The Ho norab le Michae l H. Watson, United States District Judg e for the S outhern D istrict of Ohio , * sittingby des ignation. NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 09a0123n. 06 Fi l ed: February12, 2009 N o. 08- 3049 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT ROBER T B. Le BLANC & J OAN S . Le BLANC, P et i t i on ers , v. E NVI RO NM E NT AL P RO T E CT I ON AGE NC Y, R e sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal A gencyA ct i on

/ B ef ore: G U Y and G R I F F I N , C i rcui t Judges; W A T SO N , D i s t ri ct Judge. * M I C H A E L H . W A T SO N , D i s t ri ct Judge. Pl ai nt i ffs s eek j udi ci al r evi ew of the fin al agenc y act i on t aken by t he E nvi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on A gency ( “EP A ”) , R egi on V ( “ Re g i o n 5 ” ) t o i s s u e a n u n d e r g r o u n d i n j e c t i o n c o n t r o l ( “ UI C” ) p e r mi tt o Cor e En e r g y , LLC (“C o re E n erg y ” o r “p erm ittee” ). B ec au se th e E P A an d the E n v ir o n m en tal A p p ea ls B o ard (“ B o a rd ” ) p ro p e rlyf

o llo w e d a ll sta tu to rily m a n d a ted p ro c e d u re s in iss u in g th e U IC p e rm it t o C or e Ener gyand the B oar d corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatt he LeB l ancs fai l ed t o s at i s fyt he
re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r B o a rd re v ie w , w e d e n yth e re lie f s o u g h t u n d e r t h e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I .No. 08-3049 2

T he Safe D r i nki ng W at erA ct( “SD W A ”) r eq u ir es t he EP A t o r egul at e the under gr ound i nj ect i on of fl ui ds t hr ough w el l s t o pr ot ectt he qual i tyof under gr ound s our ces o f d ri n k in g w a te r ( “ U S D W ” ). S D W A , 4 2 U .S .C . 3 0 0 f , et s eq . T hi s i s achi eved byi s s ui ng perm i t s forunder gr ound i nj ect i on w el l s . U nderPar tC of the S D W A , enac t ed fort he p u rp o se o f p ro tec tin g g ro u n d w a ter , the E P A is re q u ire d to e sta b lish a re g u lato ryp ro g ra m to p rev en t un d erg rou n d injecti o n s tha t end an g er d ri n k ing w ater so u rce s. 4 2 U . S . C . § 3 0 0 h (b). T h e S D W A d ire c ts th e E P A to p ro m u lg a te r e q u ire m e n ts f o r U IC p ro g ra m s; h o w e v e r, in
s t a t e s wh e r e t h e EP A h a s n o ta p p r o v e d a s t a t e UI C p r o g r a m, th e E P A i mp l e me n t s i t s o wn
r egul at i ons fort hats t at e’ s U I C pr ogr am. I n t hi s cas e, t he s t at e of M i chi gan does nothave
an ap p rov ed stat e U IC p rog ram , so the E P A im p lem en ts i ts o w n re g u la ti o n s fo r th e U IC p ro g ra m . T he U I C w el l perm itt i ng pr oces s i nvol ves s i gni fi cantpr ocedur es det ai l i ng t he
r equi r ement s foreac h s t ep of the pr oces s fr om t he dr aftperm i tt o the publ i c not i ce a nd
comm entper i od t o the final perm i tdeci s i on t o t he appe al t o t he B oar d. 40 C . F. R . §§ 1 2 4 .3 -1 9 . A p e rso n w h o c o n tes ts an y c o n d iti o n o f th e d ra f t p e rm it m u st ra ise a ll “re a so n a b ly
a sc e rta in a b le” iss u e s d u r in g th e c o m m e n t p e rio d . 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 3 . If a f in a l p e rm it i s i s s ued, 40 C . F. R . § 124. 15, a per s on w ho s ubm i t t ed comm ent s i s not i fi ed of the perm i t . 40 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 7 . T o o b tain re v iew b yth e B o a rd , a p e tit io n e r is re q u ire d to sh o w th e p e rm it i s bas ed on “a f

i ndi ng of fa ctorconcl us i on of l aw w hi ch i s cl ear l yerr oneous ” orr es t s on “an
e x e rc ise o f

d isc re tio n o r a n im p o rta n t p o licyc o n sid e ra tio n w h ich th e E n v iro n m e n tal A p p e a ls B o a rd s h o u ld , in its d is c re tio n , re v ie w .” 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 9 (a )( 1 )- (2 ).No. 08-3049 3

Thee ff ec t o f an U I C “pe rmit doe s no t c onv ey any p ro pe rty right s of any s ort . . . n or

d oe s it 1 authoriz e any

injuryto person s or prope rty or inv asion of other rights, or any infring ement of State or loc al law or regulations. ” 40 C .F. R. § 144. 35(b)- (c). C or e Ener gy , as partof the M i dw es tR egi onal C arbon Seques t r at i on Par t ner s hi p, appl i ed fora C l as s V i nj ect i on w el l perm i tt o oper at e a l im it ed t es tof ca rbon di oxi de ( “ CO 2 ” ) s e q u e s t r a t i o n i n t o u n d e r g r o u n d r o c k f o r ma t i o n s ( a d e v e l o p i n g t e c h n o l o g yk n o wn as carbon s eques t r at i on)
. O n J ul y23, 2007, a publ i c not i ce w as i s s u ed b yR egi on 5 of the E P A n o ti fy ing the p u b li c a t l arg e o f a p rop o s ed p lan to all o w C o re E n erg ya C lass V U IC
w e l l p e r m i tf

o rt h e t e s t i n g o f

C O 2 i n u n d e r g r o u n d r o c k f o r m a t i o n s i n O t s e g o C o u n ty, M i chi gan. T he publ i c not i ce i nform ed ci t i zens o f the publ i c comm entper i od i n w hi ch
w ri tte n c o m m e n ts a n d re q u e s ts f o r a p u b lic h e a ri n g c o u ld b e s e n t to R e g io n 5 . T h e p rop o sed test ing sit e w as a pa rce l o f l an d ad jace n t to the p lai n ti ff

s-pe ti ti o n ers’, R ober tB . L eB l anc a nd J oan S. L eB l anc ( her ei naft er“pl ai nt i ffs ” or “p eti ti oner s ” or“the L e B la n c s ” ), p ro p e rt y . R o b e rt a n d J o a n L e B la n c a re h u s b a n d a n d w if e , pr o s e l i t i gant s , and both r es i dent s of 9300 I s l and D r i ve, G r os s e I l e, M i chi gan. T he LeB l ancs r es ponded t o t he noti ce b ym ai l i ng comm ent s i n a l ett erdat ed A ugus t14, 2007, obj ect i ng t o t he pr opos ed p e rm it a n d re q u e stin g a p u b lic h e a rin g . T h e c ru x o f th e p lain tiff

s’ o b jec tio n s to th e w e ll i s thatpos s i bl e pr obl ems w i t h t he s afe tyand s t or age of C O 2 coul d r es ul ti n “pl um e mi gr at i on” and pos s i bl e s ubs ur fac e tr es pas s . T he pl ai nt i ffs poi ntoutthata w el l perm i tdoes notconvey anypr oper t yr i ght s nort he r i ghtt o i nj ur e pr oper t y orper s ons , 40 C . F. R . § 144. 35( b)
- ( c) , y et 1 the pos s i bl e s ubs ur fac e tr es pas s r es ul t s i n a t aki ng of thei rpr i vat e pr oper t yforpr i vat e us e.No. 08-3049 4

I n a l ett erdat ed A ugus t 23, 2007, t he C hi ef of t he D i r ectI m pl ement at i on Sect i on of R egi on 5 r es ponded t o t he LeB l ancs ’ l ett er to n o ti fyt hem t hatR egi on 5 “di d notr ece i ve enough publ i c comm ent s t o w arr anta publ i c hea r i ng, and no i s s ues have be en r ai s ed w hi ch in d ic a te th e d ra f

t p e rm it v io la te d a n y f

e d e ra l [ u n d e rg ro u n d in

je c tio n c o n tr o l] re q u ir e m e n t.” T he l et t eral s o not i fi ed the LeB l ancs thatR egi on 5 i s s ued a fi nal perm i t forthe w el l and that the LeB l ancs coul d pet i t i on t he B oar d t o r evi ew anycondi t i on of the fi nal perm i tdeci s i on. T h e le tte r a ls o s e t f

o rt h th e re q u ir e m e n ts f

o r s u c h a p e titio n to th e B o a rd
. T h e L eB lanc s su b seq u en tl yfil ed an ap p ea l (“p eti ti o n fo r rev iew ”) w h ich th e B o ard
r ece i ved o n Se p t e mbe r2 1 , 2 0 0 7 . I n th e i rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w, th e Le Bl a n c s s t a t e d th e k ey iss u e s b e f

o re th e B o a rd w e re th e “ m a tt e r o f li a b ili ty. . . i. e ., n o a d e q u a te p o licye x ists d e f in in g th e ro les a n d f

in a n c ial re sp o n sib ili ties o f th e in d u strya n d g o v e rn m e n t” ( “ liab ili ty i s s ue”) , and adve r s e pos s es s i on i n t hatC O 2 i njecti on vi ol at es pr oper t yr i ght s of adj ace nt land o w n ers u n d er w h o se lan d the C O 2 seq u estrati o n w ill o c c u r (“p rop ertyri g h t i ssu e” ). Fur therm or e the LeB l ancs s ugges t ed t he l i abi l i t yand pr oper t yr i ghti s s ues ar e i m por t ant p o lic yc o n s id e ra tio n s th e B o a rd s h o u ld re v ie w . R egi on 5 r es ponded t o t he pet i t i on for r evi ew ar gui ng t hat t he L eB l ancs w ai ved the l i abi l i ty i s s ue by fai l i ng t o pr oper l yr ai s e i tdur i ng the comm entper i od ther efor e w ai vi ng t he l i abi l i tyi s s ue and thatt he B oar d l acke d author i t yt o r es ol ve the LeB l ancs ’ pr oper t yr i ght
conce rns . Fur t herm or e R egi on 5 ar gued both i s s ues w er e bey ond the s cope of w hatR egi on 5 c o u ld c o n s id e r i n d e te rm in in g w h e th e r t o is s u e a U IC p e rm it.No. 08-3049 5

T h e B o ard then d en ied th e L eB lanc s’ p eti ti o n fo r rev iew
. T h e B o ard stat ed the U IC p e rm itt in g p ro c e ss is n a r r o w in its f o c u s a n d re v iew o f

U IC p e rm it d e c isio n s e x ten d s o n ly t o the boundar i es of the U I C perm i t t i ng pr ogr am i tsel f, w i t h i t s SD W A pr ot ect i on of
u n d e rg ro u n d s o u rc e s o f d ri n k in g w a te r. T he B oar d s t at ed: “[i t ] i s onl yauthor i zed t o r evi ew U I C perm i tcondi t i ons t o the ext entt hatt heyaff ect a w e l l ’ s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e S D W A a n d a p p l i c a b l e U I C r e g u l a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y, w her e pet i t i oner s r ai s e conce r ns out s i de the s cope of the U I C pr ogr am, the [Boar d] w i l l denyr evi ew . ” Fur therm or e, t he B oar d expl ai ned i t does not gr ant r evi ew unl es s t he pet i t i on demonstr at es the per m i t i s bas ed on a cl ear l y err oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctorconcl us i on of l aw , ori nvol ves a n e x e r c i s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n t h a twa r r a n t s Bo a r d ’ s r e v i e w. T he B oar d rul ed t he LeB l ancs had
n o t d e m o n stra ted a r e v ie w o f th e p e rm it w a s w a rra n ted . S in c e th e L e B lan c s f a iled to
m ent i on the l i abi l i t yi s s ue i n t hei r comm ent s and the i s s ue w as r eas onabl yas cert ai nabl e, t he B o ard fo und t he LeB l ancs w ai ved cons i der at i on of the l i abi l i t yi s s ue. T he B oar d w enton t o hol d thatal t hough t he LeB l an cs h ad r ai s ed the pr oper t yr i ghti s s ue dur i ng t he comm ent p eriod , the L eB lanc s fa il ed to m ak e e v en a m inim al de m o n str atio n as to w h yR eg ion 5 ’s
r es pons e t o t hei r comm ent w as cl ear l y err oneous orotherw i s e w arr ant ed r evi ew as r equi r ed b y4 0 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 9 (a )( 1 )- (2 ). T he LeB l ancs t hen fi l ed a m ot i on for r econs i der at i on of the B oar d’ s or derr ei t er at i ng thei rpr oper t y r i ght s i s s ue fors ubs ur fac e tr es pas s . T he B oar d, how ever , deni ed the mot i on for r econ si derat i on , fi nd i ng t hat the L eB l ancs st i l l fai l ed to i nd i cat e ho w R egion 5’s r espon se to the p rop ertyri g h t i ssu e is clea rl yerro n eo u s an d also fa il ed to e s tablish tha t th e B o ard ’sNo. 08-3049 6

pr evi ou s o r derr es ul t ed fr om a demonstr abl e err orof fa ctorl aw . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew f o llo w e d
.

II. A . St andard of R evi ew P u rsu a n t to th e F e d e ra l A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t (“ A P A ” ), a c o u rt c a n h o ld unl aw ful and s etas i de a f i nal agenc yact i on i f i ti s arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous, an ab us e of d is c re tio n , o r o th e rw is e n o t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith la w . 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 (2 )( A ). See a l so Mi c h ig a n Dep t . o

f En v t l
. Qua l i t

y v . U. S
. E. P. A. , 318 F. 3d 705, 707 ( 6th C i r . 2003)
. A fi nal
a g e n c y a c t i o n i s s u b

j e c tt o a d e f

e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

j u d i c i a l r e v i e w u n d e rth e AP A. See Che v r o n , U. S
. A. , I

n c . v . Natu r a l Re s o u r c e s Def e n s e Cou nci l, I

nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 842- 44 ( 1 9 8 4 ); Nor th e a s tOhi o Reg i o n a lS e we rDi s t . v . U. S
. E. P. A. , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 7 2 6 , 7 3 1 (6th C ir
. 20 05 ). In consi deri ng w hetheran ag encyact i on w as arbi t rary and capri ci ou s, a “cou rtm ust
cons i derw hethert he dec i s i on w as bas ed on a c ons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s and
w hether ther e has be en a c l earerr orof j udgm ent . ” M a rs h v . O re g o n N

a tu ra l R e s. C o u n c il , 490 U . S. 360, 378 ( 1989) ( quot i ng C i t iz ens t o P r es er ve O ver t on P ark, I nc. v. V ol pe , 40 1 U. S. 4 0 2 , 4 1 6 (19 7 1 )). B . D eni al of

R evi ew by t he B oardNo. 08-3049 7

T h is pe ti ti o n fo r j u d ici al rev iew o f a fin al ag en cy ac ti o n turn s o n w h ethe r th e B o ard
c o rr e c t l y d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e L e Bl a n c s f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y t h e r e q u i r e me n t s f

o rBo a r d r e v i e w. T he B oar d’ s or der deny i ng t he L eB l ancs ’ pet i t i on forr evi ew i s a fi nal agenc yact i on bythe E P A u n d e r t h e S D W A . 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 9 (f )( 1 )( i)
. In th e ir p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , the p e tit io n e r s a lle g e th e p e rm it v io late s th e ir p ro p e rty
r i ght s as a d

jace n t l an d o w n ers a n d the p o ssibil ityo f su b su rfa ce tr esp ass c rea tes an u n resol ved iss u e o f liab ili ty . R e sp o n d e n t co n ten d s th a t th e a c tio n s o f iss u in g th e p e rm it are re a so n a b le and t he ot her cl ai m s r ai s ed by pet i t i oner s ar e out s i de t he scope of t hi s C our t ’ s r evi ew , w hi ch i s l i mi t e d t o r e v i e wi n g t h e Bo a r d ’ s d e n i a l o f th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T h e B o ard h as th e a u tho ri tyto en fo rce rules o f p roc ed u ral regu lari tyin ca ses b ef o re it. Mich ig a n D e

p t. of E n v tl. Q u a lit

y , 318 F. 3d at 707. Pr ece dent fr om t he B oar d hol ds that a pet i t i onerbear s t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng that r evi ew i s w arr ant ed and the pet i t i oner
m us t s at i s fy t he pl eadi ng r equi r ement s s etouti n t he r egul at i ons i n or dert o m eett hi s bur den. Id
. A party s eeki ng r evi ew by t he B oar d m us t s ubm i t a s t at ementof the r eas ons s uppor t i ng the r evi ew , i ncl udi ng: a demonstr at i on t hatanyi s s ues bei ng r ai s ed w er e r ai s ed dur i ng the publ i c comm ent per i od ( i ncl udi ng anypubl i c hea r i ng) t o t he ext ent r equi r ed by t hes e r egul at i ons and w hen appr opr i at e, a s how i ng thatthe condi t i on i n ques t i on i s bas ed on: ( 1) A fi ndi ng of fa ctorconcl us i on of l aw w hi ch i s cl ear l yerr oneous , or ( 2) A n ex erc ise of di s cr et i on oran i m por t antpol i cycons i der at i on w hi ch the E n v i r o n me n t a l Ap p e a l s Bo a r d s h o u l d , i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , r e v i e w. 4 0 C . F . R . § 1 2 4 . 1 9 (a)(1)-(2).No. 08-3049 8

40 C. F.R . § 124. 19(f)(1)(i): For purpo ses o f judicial review unde r the appro priate A ct, fin al 2 ag ency action occ urs when a final
. . . UI C . . . permit decisio n is issued by EP A and ag ency

review proced ures under this sec tion are exhausted . Afinal permit decisio n sh all be issued by the Reg ional A dmin is tr at or : (i) When the Env ironmental A ppeals Board issu es n otice to the parties th at review has been denied
. In th e p re se n t ca se , the B o a rd d ism iss e d th e L e B lan c s’ p e tit io n f o r f a ilu re to c o m p ly
w i th thi s rul e. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B oar d’ s or deras a fi nal agenc yact i on by 2 the E PA under t he SD W A pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §300j
- 7( a) ( 2) , and “w i l l onl yover tur n t he [Envi r onm ent al A ppeal s ] B oar d’ s rul i ng i f ‘ arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , an abus e of di s cr et i on, or otherw i s e noti n acc or dance w i t h l aw . ’ ” S p i t z e rGr e a tL a ke s L td
. , Co
. v . U. S
. E
. P. A. , 173 F .3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 4 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). See al s o 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 (2 )(A ); Mi chi gan D ept . of E nvt l
. Q ual i t

y v. B r ow ner , 230 F. 3d 181, 183 n. 1 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 0) ( not i ng t hatan ar gum entpet i t i oner s fai l ed to s uffi ci ent l yr ai s e dur i ng a comm entper i od i s w ai ved for p u rp o s e s o f

a p p e lla te re v ie w ). In th e ir th re e -p a g e p e tit io n b e f o re th e B o a rd , th e L e B lan c s ra ise d th e iss u e o f liab ili ty for the fir stt i m e and rei t erat ed thei r concerns ove r s ub surface prop e rtyri gh t s and ad verse pos s es s i on. T he B oar d deni ed t he pet i t i on, fi ndi ng: ( 1) t he LeB l ancs w ai ved cons i der at i on of the l i abi l i t y i s s ue by fai l i ng t o m ent i on i ti n thei rcomm ent s des pi t e the fa ctt he i s s ue w as
r eas onabl y as cert ai nabl e, and; ( 2) al t hough t he LeB l ancs had r ai s ed the pr oper t yr i ghti s s ue dur i ng the comm entper i od, t he LeB l ancs fai l ed t o m ake e ven a mi ni m al demonstr at i on as t o w hyR egi on 5’ s r es pons e t o t hei rcomm entw as cl ear l y err oneous orotherw i s e w arr ant ed
r evi ew even unde ra l i ber al r eadi ng i n defe r ence t o t he pr o s e pet i t i oner s . T he B oar d ci t ed
sev era l B o ard d ec isi o n s fo r th e sp ec ifi c ru le th at a p eti ti o n er m u st r aise issu es th at areNo. 08-3049 9

r eas onabl yas cert ai nabl e dur i ng t he publ i c comm ent per i od i n or dert o pr es erve the i s s ue for
re v ie w b y th e B o a rd , s ee I n r e BP C her r

y Poi nt , 12 E . A . D . 209, 218- 20 ( E A B 2005) , and
s uch i s s ue mustbe r ai s ed w i t h a re aso n ab le d egr ee of cl ar i t yand s peci fi ci t ydur i ng t he
c o m m e n t p e rio d in o rd e r fo r th e iss u e to b e c o n sid e re d b yth e B o a rd o n a p p e a l. S ee , e.g. In
r e N ew E ngland P l at i ng , 9 E . A . D . 726, 7 32 ( E A B 2001) ( pet i t i on deni ed w hen i s s ue w as
r eas onabl y asc ert ai nabl e butnotr ai s ed dur i ng publ i c comm entper i od and thus E PA w as d e n ied f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto r e s p o n d ). T h e B o a rd a lso c ited se v e ra l B o a rd d e c isio n s f o r its
s peci fi c rul e thata pet i t i onerm aynots i m pl yr es t at e i t s or i gi nal com m en ts i n or dert o be gr ant ed r evi ew w i t houtdemonstr at i ng w hy t he R egi on’ s r es pons e w as cl ear l yerr oneous or o th e rw is e w a rr a n te d re v ie w . S e e , e . g . , I n r e Ne wmo n t Ne v . En e r g y I n v . , L
. L
. C. , 1 2 E . A. D. 4 2 9 , 4 7 2 (E A B 2 0 0 5 ). W e ho l d thatt he B o a rd ’s i nterpret at i on and app l i cat i on of it s procedu ral rul es, s peci fi cal l y40 C . F. R . § 124. 19( a) ( 1)
- ( 2) , w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on no r a rbit r aryand
c a p ric io u s. T h e B o a rd c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t th e p e tit io n e rs d id n o t p re se rv e th e liab ili ty iss u e b e c a u se th e y f

a iled to m e n tio n it i n th e ir c o m m e n ts a n d th a t th e iss u e w a s re a so n a b ly
as cert ai nabl e. I n r evi ew i ng t he comm ent s t he LeB l ancs s ubm i t t ed t o R egi on 5, t her e i s no
m en ti o n o f li ab il ity . H en ce , the L eB lanc s fa il ed to prese rve the liabili tyissue
. W ith reg ard t o the pr opert yi s s ue, t he L eB l ancs m er el y r es t at ed thei rgr i evanc es r egar di ng s ubs ur fac e and
m i neral propertyrig h ts w ith o u t o f f e rin g a n yre a so n s w h yth e R e g io n ’s r e sp o n se s w e re c lea rly
err oneous orot herw i s e w arr ant ed r evi ew . T he LeB l ancs pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed and f ai l ed to m e e t th e irb u rd e n u n d e r 4 0 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 .1 9 (a )( 1 )- (2 ).No. 08-3049 10

The LeB lancs repeatedly assert in their Petitions before this Court that the y hav e “alrea dy

pro v en 3 their ca se ag ainst th e S tate an d theStateA ctors in U .S. D istrict C ourt.” See, e. g. , P et.’s P e t . For Judicial Review, p. 17. The LeB lancs are referrin gto anothe r case they hav e before this Court (Case No. 07
- 2095 ) stem mingfrom

an appea l of a case from

the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in front of theH onora

ble G erald Rosen. P etitioners repeate dl y i nvi t e this Court to constru e their arguments th ey hav e put forth in that separate cas e into t hi s c a s e . T he Court declines to do so and will a ddress only the issues prope rly

bro ught be fore it. C . N ew A rgum ent s A dvanced by P et i t i oner bef ore t hi s C ourt are I m proper I n t hei rbr i efs befor e t hi s C our t , the LeB l ancs advanc e s ever al ar gum ent s out s i de the
s cope of the appeal and neve rpr evi ous l ypr es ent ed t o t he B oar d. T he B oar d’ s r evi ew of

3 an EP A
- i s s ued p erm itdeci s i on ext ends t o t he boundar i es of the U I C perm i t t i ng pr ogr am its e lf , w ith its S D W A -d ir e c te d f o c u s o n th e p ro te c tio n o f U S D W s , a n d n o f a rt h e r. S e e , e .g ., I n r e Am. S o da , L. L. P. , 9 E . A . D . 280, 286 ( E A B 2000) ( “the SD W A and the U I C r egul at i ons aut hor i ze the B oar d t o r evi ew U I C perm i t t i ng deci s i ons onl yas t heyaff ecta w el l ’s
c o m p lian c e w ith th e S D W A a n d a p p lica b le U IC re g u latio n s” ); In re N E H ub P artners , L. P. , 7 E . A . D . 56 1, 56 7 (E A B 19 98 ) ( “prot ect i on of int eres t s outs i de o f th e U IC program [i s] b e y o n d o u r a u th o ri ty to re v ie w in th e c o n te x t o f [ a U IC ] c a s e ” ), r evi ew deni ed s ub nom
. P enn Fu e l Ga s , I

n c . v . U. S
. EPA , 1 8 5 F .3 d 8 6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); I n r e Feder at ed O i l& G as of Trav ers e C i t

y, Mi chi gan , 6 E . A . D . 722, 725- 26 ( E A B 1997)
. A r evi ew i n g co u rt m ay not
cons i derar gum ent s t hatw er e notpr evi ous l yr ai s ed bef or e an a dm i ni s t r at i ve age ncyunder th e d o c tr in e o f

is s u e e x h a u s tio n o r t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e w a iv e r d o c tr in e . S e e e . g . , U. S
. v . L. A. TuckerTruc k Li nes , I

nc. , 344 U . S. 33, 37 ( 1952) ( s t at i ng t hat “s i m pl e fai r nes s t o t hos e w ho
ar e enga ged in t he t as ks of admi ni s t r at i on, and t o l i t i gant s , r equi r es as a gene r al rul e that
cour t s s houl d nott oppl e overadmi ni s t r at ive d eci s i ons unl es s t he admi ni s t r at i ve bodynot11

No. 0 8- 3049 o n lyh a s e rre d b u t h a s e rre d a g a in st o b jec tio n m a d e a t th e tim e a p p ro p ria te u n d e r its p ra c tice ” ); Ke n tu c k

y Ut i l i t i e s Co
. v . U. S
. F. E. R. C. , 766 F. 2d 239 ( 6th C i r . 1985) ( r ei t er at i ng th a t ju d icia l r e v iew o f a n y iss u e n o t p a rticu lar ize d in o b jec tio n s s u b m itt e d to th e a g e n c yis
s im p ly n o t a v a ila b le ). A ccor di ngl y , t he C our tw i l l notcons i dernoraddr es s t he LeB l ancs’ v ari ous ot her
a rg u m e n ts a s s e rt e d f

o r t h e f ir s t tim e in th is a p p e a l.

III . Co n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e L e Bl a n c s f a i l e d t o s a t i s f

yth e r e q u i r e me n t s f

o rBo a r d r e v i e w, we DE NY th e re lie f

s o u g h t u n d e r t h e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .