Heather Mann
357:36 - 358:47
"The AP notes that Sections 303 and 304 of MSA authorize recovery only of actual costs, and you've heard a lot about that. The AP further recognizes NOAA's longstanding interpretation that recoverable costs should be limited to incremental costs, the old but-for. The but-for situation and standard is important because it goes directly to congressional intent. Cost recovery was never intended to be a mechanism for allocating general agency overhead or broad fisheries enforcement activities, like transferring through a rookery, for example, to a relatively small group of participants simply because they operate in a catch share"
“The AP notes that Sections 303 and 304 of MSA authorize recovery only of actual costs, and you've heard a lot about that. The AP further recognizes NOAA's longstanding interpretation that recoverable costs should be limited to incremental costs, the old but-for. The but-for situation and standard is important because it goes directly to congressional intent. Cost recovery was never intended to be a mechanism for allocating general agency overhead or broad fisheries enforcement activities, like transferring through a rookery, for example, to a relatively small group of participants simply because they operate in a catch share”
- Speaker
- Heather Mann
- Timestamp
- 357:36 – 358:47
- Community
- Alaska News
- Location
- Alaska
- Captured at
- June 6, 2026
From the transcript
There is a growing disconnect between what the MSA authorizes agencies to recover and what fishermen are ultimately being billed for. The AP notes that Sections 303 and 304 of MSA authorize recovery only of actual costs, and you've heard a lot about that. The AP further recognizes NOAA's longstanding interpretation that recoverable costs should be limited to incremental costs, the old but-for. The but-for situation and standard is important because it goes directly to congressional intent. Cost recovery was never intended to be a mechanism for allocating general agency overhead or broad fisheries enforcement activities, like transferring through a rookery, for example, to a relatively small group of participants simply because they operate in a catch share The AP motion correctly identifies a fundamental concern that NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has not clearly established the statutorily required connection between the fees being assessed and the actual incremental cost directly related to individual programs.
Related Coverage
North Pacific council demands OLE justify enforcement fees billed to Alaska catch-share programs
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council passed motions Friday requiring NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement to document each investigation billed to Alaska's catch-share programs by regulation, hours, and apportionment formula, responding to years of industry complaints that OLE charges exceed the legal incremental-cost standard under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
by Bill AlaskaNews1mo ago2 min readAI