Opinion ID: 2801751
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: using the best available data

Text: DHP asserts that the Secretary was obligated to use the best available data in formulating the outlier thresholds for 2004, 2005 and 2006. While some statutes require an agency to use the best available data when taking certain action, 5 DHP has not identified a similar statute constraining the Secretary’s discretion in setting outlier thresholds. DHP also claims that the Secretary herself required the agency to always use the best available data. See 65 Fed. Reg. 47,026, 47,038 (Aug. 1, 2000). But she simply noted that she “use[s] the best available cost reporting data” for a specific calculation, id., but did not impose as a freestanding regulatory obligation the use of the best available data in every rulemaking. 5 See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A) (Interior Secretary must use “the best scientific and commercial data available to him” in determining “whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species”); 42 U.S.C. § 13256(b) (Energy Secretary must prepare “technical and policy analysis” on alternative fuels “based on the best available data and information obtainable by the Secretary”). 18 DHP attempts to resuscitate its claim by arguing that, in Gas Appliance Manufacturers Ass’n, Inc. v. DOE (GAMA), 998 F.2d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1993), we imposed a generic obligation on agencies to always use the best available data. DHP is in error. Nowhere in GAMA did we require agencies to collect and use only the best available data. Instead, we reversed the Energy Department’s decision because it was not adequately explained. Id. at 1046–48, 1049–51. We also rejected a specific calculation Energy had made because it did not explain why it used two different data sets for the same inquiry. Id. at 1048. But far from imposing a best-available-data obligation on all agencies, GAMA was simply a routine APA case in which we found the challenged agency action arbitrary and capricious. See NRDC v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 752 (D.C. Cir. 2000). To be clear, agencies do not have free rein to use inaccurate data. An agency is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (emphasis added; quotation mark omitted). If an agency fails to examine the relevant data—which examination could reveal, inter alia, that the figures being used are erroneous—it has failed to comply with the APA. Moreover, an agency cannot “fail[] to consider an important aspect of the problem” or “offer[] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence” before it. Id. These requirements underscore that an agency cannot ignore new and better data. See Catawba Cnty., NC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (agencies “have an obligation to deal with newly acquired evidence in some reasonable fashion”); see also New Orleans v. SEC, 969 F.2d 1163, 1167 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“an agency’s reliance on a report or study without ascertaining the accuracy of the data 19 contained in the study or the methodology used to collect the data is arbitrary” (quotation mark omitted)). Whether an agency has arbitrarily used deficient data depends on the specific facts of a particular case, as “the parameters of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review will vary with the context of the case.” WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quotation marks omitted); see also Maggard v. O’Connell, 671 F.2d 568, 571 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“the concept of arbitrary and capricious review defies generalized application and must be contextually tailored” (quotation marks omitted)). It is to that inquiry we now turn.