Opinion ID: 2207621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Relevance of Data Processing Test

Text: Under the Data Processing test, standing is conferred where there is 1) a claim of injury in fact; and 2) the interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute.... Gannett, 565 A.2d at 897 (citing Data Processing, 397 U.S. at 153-154, 90 S.Ct. at 829-30). Normally, this test applies only in the absence of a specific statutory grant of review. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 194, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2955, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring opinion); Presidio Bridge Co. v. Sec. of State, 486 F.Supp. 288 (W.D.TX.1978). In this case, the pertinent Delaware statutes contain specific standing provisions which require the party who wishes to appeal a decision of the Secretary of the DNREC to have an interest which is substantially affected. [15] However, neither of the standing provisions define the term substantially affected. This is of crucial importance because the definition will ultimately confer or deny standing to a party. It therefore falls to us to give body to the phrase substantially affected. In a similar case, Agrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Fla. App., 406 So.2d 478 (1981), the Florida District Court of Appeals for the Second District interpreted the following language of Fla. Stat. 120.52(10)(b): Party means ... (b) any person ... whose substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action.... Id. at 482. In that case, several corporate parties who were economic competitors of Agrico wished to intervene in the process through which Agrico was to be granted a permit for the construction of a fertilizer facility. Id. at 478-480. The corporate parties were granted standing by the Hearing Board, but the District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the phrase substantial interests will be affected required a showing of 1) an injury in fact, and 2) that the interest sought to be protected was within the zone of interest protected under the statute. Id. at 478-482. Thus, the Agrico court in interpreting a phrase most similar to the substantially affected phrase with which this Court is now concerned, employed the Data Processing test, although not by name or reference. There is a logical strength to the application of Data Processing to the present case independent of Agrico. By enacting the standing provisions, the General Assembly adopted an appeals standard requiring a heightened interest. It seems clear that the intent of the legislature was to limit standing to appeal to those who were actually affected by the Secretary's decisions. It seems equally clear that the General Assembly did not open the flood gates to anyone who merely claimed an interest in the matter. That would have created a totally unworkable administrative structure. In supplying the necessary interpretation of the term substantially affected, we adopt the Data Processing test because it gives meaning to the obvious intent of the General Assembly. In the Matter of Estate of Smith, Del.Ch., 467 A.2d 1274, 1280 (1983). A party who is required to show an injury in fact, and that such injury is within the zone of interest sought to be protected by the statute, clearly comes within the purview of these statutes. Determining standing by such criteria complies with the legislature's goal of administrative workability. Thus, in the absence of any legislative definition of the term substantially affected, the Data Processing test provides a workable and just interpretation.