Opinion ID: 393845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Administrator's Denial of Chevron's Administrative Petition for Reconsideration

Text: 28 Alternatively, Chevron argues that even if the materials considered by the Administrator in denying Chevron's administrative petition for reconsideration form a sufficient basis for his determination, those materials are not properly a part of the record in the instant proceeding, and therefore should not be considered in determining whether the Administrator's decision was arbitrary or capricious. In support of this argument, Chevron relies upon 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(6)(C), which provides that (t)he promulgated rule may not be based (in part or whole) on any information or data which has not been placed in the docket as of the date of such promulgation. Consequently, Chevron argues that if the Administrator desires to reconsider the merits of the Breton designation, he must provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), including notice of the reconsideration proceeding, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(3) and an opportunity to present additional evidence, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(5). 8 29 In assessing this argument, the controlling standard of review is stated in section 307(d)(8) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(8), which provides that judicial invalidation of a rule on procedural grounds may be based only on error so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if such error had not been made. As noted supra, the Administrator, in reviewing Chevron's administrative petition for reconsideration, requested FWS to analyze all available information in an attempt to determine Breton's size on August 7, 1977, the relevant statutory date. In response, FWS considered the information contained in the April 19, 1979 FWS memorandum cited by Chevron, as well as other pertinent information, including satellite photographs and other measurements of the islands. The Administrator specifically noted in his denial of Chevron's administrative petition, however, that this new analysis confirms that we know now no more than Congress did in 1975: Breton's acreage fluctuates above and below 5,000 acres, but cannot accurately be pinpointed at any given time. The April 19, 1979 (FWS) memorandum, therefore, adds no new information at all. 45 Fed.Reg.No. 194 at 65590 n.33. Inasmuch as the above-quoted passage negates any inference that the Administrator is now attempting to rely upon information not in the public docket at the time of his final action, it does not appear that the Administrator's consideration of that information, even if erroneous, was so serious and related to matters of such central relevance to his decision that, absent the error, a substantial likelihood exists that his decision would have been affected. 30 Finally, at oral argument counsel for Chevron advanced the argument that the legislative history cited by the Administrator in his denial of Chevron's petition for reconsideration likewise is information or data not entered into the public docket prior to the Administrator's final action, and therefore likewise should not be considered in determining whether the Administrator's action was arbitrary or capricious such as to require reversal. This argument cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as Chevron relied in both its initial comments and its petition for reconsideration on the legislative history of Breton for its argument that the Administrator's acreage determination was erroneous, it does not appear that the Administrator's decision to review that same legislative history was improper. Indeed, after careful examination of the record, and in light of the uncertainty inherent in attempting to assess Breton's size, it does not appear that the Administrator could have intelligently evaluated Chevron's comments and petition without examining that material. In essence, the Administrator was required to examine Breton's legislative history before he could determine whether Chevron's reliance on that legislative history, as well as on the 1979 FWS memorandum, was misplaced. Having determined that the acreage studies contained in the materials cited by Chevron were, as recognized in those documents themselves, inaccurate, and having obtained in response to Chevron's administrative petition an explanation of FWS' conclusion that Breton exceeded 5,000 acres on the relevant date, the Administrator adhered to his original decision to accept the Secretary's assessment of Breton's size. It cannot be said that this decision evinces arbitrary action or an abuse of discretion. Finally, in light of the fact that a study of Breton's present size would shed no new light on the question of Breton's size on August 7, 1977, it appears that, in any event, nothing would be gained by remanding this case for further proceedings. 31 Finding no error in the Administrator's determination that Breton Wilderness exceeded 5,000 acres on August 7, 1977, the Administrator's action is affirmed. 32 AFFIRMED.