctrine — even

as expressed by the courts that have accepted it — is

properly invoked here. Indeed, no circuit court has applied

the doctrine to bring an entity that does not otherwise meet

the definition of an agency under § 701(b)(1) within the

judicial review provisions of the APA. In American Trucking

Association, the Third Circuit concluded that the appellants

had waived the issue of whether or not review under the APA

was available; therefore, it did not decide the issue. 458

F.3d at 304 n.10. Thus, this case cannot properly be read

as an endorsement of the “quasi-federal” agency doctrine. 

The Eighth Circuit expressly held that the bi-state compact

that was the subject of the litigation in Heard

Communications was “not a quasi-federal agency subject to

the APA.” 18 F. App’x at 439. In Elcon, the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia simply assumed, without

deciding, that the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority

was a federal agency. 977 F.2d at 1480. It appears that

this doctrine is the creation of several district courts. 

E.g., Seal & Co., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,

768 F. Supp. 1150, 1154-56 (E.D. Va. 1991); Coal. for Safe

Transit, Inc. v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 778 F. Supp. 464,

467-68 (E.D. Mo. 1991) (citing Union Switch & Signal, Inc.

v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, No. 91-1401C (7) (E.D. Mo. Oct. 23,

1991) (unpublished disposition)).

24

1 Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. Del. River Joint Toll Bridge Comm’n,

2 458 F.3d 291, 304 n.10 (3d Cir. 2006); Heard Commc’ns, Inc.

3 v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 18 F. App’x 438, 439-40 (8th Cir.

4 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition); Elcon Enters.,

5 Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 977 F.2d 1472,

6 1479-80 (D.C. Cir. 1992). We find these decisions 10
25

1 unpersuasive. Taken together, this authority provides scant

2 support for the “quasi-federal” agency doctrine. Indeed, we

3 are skeptical of the validity of this judge-created concept. 

4 It is clear to us, at the very least, that the “quasi5 federal” agency doctrine — whatever its merit — does not

6 apply to the Commission. The lower court was of the view

7 that the “quasi-federal” agency cases identify “three

8 factors relevant to whether a compact authority warrants the

9 quasi-federal agency classification.” 623 F. Supp. 2d at

10 308 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the court

11 forthrightly acknowledged that two of the three factors do

12 not apply to the ASMFC. With that concession, the court

13 implicitly recognized that, given the facts of this case,

14 designation as a “quasi-federal” agency is an ill-fitting

15 means by which to describe the ASMFC. Nonetheless, the

16 district court concluded that, irrespective of other

17 considerations, federal involvement in the activities of the

18 Commission warranted a finding that it is a “quasi-federal”

19 agency. We disagree. 

20 By its nature, there will always be federal involvement

21 in a congressionally approved interstate compact. We are

22 unpersuaded, however, that this requires us to subject what
26

1 is, at its core, a contract between states to the judicial

2 review provisions of the APA. The ASMFC is a body comprised

3 “only of its constituent” states. Cf. Saunders v. Wash.

4 Metro. Area Transit Auth., 359 F. Supp. 457, 460 (D.D.C.

5 1973). A finding that the ASMFC is a “quasi-federal” agency

6 would be in tension with its governing Compact, which serves

7 as a contractual agreement between the member states. The

8 structure and composition of the ASMFC weigh against

9 characterizing it as a “quasi-federal” agency. We may infer

10 that congressional approval of the ASMFC was granted as a

11 means of aiding the contracting states in their regulatory

12 activities. Cf. Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation &

13 Parole, 513 F.3d 95, 104 (3d Cir. 2008). And, Congress

14 chose to endorse the creation of this regulatory body

15 comprised of states rather than preempt the area by creating

16 an actual federal agency. See A Fisherman’s Best, 310 F.3d

17 at 169. 

18 Beyond federal involvement, the fact that federal

19 interests are implicated by the activities of the Commission

20 does not transform ASMFC into a federal entity subject to

21 suit under the APA. See California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S.

22 287, 297-98 (1981). “An interstate compact represents a
27

1 political compromise between constituent elements of the

2 Union.” Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska, 358 F.3d 528,

3 542 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

4 Congress may often have an interest in the terms of such a

5 compromise, but this does not lead us to conclude that

6 private parties are therefore entitled to assert a claim

7 against the compact as if it were a federal agency. 

8 The import of the district court’s reasoning is that,

9 because sound policy choices animate the APA, these policies

10 must apply to the Commission; we again disagree. The

11 district court in essence created a presumption of APA

12 coverage for any entity whose functions may implicate

13 federal interests. It noted: “Congress may not, through

14 legislation imposing federal obligations, oversight,

15 funding, or otherwise, transform an entity into something

16 closely resembling a federal agency, and yet escape the

17 accountability mechanism it intended to apply to such

18 federal agencies — unless, of course, it specifically

19 provides that the APA shall not apply to the entity in

20 question.” Gutierrez, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 307. The basis

21 for the district court’s observation that the Commission

22 “closely resembl[es]” a federal agency eludes us. And,
 Pursuant to the ASMFC Compact, the signatory states 11

also “make annual appropriations to the support of the

Commission.” ASMFC Compact, art. XI.

28

1 regardless of whether or not it would be desirable, as a

2 policy matter, to extend the reach of the APA to the ASMFC,

3 we see no basis to expand the definition of “agency” so as

4 to allow it to reach the ASMFC. Congress and the states may

5 work in partnership in the interest of a common regulatory

6 goal without subjecting an interstate body to review

7 provisions designed to apply to federal agencies.

8 Even assuming, without deciding, that there may be

9 circumstances in which Congress has endowed an entity that

10 is not an “authority of the [g]overnment of the United

11 States,” 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1), with attributes that make it

12 so similar to a federal agency that it is subject to the

13 judicial review provision of the APA, the district court

14 erred in concluding that the ASMFC is a “quasi-federal”

15 agency. We hold that, in the absence of other factors not

16 present in this case, the acts of Congress in approving the

17 interstate Compact, in adopting the ACFCMA, and in providing

18 funding to the Commission, did not transmogrify the ASMFC 11

19 into a “quasi-federal” agency. See Seattle Master Builders
29

1 Ass’n v. Pac. Nw. Elec. Power & Conservation Planning

2 Council, 786 F.2d 1359, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986); but see Heard,

3 18 F. App’x at 440. 

4 The APA is designed, at least in part, to ensure that

5 federal actors are held accountable to the public. See

6 Cohen v. Rice, 992 F.2d 376, 380 (1st Cir. 1993). This

7 concern is not a salient one here. There are other checks

8 on the Commission’s actions, which rest primarily within the

9 authority of the states that comprise the Commission and the

10 state-level officials that represent ASMFC’s member states. 

11 The fact that the ASMFC is an interstate compact entity

12 provides an inherent restraint on its decision making

13 process. “No action shall be taken by the Commission in

14 regard to its general affairs except by the affirmative vote

15 of a majority of the whole number of compacting states

16 present at any meeting.” ASMFC Compact, art. VI. And,

17 “[n]o recommendation shall be made by the Commission in

18 regard to any species of fish except by the affirmative vote

19 of a majority of the compacting states which have an

20 interest in such species.” ASMFC Compact, art. VI. Each

21 state is obligated to carry out the terms of the ASMFC

22 Compact, and member states may seek judicial relief to
 See the Interstate Fisheries Management Program 12

Charter, §§ 3(d)(9), 4(h), available at

http://www.asmfc.org/.

 Federal legislators are constitutionally prohibited 13

from serving as federal agency officials. U.S. Const., art.

I, § 6, cl. 2.

30

1 enforce rights under the agreement. See Texas v. New

2 Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 569-70 (1983); see also Nebraska v.

3 Cent. Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Comm’n,

4 187 F.3d 982, 985 (8th Cir. 1999). Further, member states

5 may avail themselves of an internal appeal mechanism; states

6 may appeal decisions of a management board to the full

7 membership of the Commission.12

8 Although its actions are not subject to review under §

9 702 of the APA, the Commission is a politically accountable

10 body. ASMFC is composed of state conservation agency

11 directors, state legislators, and public citizens appointed

12 by the governors of the member states. ASMFC Compact, 13

13 art. III. The actions of the ASMFC involve the coordinate

14 exercise of the states’ sovereign policy-making powers. In

15 this regard, the Commission is more akin to a legislative

16 body than to a federal agency. The Commission’s decisions

17 are implemented through rule-making by the individual
31

1 states, which affords an opportunity for public

2 participation in the management process. In addition, the

3 ASMFC makes its decisions public. 

4 Finally, the ACFCMA provides a check on the actions of

5 the Commission; it requires that the Secretary of Commerce

6 review a finding that a state has failed to comply with a

7 fishery management plan. 16 U.S.C. § 5106(a). The Compact

8 provides that, if the Secretary determines a state has

9 failed to comply with measures that are “necessary for the

10 conservation” of a fishery, the Secretary shall impose a

11 moratorium. Id. §§ 5106(a), (c). If the Secretary imposes

12 and enforces a federal moratorium based on his or her

13 independent findings of noncompliance, a party that is

14 allegedly aggrieved by the Secretary’s action can obtain APA

15 review of that federal “agency action.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 702,

16 704.

17 The Commission is designed to address concerns that are

18 traditionally within the province of the states. That the

19 Commission seeks to address these concerns with support from

20 the federal government, and in a manner that is harmonious

21 with federal regulations, does not alter its essential

22 nature. The fact that federal interests are implicated by
32

1 the activities of the ASMFC does not transform it into a

2 federal agency for purposes of seeking judicial review of

3 its actions.

4 III. CONCLUSION

5 The district court’s order of March 9, 2009, denying

6 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s motion to

7 dismiss the complaint in intervention as it pertains to that

8 defendant, is hereby REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for

9 further proceedings consistent with this opinion.