Opinion ID: 184714
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The DAP Claim

Text: 41 With respect to appellant's claim under the DAP, we agree with the District Court that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it set the yields and rates for wheat grass payments. See Order at 1-2, reprinted in A.A. 1-2. 42 The USDA arguably could have selected yields and rates that were more favorable to appellant. It may even be true that the USDA failed to use the most accurate data that it could have found in setting the yield. For example, according to the OIG Report, USDA officials were told when they received the New Mexico data that data from Colorado might better reflect[] the actual crop growth in the area surrounding appellant's farm. A.A. 39. However, given the tight time constraints and difficult conditions under which the local USDA officials were operating, id. at 40, it was not unreasonable for the officials to rely on the New Mexico data, given that appellant's farm was located in that state. See North Carolina v. FERC, 112 F.3d 1175, 1190 (D.C.Cir.1997) (stating that although estimates agency used to select growth rates might have been less reasonable than other available data, the fact that these estimates were less 'reasonable' does not necessarily make them unreasonable or arbitrary); National Wildlife Fed'n v. Burford, 871 F.2d 849, 855 (9th Cir.1989) (noting that under the arbitrary and capricious standard, [t]he action ... need be only a reasonable, not the best or most reasonable, decision). Furthermore, we are unconvinced that the agency's use of this data was unreasonable merely because it was, in the words of the NAD, somewhat aged. NAD Decision at 8, reprinted in A.A. 12. Appellant's talismanic repetition of the data's age, see, e.g., Brief for Appellant at 21, does nothing to illuminate why data of this type does not maintain its accuracy over time. 43 As for the USDA's payment rate, even the OIG Report found no basis for questioning it, because it was so similar to other rates in the area, and was based on rates obtained from New Mexico seed companies. A.A. 40. It is not surprising that appellant can point to other rates in existence at the time that were higher than the rate chosen by the USDA. See, e.g., Complaint p 24. These comparative data cannot carry the day, for the issue here is whether the rate chosen was reasonable; and there is simply nothing in the record to suggest that the rate chosen was anything but reasonable. Appellant does not even claim that the method by which the USDA calculated its rate was, in any way, flawed. In fact, appellant concedes that the USDA used the methodology set forth in the USDA's own handbook. Brief for Appellant at 10. 44 In short, appellant has failed to establish that the agency's action with respect to its DAP claim was unreasonable. Accordingly, we uphold the determination of the NAD with respect to this claim as well.