Wards Cove Packing v. National Marine Fisheries, 01-35309.

Decision Date15 October 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-35309.,01-35309.
Citation307 F.3d 1214
PartiesWARDS COVE PACKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; James W. Balsiger, in his capacity as Regional Administrator, Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service; Donald L. Evans, in his capacity as Secretary of Commerce; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Jess G. Webster and Mitchell A. Broz, Mikkelborg, Broz, Wells & Fryer, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Mark Brown, Katherine Hazard and Ellen J. Durkee, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, for the defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-1570L.

Before HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WARE,* District Judge.

OPINION

WARE, District Judge.

The issue in this case is whether, under federal regulations, a commercial fishing company is qualified to participate in both the sablefish and halibut fishing industries if it fished for only one species during the regulatory base period. Wards Cove Packing Corporation ("Wards Cove") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service's ("NMFS") decision finding Wards Cove ineligible to harvest sablefish in the regulated area because, during the qualifying base period set forth in the regulations, it harvested only halibut. The district court found the qualification provisions of the regulations ambiguous and deferred to a NMFS interpretive ruling which held that only persons actually landing sablefish during the requisite period were qualified to participate in the sablefish industry.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the district court's finding that the regulation is ambiguous. We find no ambiguity in the plain language of the regulation, which allows qualification based on harvesting either species. We reverse and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

In 1976, Congress created the "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act" in order to conserve and manage all fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States. See 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. In 1982, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act was passed to implement the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. See 16 U.S.C. § 773.

Pursuant to these statutes, regional fishery management councils were established to recommend fishery management plans throughout the United States. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council ("Council") was created to recommend fishery management plans for any fishery in the Arctic Ocean, the Bering Sea and the Pacific Ocean seaward of Alaska. 16 U.S.C. § 773c(c). Prior to the adoption of fishery management plans in the North Pacific region, fishing for halibut and sablefish (also known as black cod) had become a race. Fishermen would harvest as much fish as possible before the catch limit was reached and a particular fishery closed. This method led to many problems for fishermen, as well as the public, regarding the pricing and availability of fresh fish.

In December of 1988, the Council started to explore options for limiting access to sablefish. In January of 1991, the Council decided to explore similar access limits to halibut. At the end of 1991, the Council recommended a quota system called Individual Fishing Quota ("IFQ"), or annual catch limit, a program for the management of the fixed gear1 sablefish and halibut fisheries in the region.

During the months following the Council's proposal, the economic and environmental impacts of the proposed IFQ program were analyzed and a final report published on September 15, 1992. Proposed regulations implementing the IFQ program were published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1992. See Pacific Halibut Fisheries, 57 Fed.Reg. 57,130.

On November 9, 1993, the Secretary of Commerce, who was delegated the authority to manage and conserve coastal fisheries pursuant to the Magnuson Act, promulgated final regulations implementing the IFQ program. Pacific Halibut Fisheries, 58 Fed.Reg. 59,375, 59,402 (Nov. 9, 1993) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. Part 679). These regulations govern commercial fisheries that use fixed gear to harvest sablefish and halibut in and off of Alaska and in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands region. See 50 C.F.R. § 679.1(d).

Under the regulations, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce administers both the halibut and sablefish IFQ programs through a unitary application and appeals process. Under the regulations, on or after October 18, 1994, an owner or lessee of a commercial vessel desiring to harvest halibut or sablefish or both in the regulated area must file an application showing that the person is qualified.

Significant to this case, the regulations define a person as "qualified" if the applicant is a person:

That owned a vessel that made legal landings of halbut or sablefish, harvested with fixed gear, from any IFQ regulatory area in any QS qualifying year. 50 C.F.R. § 679.40(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Section 679.40(a)(3) defines a QS qualifying year as 1988, 1989 or 1990.

Once an applicant is found to be qualified, i.e., having landings of either species during the qualifying base period, the regulations provide a multi-step process which the regional director is required to follow for calculating an annual quota share of fish which the applicant would be allowed to take. For purposes of calculating the annual quota, the regulations address each species separately. In order to receive an annual quota share for a particular species, the applicant must have had actual landings of that particular species during a species base period, which was different from the qualifying base period. If the applicant is found to have met the requirements for a particular species, the regulations require the regional director to calculate an annual quota for that species for the applicant.

Section 679.40(a)(4)(i) establishes 1984 through 1990 as the species base period for halibut and provides that initial quota share is dependent on the person's highest total legal landings during that period of time:

(i) Halibut QS. The Regional Administrator shall calculate the halibut QS for any qualified person in each IFQ regulatory area based on that person's highest total legal landings of halibut in each IPHC regulatory area for any 5 years of the 7-year halibut QS base period 1984 through 1990. The sum of all halibut QS for an IFQ regulatory area will be the halibut QS pool for that area.

50 C.F.R. § 679.40(a)(4)(i).

Section 679.40(a)(4)(ii) establishes 1985 through 1990 as the species base period for sablefish, with a separate calculation for quota share:

(ii) Sablefish QS. The Regional Administrator shall calculate the sablefish QS for any qualified person in each IFQ regulatory area based on that person's highest total legal landings of sablefish in each groundfish reporting area for any 5 years of the 6-year sablefish QS base period 1985 through 1990. The sum of all sablefish QS for an IFQ regulatory area will be the sablefish QS pool for that area.

50 C.F.R. § 679.40(a)(4)(ii).

Once a QS is assigned, each year the person must apply for an individual fishing quota (IFQ). The regional director allocates to that person an IFQ by multiplying the person's initial quota share by the annual allowable catch for each species. 50 C.F.R. § 679.40(b)-(c).

Pursuant to these regulations, Wards Cove made an application for QS for both halibut and sablefish. In its application, Wards Cove stated that it had made legal landings of halibut during the years of 1988, 1989 and 1990 and of sablefish during the years of 1985, 1986 and 1987.2 Although the NMFS issued an initial QS to Wards Cove for halibut, it refused to issue an initial QS to Wards Cove for sablefish. The government contended that, since Wards Cove had not made legal landings of sablefish during the qualifying years of 1988, 1989 or 1990, it was ineligible for an initial QS for sablefish.

Wards Cove protested that the regulations set forth in § 679.40(a)(2)(A), which define a person who qualifies for initial QS shares, require only that "legal landings of halibut or sablefish" be made within any qualifying year. Since Wards Cove indisputably made legal landings of one of the protected species during the qualifying base period and had landings of both species during the species base period, it argued that it was entitled to QS for both halibut and sablefish. The government rejected Wards Cove's position without explanation and Wards Cove filed a complaint for judicial review.

On November 22, 2000, Wards Cove moved for summary judgment in the district court on the ground that it is a "qualified person" under the regulations, that the regulations are clear and unambiguous and that, therefore, it is entitled to QS for both halibut and sablefish.

The NMFS filed an opposition to Wards Cove's motion for summary judgment, as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment, regarding the issue of regulatory construction. In its motion, NMFS argued that on November 28, 1995, it had implemented an interpretive rule, which had been adopted in two subsequent agency decisions, which clarified that the regulations do not permit a person landing only one type of fish during the qualifying period to qualify for QS in both types of fisheries. See Limited Access Management of Federal Fisheries In and Off of Alaska, 60 Fed.Reg. 58,528-01; In re Application of Patrick Selfridge, NMFS Office of Administrative Appeals Decision, Appeal No. 95-0023; In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2020
    ...for two reasons.First and foremost, the plain language of the pertinent regulations so dictate. ( Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv. (9th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 1214, 1219 ["the plain meaning of a regulation governs ..."].) The regulation itself refers to foods that "subs......
  • Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Scott Pruitt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 30, 2018
    ...point for resolving whether a mandatory duty exists is the language of the regulation itself. Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 307 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2002). "Regulations are interpreted according to the same rules as statutes, applying traditional rules of co......
  • Mountain Cmtys. for Fire Safety v. Elliott
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 4, 2022
    ...of course, "the starting point of our analysis must begin with the language of the regulation." Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. , 307 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. 2002).1. CE-6's language does not restrict thinning. The plain language of CE-6 is clear. It does not limi......
  • U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • January 20, 2005
    ...in order to manage and preserve the nation's fishery resources. See 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq; Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 307 F.3d 1214, 1216 (9th Cir.2002). The Magnuson Act manages the Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ") in the waters off the coast of the Uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 33 No. 3, June 2003
    • June 22, 2003
    ...evidence that the cap was narrowly defined to equal the state's interests. Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 307 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. Wards Cove Packing Corporation (Wards Cove), a commercial fishing company, appealed the district court's summary judgment decisio......
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 35 No. 3, June 2005
    • June 22, 2005
    ...(quoting Wilder v. Thomas, 854 F.2d 605, 614 (2d Cir. 1988)). (18) Id. (citing Wards Cove Packing Corp. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Sere., 307 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir. (19) See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000) (finding that "deference [to an agency's interpretation of i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT