ELR Citation: 54 ELR 20092
No(s). 22-5295 (D.C. Cir. Jun 21, 2024)

In an unpublished per curiam judgment, the D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for NMFS in a challenge to the Service's 2019 rule regarding turtle excluder devices. Environmental groups argued the final rule was not adequately explained, that it was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule that preceded it, and that NMFS was required by NEPA to conduct a species-by-species analysis of the protected turtle population rather than an analysis of the aggregate population. A district court granted summary judgment for NMFS. The appellate court found NMFS adequately explained why it chose to require fewer shrimpers to use turtle excluder devices in the final rule than in the proposed rule—to impose a smaller economic burden on the fishing industry—and that the final rule fell squarely within the range of options in the proposed rule. It further found the NEPA claim was forfeited because the groups failed to raise it during the administrative process. The court affirmed summary judgment for NMFS.