caught without setting on porpoise. In any event, the 

 causes of the increased mortality warrant attention and 

 the Commission will consult with the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service, the tuna industry, and others in an 

 attempt to determine the causes of the mortality and take 

 steps to reduce it during 1983. 



Litigation 



Two lawsuits relating to the tuna-porpoise regulations 

 were pending during 1982. 



On 12 December 1980, representatives of the U.S. 

 fishing fleet filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court 

 for the Southern District of California ( American Tunaboat 

 Association v. Baldridge (sic) ) . The plaintiffs in this 

 case alleged that the decision of the Administrator of the 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in October 

 1980 and the tuna-porpoise regulations were illegal because, 

 among other things, the recommendations of the administrative 

 law judge concerning mean school size, density, and range 

 of the porpoise stocks were not adopted and the determination 

 that the coastal spotted dolphin stock is depleted was 

 improper. The plaintiffs alleged that because the 

 regulations and quotas were not based upon the best 

 scientific evidence available, they are unlawful. On 

 10 March 1982, the District Court ruled that the Administrator 

 should have accepted the administrative law judge's 

 determinations and that the Administrator's rejection of 

 those determinations was unsupported by substantial evidence 

 and unlawful. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' 

 motion for summary judgment and directed the Government to 

 submit recalculations concerning the density and range of 

 porpoise schools, and the current status of the affected 

 porpoise stocks based upon the recalculated density, range, 

 and mean school size values. On 21 May 1982, the District 

 Court denied the Government's motion for reconsideration and 

 on 25 June 1982, the Government appealed the District 

 Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

 Circuit. No action had been taken by the Court of Appeals 

 at the end of 1982. 



The second lawsuit ( Balelo v. Baldridge (sic)) , filed 

 1 October 1980, was also brought by representatives of the 

 U.S. fishing fleet in the U.S. District Court for the 

 Southern District of California. This lawsuit challenged 

 the statutory and Constitutional authority for the Government's 

 use of information gathered by observers onboard tuna vessels 

 for enforcement of the quotas and other provisions of the 



- 40 - 



