Opinion ID: 1361168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applicability of Operating Plan

Text: H. Derickson argues that the Operating Plan prevents APHIS from sanctioning him for the violations that occurred at the Trainers Show. He contends that the Operating Plan is a binding contract that prevents APHIS from pursuing actions against individuals who have been sanctioned in accordance with the Operating Plan by a private organization unless it has been determined that the purposes of the Act are not being fulfilled by the private sanction. Dericksons Br. at 30. H. Derickson asserts that the JO did not have substantial evidence to find that the purposes of the Act were not fulfilled by his completion of the two-year suspension issued by NHSC. [13] The JO found that, even assuming the Operating Plan was a binding contract between APHIS and NHSC that applied to the Trainers Show, [14] the Operating Plan does not limit the ability of APHIS to pursue actions against individuals for violations previously sanctioned by private organizations. The JO cited five separate examples in the Operating Plan to support this finding: Nothing in this Operating Plan is intended to indicate that APHIS has relinquished any of its authority under the Act or Regulations. It is not the purpose or intent of this Operating Plan to limit in any way the Secretary's authority. It should be clearly understood that the Secretary has the ultimate administrative authority in the interpretation and enforcement of the Act and the Regulations. This authority can only be curtailed or removed by an act of Congress, and not by this Plan. The Department retains the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings against any violator when it feels such action is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the [Act]. Nothing in this section is intended to limit APHIS's disciplinary authority under the Act and the Regulations. APHIS has the inherent authority to pursue a federal case whenever it determines the purposes of the [Act] have not been fulfilled. J.A. at 37 (JO Dec. at 10) (internal references omitted) (emphases added). The JO's finding is supported by substantial evidence. The terms of the Operating Plan clearly state that APHIS did not relinquish[] any of its authority. Given the straightforward nature of the language and the frequency of the statementsfive times in a twenty-seven-page documentthe evidence is such that a reasonable mind would find it conclusive. Furthermore, H. Derickson misconstrues the language in the Operating Plan that he cites to support his claim. The Operating Plan does state that APHIS retains the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings against any violator when it feels such action is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the [Act]. J.A. at 310 (Operating Plan at 4 n. 8). It also states that APHIS has the inherent authority to pursue a federal case whenever it determines the purposes of the [Act] have not been fulfilled. J.A. at 331 (Operating Plan at 25 n. 25). However, neither phrase contains language that limits the ability of APHIS to act; there is no language that suggest that APHIS can act only under these specified circumstances. Moreover, the Dericksons' brief undermines H. Derickson's argument. The brief states that APHIS clearly retains the authority under the terms contained within the Operating Plan to prosecute cases when it feels that such action is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act. Dericksons Br. at 29 (internal references and quotation marks omitted) (emphases added). This statement highlights the discretionary nature of APHIS's decision-making power. H. Derickson tries to soften this language by insisting that another phrase, found twenty-one pages later in the Operating Plan, requires that this discretion be exercised only when it has been determined that the purposes of the Act are not being fulfilled, such as when a person on suspension by [a Horse Industry Organization] is violating the terms and/or conditions of that suspension. Id. at 30. However, H. Derickson does not explain why we should read these two phrases together, nor does he cite any law that would require that reading. Further, H. Derickson does not explain why, if this is the proper reading of the Operating Plan, the Operating Plan repeatedly expresses that APHIS has not relinquished any discretion in bringing actions. Considering all the language in the Operating Plan, we conclude that it is clear that the JO properly concluded that the Operating Plan does not limit APHIS's ability to bring this action. [15] Thus, we uphold the JO's decision that the Operating Plan does not curtail APHIS's ability to sanction H. Derickson for violations of the Act pertaining to the Trainers Show. [16]