2010 Economic Analysis (J.A. 185); see also Amended Renovation Rule, 75 Fed.Reg. at 24,811-12 (summary of the economic analysis). And when an agency decides to rely on a cost-benefit analysis as part of its rulemaking, a serious flaw undermining that analysis can render the rule unreasonable. See City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706, 713 (D.C.Cir.2007) (noting that “we will [not] tolerate rules based on arbitrary and capricious cost-benefit analyses”); Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 494 F.3d 188, 206 (D.C.Cir.2007) (vacating regulatory provisions because the cost-benefit analysis supporting them was based on an unexplained methodology). Nonetheless, we review such a cost-benefit analysis deferentially. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 286 F.3d at 563 (<HOLDING>). And “in view of the complex nature of
holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo holding that we do not review epas cost figuring de novo but accord epa discretion to arrive at a cost figure within a broad zone of reasonable estimate internal quotation marks omitted