Opinion ID: 78056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: EPA's Interpretation of the SDWA

Text: An agency's construction of a statute is deemed reasonable if it is not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law. Ala. Power Co. v. FERC, 22 F.3d 270, 272 (11th Cir.1994). An agency rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2867, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); Ala.-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250, 1254 (11th Cir.2007). Where a statute is precautionary in nature, the evidence difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge, the regulations designed to protect the public health, and the decision that of an expert administrator, we will not demand rigorous step-by-step proof of cause and effect. Ethyl Corp., 541 F.2d at 28. This standard upholds agency actions as long as there is a rational basis for the agency decision. Arango v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 115 F.3d 922, 928 (11th Cir.1997); Manasota-88, Inc. v. Thomas, 799 F.2d 687, 691 (11th Cir.1986). The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency but must, instead, defer to the agency's technical expertise. City Of Oxford, Ga. v. F.A.A., 428 F.3d 1346, 1352 (11th Cir.2005). Indeed, courts must be extremely deferential when an agency's decision rests on the evaluation of complex scientific data within the agency's technical expertise. New York v. Reilly, 969 F.2d 1147, 1152 (D.C.Cir.1992). In such a situation, although a reviewing court may not rubber stamp an agency decision, it `must look at the [agency's] decision not as the chemist, biologist, or statistician that [it is] qualified neither by training nor experience to be, but as a reviewing court exercising ... certain minimal standards of rationality.' Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 199-200 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Am. Paper Inst. v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954, 963 (4th Cir.1981) (quoting Ethyl Corp., 541 F.2d at 36-37)). Further, the EPA is compelled to exercise its judgment in the face of scientific uncertainty unless that uncertainty is so profound that it precludes any reasoned judgment. See Massachusetts v. EPA, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 1463, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (recognizing this obligation in the context of the uncertainty concerning global climate change). Even probative preliminary data not yet certifiable as `fact' may provide an appropriate basis for promulgation of regulations. Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 28. Generally, it is only when a model bears no rational relationship to the characteristics of the data to which it is applied that we will hold that the use of the model was arbitrary and capricious. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 802 (D.C.Cir.1998) (per curiam). Just decades  less than an instant in geologic time  after the EPA first promulgated its regulations under the SDWA, it became apparent that the no-fluid-movement standard was not viable after all for many parts of southern Florida. Fluid movement resulting from the operation of certain Class I wells was violating applicable UIC regulations. Since that violation was a function of geology, and therefore not amenable to technological correction, the affected wells were unable to comply with the statute and would have had to cease operating. See Underground Injection Control Program  Revision, 70 Fed. Reg. at 70,523. In some instances, closure of the wells would have disrupted municipalities' sole method of disposing of millions of gallons of wastewater per day. See CE1 at 402. To address this problem, the EPA created a regulatory alternative to the no-fluid-movement standard: allowing facilities unable fully to isolate wastewater injectate instead to apply advanced wastewater treatment and high-level disinfection prior to injection. [12] The parties argue from opposing positions that the EPA's new rule is arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by the record.