Opinion ID: 767728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Connecticut's Administrative Claims

Text: 4 Connecticut claims that the Secretary failed to consider adequately its petition for rulemaking and that his actions therefore violated his duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and under the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the State contends (1) that the Secretary did not respond to the merits of Connecticut's petition as he was required to do, (2) that a change in circumstances called into question the continuing validity of the current regulation and that the Secretary had not - as required by law - accounted for the change, and (3) that the Secretary did not reply to the arguments based on the 1990 to 1992 data that was gathered and analyzed in opposition to the quotas the Secretary had affirmed. 5 In its decision, the district court undertook a careful examination of each of Connecticut's claims and rejected them. In the course of its discussion of the issues, however, the district court indicated that, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, certain duties had been delegated by Congress to Regional Councils and that, as a result, the Secretary did not have the power to take a number of crucial actions with respect to the FMPs. In particular, when considering the Secretary's decision not to begin rulemaking to adopt a coast-wide system to replace the existing state-by-state quotas, the district court stated: 6 The Secretary's view that the FMP amendment process is the proper method of revising the quota system (instead of the Secretary using his own rule making authority) is supported by Congress's delegation of the responsibility for developing fishery quotas to the Council. Congress made it clear in the MagnusonStevens Act that the Secretary may not amend an FMP to establish a limited access system unless it is first approved by a majority of the appropriate Council. 16 U.S.C. 1854(c)(3). Delegation of this authority to the Council shows Congress's preference to have the Council, with its recognized expertise and required representation of various interests, see 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(1), (2) (providing for a mix of Council members taken from the member states who have occupational experience, or scientific expertise or training, and who are knowledgeable regarding conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery), creating quota management systems for fisheries, not the Secretary alone. The Secretary's role in the process is to ensure that any amendment to the FMP concerning a limited access system is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act, the National Standards, and other applicable laws. So long as the statebystate quota management system approved by the Council and Commission is consistent with the National Standards and other applicable law, the Secretary may not replace it with an alternative he prepares on his own. 7 Id. at 164-65. And the footnote following this passage asserted: 8 To the extent Connecticut's petition for rule making can be interpreted as a request to have the Secretary repeal or revoke the summer flounder FMP, a threequarters majority of the voting members on the Council would be needed before the Secretary could take such action. See 16 U.S.C. 1854(h). 9 Id. at 165 n.19. This discussion, however, was in addition to and independent of the district court's finding that the Secretary's decision was well-supported by the administrative record and was sufficiently justified to withstand judicial review. See id. at 166-67. 10 At oral argument, the Secretary, though conceding that he may have to some degree contributed to this interpretation of the statute, argues that the discussion of the delegation of powers to Regional Councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act was unnecessary to the result reached by the district court. We agree, and therefore decline to express a view either way on the delegation issue. Since the reasons provided by the district court in the other portions of its opinion are more than adequate to support the result the court reached, we affirm the district court's decision upholding the Secretary's denial of Connecticut's request substantially for those reasons. 4