Opinion ID: 185864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: failure to respond to comments

Text: 113 Finally, petitioners contend EPA did not adequately respond to comments submitted in opposition to using the LNT model. Section 553 of the APA requires that an agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation and, [a]fter consideration of the relevant matter presented, ... shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). The agency need not address every comment, but it must respond in a reasoned manner to those that raise significant problems. Reytblatt v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 105 F.3d 715, 722 (D.C.Cir.1997) (citing Action on Smoking & Health v. CAB, 699 F.2d 1209, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1983)). Nevertheless, `[t]he failure to respond to comments is significant only insofar as it demonstrates that the agency's decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors.' Texas Mun. Power Agency v. EPA, 89 F.3d 858, 876 (D.C.Cir.1996) (quoting Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 409 (D.C.Cir.1984); alteration in original). The record here does not demonstrate that EPA failed to consider the relevant factors. 114 Petitioners object to EPA's general and generic response to comments, citing specific studies that they contend reflect the best available science and show the LNT model is inappropriate. In its first response to a comment challenging the LNT model and zero MCLG (frequently cross-referenced in responses to later comments), EPA summarized its reasons for choosing the LNT model and stated it had reviewed the documents submitted by the commenter that purport to provide new scientific evidence to counter the Agency's position that there is `no threshold' for carcinogens such as the radionuclides, that much of the information in these documents was familiar to the Agency and accordingly had already been considered and that the submissions cite anecdotal or case report data, provide comment on other documents or positions or policy decisions, or selected observations and do not provide the kind of data that EPA discusses in the remainder of this response. Comment-Response Document 3-5 (response to comment 3.A.1). This response demonstrates that the agency considered and rejected petitioners' arguments (and cited support) for adopting the quadratic model over the LNT model — an issue the agency had already thoroughly addressed in the rulemaking proceeding. This is all that the APA requires. 25 See Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, 1005 (D.C.Cir.1997) (finding comment response sufficient if it demonstrates that the agency at least considered whether it should adopt [an alternative] model); Thompson, 741 F.2d at 409-10 (concluding that nothing had been presented which required some explanation beyond that already contained within the rulemaking record to assure [the court] that `all relevant factors ha[d] been considered') (quoting Home Box Office v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 36 (D.C.Cir.1977)). 26 Accordingly, we reject petitioners' challenge to the adequacy of EPA's responses to their comments.