ÿWPCg S.RòÏÖ~™ ºx±6ïÖ#¹Íð›R¸ôŽeæ¾™ÈçJÜ*Nk"ÜñŠïf~¶Xoåümn³“ ÏH4j ìÝ –{ò€;}ÂǘŽéí"ÉP÷ ¨w™v6ßOJ¸J,‰B‹–Í ßåäÆ(s"GWÏO«²¸Ä½a(ú›¿×Çà{©ÓÒtï· GH²ð;+ÖžÔ+Ìè7áp‚ò?8væ[O쉹þ)•ÒÊ ÍO!ÎäZ™ã¦G<8»‡ÆÙç(«_òN:»¬2¢b‚}LaßN¨ |þkPšãûü'ŽúÌÁ—¤Q¨Ê?-KOŸY’k1pÂy^à&Ër¢aß¹^xPîž+h0ýŽÙ'º wˆè‚c:Ýÿ³£y–Xt4Izœ@°-ÞÔL’ʎב5øŠáw û•ª/€®Q]!FÁ®\aY<ƒÍó¤CLXÉ÷‡28Ñlyî?– Òz¹h×F€GuÅ=>ˆÙ>\¤Mªk&’8·i&¬íz³Èjë¤ÛŽ[7§¤4X'@ì“Àa–å|rUŒ¬Téû|àcKÚõ3hé炉þvyvÞ¢ªlˆõ"Ù¸xƒ³§·â}ÄMvU¤«Ôç\- %v 0D| 04ÀU.ôôôw@"Eb4dxx‡ 0x‰‰0Æ1 0e÷ m\ Bs µ E E ÀÔŠ”””&;;;vUFvvvUF¼ BUHX(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó( ƒ•$¡¡Ñ  Ñ<þ6X9`(Courier ÉÊËHÌÎHÏÐDÑÒÓ«Mq)Ÿ~ˆæ‚3|xÓ(((3Ͷ$¤¤Ý ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó &Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›Appellant€argues€that€ð ðthe€regulation€is€inconsistent€with€both€theÐ ° ÐGeneral€Assemblyððs€stated€intent€and€the€statuteððs€standards€for€reimbursement.ððÔ‡Xg`Xõô(–ԀРxÈ ÐÔ#†ô(–õXXg`N#ÔAppellant€also€claims€that€ð ðthe€regulation€must€be€struck€as€invalid€because€theÐ T¤ ÐAgency€may€not€legislate€under€the€guise€of€rule€making€by€issuing€a€regulationÏwhich€is€inconsistent€with€or€out€of€harmony€with,€or€which€alters,€adds€to,Ïextends€or€enlarges,€subverts,€impairs,€limits,€or€restricts€the€act€beingÏadministered.ððÔ‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#*þ2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ÛÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 8Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›Neither€party€contends€otherwise,€and,€in€fact,€the€timing€of€the€eventsÐ ° Ðin€this€case€justify€this€finding.Ô‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô †Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›It€should€be€noted€that€ðð€4„705€(particularly€the€deductible€amounts)€wasÐ ° Ðheavily€amended€pursuant€to€the€1996€amendment,€but€our€reproduction€does€notÏreflect€any€of€those€changes.€Ô‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô …Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›Portions€of€Chapter€14€were€amended,€effective€1997;€these€amendments€areÐ ° Ðnot€relevant€in€this€case,€as€the€parties€have€agreed€that€the€events€that€tookÏplace€predate€the€amendment.€€Ô‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô ¶Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›The€òòWalkeróó€Court€further€stated€that€"decisions€contrary€to€law€orÐ ° Ðunsupported€by€substantial€evidence€are€not€within€the€exercise€of€sound€.€.€.Ïdiscretion,€but€are€arbitrary€and€illegal€acts."€€òòWalkeróó,€238€Md.€at€523.€€Ô‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô €Ý ƒ ï$ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ô(–õXXÔÑ @ Ñà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô(–õõô(–ÔÝ  Ý›In€our€prior€unreported€opinion€in€this€case,€quoting€òòGoodwich,€óówe€stated,Ð ° Ðð ðjudicial€review€is€properly€sought€through€a€writ€of€mandamus€ððwhere€there€[is]Ð xÈ Ðno€statutory€provision€for€hearing€or€review€and€where€public€officials€[are]Ïalleged€to€have€abused€the€discretionary€powers€reposed€in€them.ðððð€€òòGoodwichóó,€343Ð X ÐMd.€at€146€(quoting€òòWalkeróó,€238€Md.€at€522„23).€€Ô‡Xg`Xõô(–Ô  Ñ  Ñ 1Ñ#€XXÿÿd#ÑØØ'ô4  .Times New RomanBold´4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular dNûÖqZ ‹0Ribbon131 Bd BT BoldÝ ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›ÒÀ°ÒÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€òòREPORTEDóóÐ ˜è ÐÌ€€òòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALSóóÐ ( x Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€òòOF€MARYLANDóóÐ ¸   Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€€€No.€2917Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  à€€€September€Term,€1999Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ  ð  Ðà  àà p àà È àà  à€€€€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀ/hAßÐ 0€  ÐÌà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà@-ôàHOMES€OIL€COMPANY,€INC.€€ˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€€€€€€€€€€€€à È àv.Ð 'w ÐÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà@ÌÌ.ôàMARYLAND€DEPARTMENT€OFˆÌà@pp2ôàTHE€ENVIRONMENTˆÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀÖhAßÐ ×' ÐÌÌà  àà p àHollander,Ìà  à€€€*€¢Thieme£,Ìà  àà p à¢Adkins£,ÌÌà  àà p àà È àà  àJJ.Ìà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀ% hAßÐ & v% Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà p à€€àHDD0`à€€€€€€€€€ˆàH.|àOpinion€by€¢Thieme£,€J.ˆÐ ý M' Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€ÌßA€+) °°xdEÀŒ"hAßÐ "Ý) Ðà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à€€€ÌÌFiled:ñÓñ€November€30,€2000ñÓñÌÌÌ€€*€¢Thieme£,€J.,€participated€in€theÏhearing€and€conference€of€this€caseÏwhile€an€active€member€of€thisÏCourt;€he€participated€in€theÏadoption€of€this€opinion€as€aÏretired,€specially€assigned€memberÏof€this€Court.ÌÓÓÐ  ü+L'6 ÐÒ°ÀÒÑ€#PÐÑÑ€$•ÑÑà  àAppellant€Homes€Oil€Company,€Inc.,€appeals€from€the€decisionÏof€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County€granting€summaryÏjudgment€in€favor€of€appellee,€Maryland€Department€of€theÏEnvironment€(ð ð¢MDE£ðð),€pertaining€to€appellantððs€petition€of€appealÐ ` ° Ðof€¢MDE£ððs€administrative€decision.€€Appellant€presents€the€followingÏquestion€for€review,€which€we€have€re„phrased€and€consolidated€forÏclarity:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓDid€the€trial€court€err€in€granting€appelleeððs€Motion€forÏSummary€Judgment€regarding€appellantððs€petition€of€appealÏof€¢MDE£ððs€administrative€decision?€ÌÌÒ°* ÒÒ° ÒÓ8 Óà  àWe€answer€ð ðnoðð€to€this€question€and€explain.Ð À Ðà@ÀÀ(ìàòòFactsóóˆÐ P  Ðà  àAppellant€owned€and€operated€gas€stations€in€Maryland,€and€wasÏcited€by€appellee€for€oil€contamination€at€two€of€its€gas€stationsÏ„€„€one€in€Upper€Marlboro€and€one€in€¢Hyattsville£.€€Appellant€wasÏordered€to€remedy€these€environmental€concerns€and€implementedÏplans€to€do€so.€€After€successfully€cleaning€up€the€sites,Ïappellant€received€notices€of€compliance€from€¢MDE£€for€both€sites.€Ï€€à  àIn€1995,€appellant€applied€to€appellee€for€reimbursement€ofÐ @" Ðcosts€associated€with€the€removal€and€off„site€treatment€ofÏcontaminated€soil€at€these€sites,€pursuant€to€the€Maryland€OilÏContaminated€Site€Environmental€Cleanup€Fund€(ð ðFundðð)€of€Title€4,Ð ð#@( Ðsubtitle€7€of€the€Environment€Article.€€The€Fund€was€created€by€theÏGeneral€Assembly€in€1993€and€amended€in€1996.€€The€parties€agreeÏthat€the€1996€amendment€does€not€directly€affect€this€case,€as€thisÏaction€is€based€on€events€occurring€prior€to€1996.€€Following€is€aÏreproduction€of€the€relevant€portions€of€Title€4,€subtitle€7€of€theÏEnvironment€Article,€as€it€read€prior€to€the€1996€amendment:€€Ð P- (4 ÐÑ$•ÑÑâ $âÑ8€ç|XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑØØâ $âÑ  Ñà  àðð€4„701€provides€relevant€definitions:Ð ° ÐÓÓà8  à(a)€òòIn€generalóó.€--€In€this€subtitle€the€following€wordsÐ @ Ðhave€the€meanings€indicated.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€òòCleanupóó.€--€"Cleanup"€means€abatement,€containment,Ð øH Ðremoval,€and€disposal€of€oil€and€the€restoration€of€theÏenvironment.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€òòFundóó.€--€"Fund"€means€the€Oil€Contaminated€SiteÐ x È ÐEnvironmental€Cleanup€Fund.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(d)€òòOilóó.€--€"Oil"€has€the€meaning€provided€in€ðð€4-401€(g)Ð 0 €  Ðof€this€title.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(e)€òòSite€rehabilitationóó.€--€Ðè 8 Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€"Site€rehabilitation"€means€cleanup€actionsÏtaken€in€response€to€a€release€from€an€underground€oilÏstorage€tank.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€"Site€rehabilitation"€includes€investigation,Ïevaluation,€planning,€design,€engineering,€construction,Ïor€other€services€undertaken€and€expenses€incurred€toÏinvestigate€or€clean€up€affected€soils,€groundwater,€orÏsurface€water.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(f)€òòThird€party€claimóó.€--€"Third€party€claim"€means€anyÐ h Ðcivil€action€brought€or€asserted€by€any€person€againstÏany€owner€or€operator€of€any€underground€oil€storage€tankÏfor€damages€to€person€or€property€which€damages€are€theÏdirect€result€of€oil€released€from€tanks€covered€underÏthis€subtitle.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(g)€òòUnderground€oil€storage€tankóó.€--€"Underground€oilÐ ð@ Ðstorage€tank"€has€the€meaning€provided€in€ðð€4-401€(k)€ofÏthis€title.€ÓßÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àðð€4„702€provides€legislative€findings€and€intent:Ìà  à(a)€òòFindingsóó.€„€„€The€General€Assembly€finds€and€declaresÐ È  Ðthat:ÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àШ ø"` x` x Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€The€storage€of€oil€in€underground€oil€storageÏtanks€is€a€major€cause€of€groundwater€contamination€inÏthis€State;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Groundwater€resources€are€vital€to€theÏpopulation€and€economy€of€this€State;€€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€The€preservation€of€the€State's€groundwaterÏresources€is€in€the€public€interest.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€òòAdditional€Findingsóó.€„€„€The€General€Assembly€furtherÐ è&8"* Ðfinds€that€where€contamination€of€groundwater€hasÏoccurred€due€to€leaking€underground€oil€storage€tanks,Ïremedial€measures€have€often€been€delayed€for€longÏperiods€due€to€high€costs€of€such€remedial€measures.€ÏThese€delays€result€in€the€continuation€andÏintensification€of€the€threat€to€the€public€health,Ïsafety,€and€welfare,€in€greater€damages€to€theÐ ˆ,Ø'1 ÐÑ#PÐÑâ #âÑ  Ñâ #âÑ  Ñenvironment,€and€in€significantly€higher€costs€to€cleanÏup€the€contamination€and€rehabilitate€the€site.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€òòIntentóó.€„€„€The€General€Assembly€intends€thisÐ @ Ðsubtitle€to€provide€adequate€financial€resources€andÏincentives€for€the€expeditious€cleanup€and€rehabilitationÏof€contaminated€sites€without€delay.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àðð€4„704€provides€for€the€establishment€of€the€fund:ÌÌà8  à(a)€òòEstablishedóó.€„€„€There€is€an€Oil€Contaminated€SiteÐ à 0  ÐEnvironmental€Cleanup€Fund.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€òòUsesóó.€„€„€The€Fund€shall€be€used€to:И è Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€Reimburse€an€owner€or€operator€of€an€undergroundÏoil€storage€tank€for€site€rehabilitation€costs€incurredÏon€or€after€October€1,€1993€resulting€from€contaminationÏcaused€by€releases€from€an€underground€oil€storage€tank;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Provide€funds€for€site€rehabilitation€activitiesÏcarried€out€by€the€Department€or€under€the€Department'sÏdirection€and€control;€€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€To€the€extent€provided€in€the€State€budget€andÏin€an€amount€not€to€exceed€3%€of€the€revenues€in€the€FundÏduring€the€fiscal€year,€provide€funds€for€theÏDepartment's€administration€of€this€subtitle.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€òòExemptions€from€subtitleóó.€„€„€The€provisions€of€thisÐ  p Ðsubtitle€do€not€apply€to€an€underground€storage€tank€thatÏis:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€Exempt€from€the€requirements€of€ðð€4-409(b)(3)€ofÏthis€title;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Owned€by€a€state,€county,€or€municipalÏcorporation;€€orÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€Owned€by€a€local€education€agency.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àðð€4„705€is€the€reimbursement€provision€of€the€fundòò[óó׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òò]óó:Ð P   ÐÌà8  à(a)€òòApplicationóó.€„€„€The€owner€or€operator€of€anÐ à0" Ðunderground€oil€storage€tank€may€apply€to€the€Fund€forÏreimbursement,€on€or€after€October€1,€1993,€for€usual,Ïcustomary,€and€reasonable€costs€incurred€on€or€afterÏOctober€1,€1993€in€performing€site€rehabilitation.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(b)€òòDeductibles;€limitationóó.€„€„€Any€reimbursement€fromÐ ð#@' Ðthe€Fund€is€subject€to:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€For€owners€or€operators€of€six€tanks€or€fewer,Ïa€deductible€of€$15,000;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€For€owners€or€operators€of€more€than€6€but€notÏmore€than€15€tanks,€a€deductible€of€$20,000;Ð(P#,Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€For€owners€or€operators€of€more€than€15€but€notÏmore€than€30€tanks,€a€deductible€of€$30,000;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€For€owners€or€operators€of€more€than€30€tanks,Ïa€deductible€of€$40,000;€€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€A€limit€of€$125,000€per€occurrence.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(c)€òòEligibilityóó.€„€„€To€be€eligible€for€reimbursementÐ ˜è Ðfrom€the€Fund,€an€owner€or€operator€shall:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€Certify€that€the€discharge€is€not€the€result€ofÏa€willful€or€deliberate€act;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Submit€a€corrective€action€plan,€schedule,€andÏcost€estimate€to€the€Department€that€shall€includeÏprovisions€for€the€environmentally€sound€treatment€orÏdisposal€of€contaminated€soils€that€meet€all€federal€andÏState€requirements€and€standards;€€andÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€Certify€that€the€discharge€is€from€a€tankÏregistered€under€ðð€4-411.1€of€this€title.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(d)€òòFalse€certificationóó.€„€„€if€the€owner€or€operatorÐ X¨  Ðknowingly€submits€a€false€certification€under€subsectionÏ(c)€of€this€section,€that€owner€or€operator€is€notÏeligible€for€reimbursement€under€this€subtitle.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(e)€òòOnly€cost„effective€and€reasonable€expenses€areÐ  ð Ðeligibleóó.€„€„€Only€expenses€that€are€cost-effective,Ð à Ðreasonable,€and€consistent€with€a€corrective€action€planÏapproved€by€the€Department€may€be€eligible€forÏreimbursement€from€the€Fund.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(f)€òòCost€of€replacing€or€retrofitting€tanks€not€eligibleóó.Ð Ø( Є€„€The€cost€for€replacement€or€retrofitting€ofÏunderground€oil€storage€tanks€and€associated€piping€isÏnot€eligible€for€reimbursement,€and€the€Department€mayÏnot€incur€these€costs€or€expend€moneys€from€the€Fund€forÏthese€purposes.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ6Óà  àIn€1994,€MDE€adopted€in€Title€26,€Subtitle€10,€Chapter€14€ofÏthe€Code€of€Maryland€Regulations€(ð ðCOMARðð)€regulations€to€assist€inÐ  X" Ðthe€Fundððs€implementation.׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€MDE€established€a€method€to€prioritizeÐ ˜!è$ Ðapplicants€to€the€Fund€based€upon€environmental€risk€and€the€totalÏamount€of€an€applicantððs€underground€storage€tanks€within€Maryland.€Ïâ âThe€most€relevant€provision€of€COMAR€to€the€dispute€in€this€case€isÐ H&˜!* Ð26.10.14.05,€which€includes€a€schedule€of€eligible€reimbursementÏcosts:Ìâ âÓÓà8  àA.€€The€Department€shall€reimburse€an€applicant€only€forÏthe€following€site€rehabilitation€costs€if€they€are€costÏeffective,€reasonable,€and€consistent€with€an€approvedÏapplication:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(1)€Soil€handling,€including€excavation,Ïtransportation,€and€proper€disposal€„€„€up€to€$20€per€tonÏup€to€100€tons€per€site;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(2)€Soil€treatment€„€„€up€to:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(a)€$30,000€per€installation,Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(b)€$10,000€per€year€for€operation€andÏmonitoring;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(3)€Ground€water€pumping€and€treatment,€and€soilÏtreatment€„€„€up€to:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(a)€$45,000€per€installation,Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(b)€$17,500€per€year€for€operation€andÏmonitoring;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(4)€Ground€water€pumping€and€treatment,€and€soilÏtreatment€„€„€up€to:Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(a)€$55,000€per€installation,Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àà ¸ à(b)€$17,500€per€year€for€operation€andÏmonitoring;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(5)€Well€bailing€or€monitoring,€or€both,€„€„€up€toÏ$12,500€per€year€for€operation;Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à(6)€Subsurface€investigation€„€„€up€to€$8,000.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà8  àB.€€The€Department€may€approve€other€site€rehabilitationÏcosts€for€reimbursement€if€it€determines€the€costs€areÏfor€effective€and€necessary€site€rehabilitationÏactivities.€€€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÓ¯2ÓÌCOMAR,€Title€26,€Subtitle€10,€Chapter€14Ìà  àAppellant€claims€that€it€ð ðexcavated€and€treated€2,131€tons€ofÐ Ð $ Ðcontaminated€soil€from€the€Upper€Marlboro€site€.€.€.€at€a€cost€ofÏover€$105,000"€and€that€it€ð ðexcavated€and€treated€3,517€tons€ofÐ ð#@( Ðcontaminated€soil€from€the€Hyattsville€site€.€.€.€at€a€cost€of€overÏ$175,000.ðð€€Interpreting€its€own€regulations,€MDE€determined€thatÐ '`", Ðthe€costs€in€question€were€for€ð ðsoil€handlingðð€and€ð ðsoil€treatment,ððÐ  (ð#. Ðand€reimbursed€appellant€$32,263.08€for€the€Upper€Marlboro€site€andÏ$36,410.01€for€the€Hyattsville€site.€€These€amounts€wereÐ À+'2 Ðestablished€primarily€as€a€result€of€the€maximum€allowableÏreimbursement€limits€for€ð ðsoil€handlingðð€and€ð ðsoil€treatmentðð€underÐ @ Ððð.¢05A£€of€COMAR€26.10.14.Ìà  àAppellant,€dissatisfied€with€the€amount€of€the€reimbursementÏprovided€by€appellee,€requested€that€¢MDE£€reconsider€itsÏdetermination€and€provide€it€with€additional€reimbursement€underÏðð.05B€of€COMAR€26.10.14€for€ð ðother€site€rehabilitation€costs€forÐ `  Ðreimbursementðð€that€appellant€claimed€were€ð ðfor€effective€andÐ  ð  Ðnecessary€site€rehabilitation€activities.ðð€€MDE€rejectedÐ 0€  Ðappellantððs€request,€stating€in€a€letter€to€appellant€that€itÏbelieved€ð ðthat€additional€reimbursement€would€be€beyond€the€costÐ P  Ðallowed€in€the€current€regulationsðð€and€that€ð ð[¢t]he£€Department€hasÐ à0 Ðreimbursed€you€under€COMAR€¢26.10.14.05A£(1)€and€A(2)€for€soilÏremoval€and€treatment.€€COMAR€¢26.10.14B£€applies€to€rehabilitationÏcosts€not€listed€under€Regulation€.05A€.€.€.€.ðð€€AppellantÐ à Ðsubsequently€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€with€MDE.€In€response,€MDEÏstated€that€ð ðit€would€be€inappropriate€to€allocate€additionalÐ °  Ðfunds.€€Under€COMAR€¢26.10.14.04D£,€this€decision€is€final€regardingÏreimbursement€matters.ðð€Ð Ð $ Ðà  àAppellant€then€filed€a€petition€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÏMontgomery€County€requesting€judicial€review€of€MDEððs€reimbursementÏdecision€pursuant€to€applicable€provisions€of€the€AdministrativeÏProcedure€Act€(ð ðAPAðð),€or,€in€the€alternative,€a€writ€of€mandamusÐ '`", Ðordering€MDE€to€pay€additional€reimbursements.€€Ultimately,€theÏcircuit€court€did€not€rule€on€the€motion€regarding€the€mandamusÏpetition€but€remanded€the€case€to€MDE€for€the€issuance€of€a€writtenÐ À+'2 Ðdecision€outlining€MDEððs€specific€findings€of€facts€and€conclusionsÏof€law€upon€which€it€had€based€its€denial€of€additionalÏreimbursements.€€MDE€then€appealed€the€circuit€courtððs€decision€toÏremand€the€case.€€In€an€unreported€opinion,€Judge€Rosalyn€B.€BellÏwrote€for€this€Court,€holding€that€appellant€did€not€have€the€rightÏto€judicial€review€under€the€APA,€and€that€its€petition€forÏmandamus€failed€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€beÏgranted.€€Regarding€the€right€to€judicial€review€under€the€APA,€weÏstated€that€ð ðwe€hold€that€ðð€4„412(b)€grants€APA€judicial€reviewÐ 0€  Ðonly€for€MDE€decisions€issued€pursuant€to€Subtitle€Four,€Title€FourÏof€the€Environment€Article.ðð€€Pertaining€to€appellantððs€petitionÐ P  Ðfor€mandamus,€we€allowed€for€the€filing€of€an€amended€petition€forÏmandamus,€as€we€stated:ÌÓÓà8  à[Appellantððs]€allegations€are€much€too€sparse€andÏconclusory€to€support€a€claim€that€MDE€officials€actedÏarbitrarily€and€capriciously.€€Thus,€Homes€cannot€beÏallowed€to€proceed€on€that€pleading;€if€it€wants€reviewÏof€MDEððs€reimbursement€decision,€it€will€have€to€re„fileÏa€pleading€which€contains€more€specific€allegationsÏentitling€it€to€relief.€€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓýFÓòòMaryland€Department€of€the€Environment€v.€Homes€Oil€Company,€Inc.,€óóÐ @" ÐNo.€541,€September€Term,€1997€(filed€July€24,€1998)€(per€curiam).Ìà  àAppellant€subsequently€filed€an€amended€complaint€in€mandamus.€ÏMDE€responded€by€filing€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€on€the€groundÏthat€its€reimbursement€decisions€were€consistent€with€theÏreasonable€interpretation€of€its€own€regulations.€€MDEððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€was€granted€by€the€circuit€court.€€Appellant€thenÏmoved€to€alter€or€amend€the€judgment;€appellantððs€motion€wasÏdenied.€€This€appeal€followed.Ð ,`'2 Ðà  àIt€is€appellantððs€contention€that€the€circuit€court€erred€inÏgranting€appelleeððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€when€material€factsÏwere€in€dispute.€€Pursuant€to€Md.€Rule€2„501(e),€ð ð[¢t]he£€court€shallÐ Ð  Ðenter€judgment€in€favor€of€or€against€the€moving€party€if€theÏmotion€and€response€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€dispute€as€to€anyÏmaterial€fact€and€that€the€party€in€whose€favor€judgment€is€enteredÏis€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Md.€Rule€2„501(e).€Ð `  ÐòòSee,€e.g.,€Murphy€v.€¢Merzbacher£óó,€346€Md.€525,€531,€697€A.2dÐ  ð  Ð861(1996);òò€Bowen€v.€Smithóó,€342€Md.€449,€454,€677€A.2d€81€(1996);Ð €Ð  ÐòòRosenblatt€v.€Exxon€Company,€U.S.A.óó,€335€Md.€58,€68,€642€A.2d€180Ð `° Ð(1993);€òò¢McGraw£€v.€Loyola€Ford,€Inc.óó,€124€Md.€App.€560,€572,€723Ð @ ÐA.2d€502,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€353€Md.€473,€727€A.2d€382€(1999).€Ð  p Ðà  àIn€order€for€there€to€be€disputed€facts€sufficient€to€renderÏsummary€judgment€inappropriate,€ð ðthere€must€be€evidence€on€whichÐ à Ðthe€jury€could€reasonably€find€for€the€plain‚tiff.ðð€€òòSeaboard€Sur.Ð  p ÐCo.€v.€Richard€F.€Kline,€Inc.óó,€91€Md.€App.€236,€244,€603€A.2d€1357Ð P Ð(1992).€€This€Court€has€held€that€ð ð[¢c]onclusory£€denials€or€baldÐ à0  Ðallegations€will€not€defeat€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.ðð€€òòBarberÐ p!À" Ðv.€Eastern€Karting€Co.óó,€108€Md.€App.€659,€672,€673€A.2d€744,€òòcert.Ð P# $ Ðdeniedóó,€343€Md.€334,€681€A.2d€69€(1996);€òòseeóó€òòSeaboard€Sur.€Co.óó,€91Ð 0%€ & ÐMd.€App.€at€243.€€Moreover,€ð ða€mere€scintilla€of€evidence€inÐ '`"( Ðsupport€of€the€non„moving€partyððs€claim€is€insufficient€to€avoidÏâ âthe€grant€of€summary€judgment.ðð€€òòBarberóó,€108€Md.€at€672€(citingÐ 0*€%, ÐòòBeatty€v.€Trailmaster€Products,€Inc.óó,€330€Md.€726,€738,€625€A.2dÐ ° Ð1005€(1993)).€Ìâ âà  àAppellant€contends€that€an€actual€controversy€does€exist€onÏtwo€issues:€1)€€whether€MDEððs€handling€of€appellantððs€reimbursementÏapplications€to€the€Fund€was€arbitrary€and€capricious,€because€MDEÏlimited€reimbursement€to€the€amounts€specified€in€Section€A€ofÏCOMAR€26.10.14.05,€and€refused€to€reimburse€appellant€under€SectionÏB€of€that€statute€for€other€remediation€costs;,€and€2)€whetherÏCOMAR€26.10.14.05€is€invalid€because€it€provides€incentive€forÏapplicants€to€delay€clean„up€of€oil€contaminated€sites,€contrary€toÏthe€legislative€intent.€€By€contrast,€MDE€asserts€that€the€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€was€properly€granted€because€there€was€noÏdispute€as€to€any€facts,€as€its€reimbursement€decisions€wereÏconsistent€with€the€reasonable€interpretation€of€its€ownÏregulations.€€We€agree€with€MDE,€and€find€no€merit€in€appellantððsÏargument.Ìà@,,"ìàòòWrit€of€MandamusóóˆÐ P  Ðà  àThe€method€of€review€in€this€case€is€by€means€of€a€writ€ofÏmandamus.€€Therefore,€we€shall€first€address€the€threshold€questionÏof€whether€this€Court€has€the€authority€to€issue€the€extraordinaryÏwrit€of€mandamus€under€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€ð ðThe€commonÐ @$( Ðlaw€writ€of€mandamus€is€an€original€action€and€not€an€appeal.ðð€Ð Ð% !* ÐòòPhilip€Morris€Inc.,€et€al.€v.€The€Honorable€Edward€J.€Angelettióó,Ð `'°", Ð358€Md.€689,€707,€752€A.2d€200€(2000).€€òòSee€Board€of€LicenseÐ @)$. ÐCommissioners€for€Anne€Arundel€County€v.€Corridor€Wine,€Inc.,€t/aÐ  +p&0 ÐCorridor€Wine€&€Spirits,€et€al.óó,€____€Md.€____€(No.€7,€SeptemberÐ ° ÐTerm,€2000,€filed€November€9,€2000),€slip€opinion€at€8.€€A€writ€ofÏmandamus€"is€a€summary€remedy,€for€the€want€of€a€specific€one,Ïwhere€there€would€otherwise€be€a€failure€of€justice.€€It€is€basedÏupon€reasons€of€justice€and€public€policy,€to€preserve€peace,€orderÏand€good€government."€€òòIdóó.€at€708€(citations€omitted).€€ð ð[¢T]he£Ð Ð   Ðauthority€to€issue€mandamus€rests€within€the€sound€discretion€ofÏthe€court,€but€that€discretion€must€ððbe€exercised€under€the€rulesÏlong€recognized€and€established€at€common€law.ðð"€€€òòIdóó.€(citationÐ Ð  Ðomitted).€€"We€have€acknowledged€that€the€power€to€issue€anÏextraordinary€writ€of€€mandamus€is€one€which€ought€to€be€exercisedÏwith€great€caution."€€òòDoering€v.€Faderóó,€316€Md.€351,€361,€558€A.2dÐ Ð  Ð733€(1989).€€Although€the€Maryland€Constitution€only€providesÏcircuit€courts€with€statutory€authority€to€grant€mandamus,€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€has€stated€that€"we€have€jurisdiction€to€issue€toÏan€inferior€court€peremptory€writs€in€aid€of€our€appellateÏjurisdiction."€€òòPhilip€Morris,€óó358€Md.€at€710„11.€€In€support€ofÐ ð@  Ðthis€conclusion,€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àWhether€we€have,€as€the€highest€court€of€this€State,€anÏinherent€superintending€or€supervisory€power€over€theÏcourts€below€us€in€the€judicial€hierarchy,€and€whetherÏany€such€power€is€implicit€in€Article€IV,€ðð€18€of€theÏMaryland€Constitution,€are€questions€we€reserve€forÏanother€day.€€We€need€not€and€do€not€address€them€todayÏbecause€we€hold€that€under€the€circumstances€of€this€caseÏwe€have€the€power€to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€or€a€writÏof€prohibition€in€aid€of€our€appellate€jurisdiction.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌâ âÓA^ÓòòIdóó.€€at€710.Ð 0*€%. Ðà  àThe€òòPhilip€Morrisóó€Court€explained€that€mandamus€is€in€aid€toÐ ° Ðâ âappellate€jurisdiction€when€the€use€of€it€is€necessary€to€enableÏthe€Court€to€exercise€appellate€jurisdiction.€€òòIdóó.€€at€711.€€TheÐ  p ÐCourt€explained€that€mandamus€aided€the€appellate€process€ð ðbyÐ  P Ðmaking€possible€the€review€of€a€potentially€unreviewable€question.ðð€Ð  à ÐòòIdóó.€€For€similar€reasons,€it€is€within€the€purview€of€this€Court€toÐ  p  Ðissue€writs€of€mandamus.€€òòSeeóó€òòBozeman€v.€Disability€Review€Bd.€ofÐ P  Ðthe€Prince€Georgeððs€County€Police€Pension€Planóó,€126€Md.€App.€1,€727Ð à0  ÐA.2d€384€(1999).€€€€€ÌÓÓà8  àIn€Maryland€common€law€mandamus€has€been€described€as€aÏprerogative€writ€grantable€where€the€public€justice€ofÏthe€State€is€concerned.€€It€is€a€writ€to€preventÏdisorder,€from€a€failure€of€justice,€where€the€law€hasÏestablished€no€specific€remedy,€and€where€in€justice€andÏgood€government€there€ought€to€be€one.€.€.€.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ›cÓòòIn€re€Writ€of€Prohibitionóó,€312€Md.€280,€307,€539€A.2d€664€(1988)€Ð È Ð(citation€omitted)€(inner€quotation€marks€omitted).€€A€writ€ofÏmandamus€will€only€be€issued€in€òòextraordinary€casesóó€where€thatÐ 8ˆ Ðð ðaction€is€necessary€to€protect€its€jurisdiction€or€accomplishÐ h Ðsubstantial€justice.ðð€€òòPhilip€Morris,óó€358€Md.€at€718.€€The€CourtÐ ¨ ø! Ðultimately€granted€mandamus€in€òòPhilip€Morrisóó,€stating:€€Ð ˆ"Ø# ÐÓÓà8  àWe€simply€hold€that,€given€the€irreparable€harm€thatÏmight€otherwise€be€suffered€by€the€legal€system€and€byÏPetitioners,€we€may€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€in€aid€ofÏour€appellate€jurisdiction€in€the€present€matter.€€It€isÏappropriately€within€this€Court's€prerogative€to€reviewÏthe€order€of€the€Circuit€Court€granting€classÏcertification€in€this€case€so€extraordinary€because€ofÏthe€immense€amount€of€time€and€expense€that€both€theÏparties€and€the€judicial€system€of€this€State€will€incurÏâ âshould€the€litigation€proceed€as€a€class€action,€as€wellÐ p+À&. Ðas€the€astronomical€number€of€persons€in€Maryland€whoseÏlives€will€be€affected€by€our€decision€either€way.Ð Ð Ð  Ðâ âÌòòId.€€óóat€722.òò€€óóÐ X ÐÌÓgÓà  àIn€òòGoodwichóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated€that€ð ðjudicial€reviewÐ À Ðis€properly€sought€through€a€writ€of€mandamus€ððwhere€there€[is]€noÏstatutory€provision€for€hearing€or€review€and€where€publicÏofficials€[are]€alleged€to€have€abused€the€discretionary€powersÏreposed€in€them.ðð"€òòId.€óóat€146òò€óó(quoting€€òòState€Department€of€HealthÐ P   Ðv.€Walkeróó,€238€Md.€512,€522-23,€209€A.2d€555€(1965)).׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ð ðThus,€priorÐ 0€  Ðto€granting€a€writ€of€mandamus€to€review€discretionary€acts,€thereÏmust€be€both€a€lack€of€an€available€procedure€for€obtaining€reviewÏand€an€allegation€that€the€action€complained€of€is€illegal,Ïarbitrary,€capricious€or€unreasonable.ðð€€òòGoodwichóó,€343€Md.€at€146.€Ð À ÐIn€òòPrince€George's€County€v.€Carusilloóó,€52€Md.€App.€44,€50,€447Ð  ð ÐA.2d€90€(1982),€we€stated,€"the€writ€will€lie€if€no€statutoryÏprovision€for€a€hearing€or€review€exists€òòandóó€public€officials€areÐ ` Ðalleged€to€have€abused€their€discretion."€€(Emphasis€added.)€Ìà  àRegarding€the€first€point€of€this€two„step€analysis,€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€has€stated€that€ð ð[¢i]t£€is€well€settled€in€this€State€thatÐ "`# Ða€writ€of€mandamus€will€not€be€granted€where€the€petitioner€has€aÏspecific€and€adequate€legal€remedy€to€meet€the€justice€of€theÏparticular€case€and€where€the€law€affords€[another]€adequateÏremedy.ðð€€òòBrack€v.€Wellsóó,€184€Md.€86,€90-91,€40€A.2d€319€(1944);€Ð P( #+ Ðsee€also€òòGisriel€v.€Ocean€City€Elections€Boardóó,€345€Md.€477,€497,Ð ° Ð693€A.2d€757€(1997).€€Our€earlier€unreported€opinion€in€this€caseÏstated€that€there€was€no€method€of€review€available€to€appellantÏother€than€mandamus.€€We€will€not€now€disturb€that€determination.€ÏTherefore,€appellant€has€met€the€first€criteria,€but,€in€order€forÏmandamus€to€be€appropriate€under€the€facts€of€this€case,€appellantÏmust€also€demonstrate€that€the€second€criteria€has€been€met,Ïnamely,€that€MDE€acted€arbitrarily€or€capriciously.׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рð@  Ðà  àWe€find€that€MDE€did€not€act€arbitrarily€or€capriciously€inÏmaking€its€determination,€and,€therefore,€we€decline€to€grantÏmandamus.€€Subsequently,€we€affirm€the€circuit€courtððs€decisionÏgranting€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€MDE.€Ìà  àIn€òòGoodwichóó,€our€Court€of€Appeals€opined:Ð À ÐÓÓà8  àOur€mandamus€jurisprudence€is€illustrated€both€by€thoseÏcases€in€which€we€have€granted€the€writ,€as€well€as€thoseÏin€which€we€have€refused€to€issue€it.€For€example,€inÏMaryland-National€Capital€Park€and€Planning€Commission€v.ÏRosenberg,€269€Md.€520,€307€A.2d€704€(1973),€we€held€thatÏmandamus€relief€was€appropriate€because€there€was€noÏstatutory€provision€for€judicial€review€and€because€theÏPlanning€Commission€acted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously€inÏrefusing€to€approve€a€plan€for€the€subdivision€of€a€pieceÏof€property.€Id.€at€529-31,€307€A.2d€at€708-10.€InÏWalker,€supra,€mandamus€was€granted€in€the€absence€ofÏprovision€for€hearing€or€review€and€where€the€issuance€ofÏsewage€disposal€permits€was€arbitrarily€denied.€238€Md.Ïat€522-23,€209€A.2d€at€561.€In€Heaps,€supra,€again€weÏfound€mandamus€relief€warranted€in€the€absence€ofÏprovision€for€judicial€review€and€where€the€Board€ofÏâ âTrustees€of€the€Employees'€Retirement€System€arbitrarilyÐ  &p!* Ðdenied€a€pension€claim€by€a€member's€widow.€185€Md.€atÏ379-86,€45€A.2d€at€76-79.€Ð Ð Ð  Ðâ âÌà8  àIn€¢Bovey£,€supra,€the€petitioners€sought€a€writ€ofÏmandamus€to€compel€the€Director€of€the€¢HCAO£€to€inquire€ofÏpotential€arbitration€panelists€whether€they€had€anÏeconomic€relationship€with€the€health€care€providersÏwhose€cases€they€would€be€deciding.€We€denied€relief€onÏthe€basis€that€the€Director€was€free€to€exerciseÏdiscretion€in€assuring€the€impartiality€of€panelists;Ïtherefore,€mandamus€would€not€lie€to€compel€him€to€followÏa€specific€procedure.€292€Md.€at€649,€441€A.2d€at€338.€WeÏalso€stated€that€judicial€review€existed€to€correct€anyÏsuch€errors€on€the€Director's€part.€Id.€In€Stark€v.€StateÏBoard€of€Registration,€179€Md.€276,€19€A.2d€716€(1941),Ïwe€refused€to€grant€mandamus€relief€to€a€petitioner€whoÏsought€to€compel€the€Board€of€Registration€forÏProfessional€Engineers€and€Land€Surveyors€to€issue€aÏlicense€to€him,€because€the€record€contained€no€evidenceÏthat€the€Board€failed€to€act€or€acted€arbitrarily€and,Ïmore€importantly,€because€he€failed€to€exhaust€hisÏstatutory€right€of€review.€Id.€at€283-85,€19€A.2d€atÏ719-20.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓntÓòò¢Goodwich£óó,€343€Md.€at€147„48.€€€€€Ð pÀ Ðà  àIn€òòHeft€v.€Md.€Racing€¢Commððn£óó,€323€Md.€257,€274,€592€A.2d€1110Ð P  Ð(1991),€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àUnder€our€decisions,€this€is€an€administrative€exerciseÏof€judgment€which€is€not€controllable€by€mandamus.€¢Bovey£Ïv.€Exec.€Dir.,€Health€Claims,€292€Md.€640,€649,€441€A.2dÏ333,€338€(1982)€("the€Director€is€to€bring€his€soundÏjudgment"€in€applying€certain€statutory€criteria,€and,Ïtherefore,€"[¢m]andamus£€simply€does€not€lie");€¢Brack£€v.ÏBar€Association,€185€Md.€468,€474,€45€A.2d€102,€105Ï(1945)€(mandamus€"will€not€be€issued€if€the€.€.€.€duty€.Ï.€.€[be]€of€a€nature€to€require€the€exercise€ofÏjudgment");€¢Brack£€v.€Wells,€184€Md.€86,€90,€40€A.2d€319,Ï321€(1944)€("When€an€act€depends€upon€.€.€.€judgment,€theÏwrit€of€mandamus€will€not€lie");€¢Fooks£€v.€¢Purnell£,€101ÏMd.€321,€323,€61€A.€582€(1905)€("when€a€matter€isÏconfided€to€the€.€.€.€judgment€of€a€tribunal€or€official,Ïno€writ€of€mandamus€would€lie€.€.€.€to€reverse€a€decisionÏmade€in€pursuance€thereof").€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHeftóó,€323€Md.€at€274.Ð *X%/ Ðâ âÐ ø*H&0 ÐÓã}Óà  àThe€òòHeftóó€Court€stated€that€the€judgment€of€an€administrativeÐ ° Ðâ âagency€is€not€controllable€by€mandamus€when,€as€in€the€presentÏsituation,€it€ð ðinvolves€the€application€of€somewhat€complexÐ  p Ðregulatory€standards€to€the€facts€of€a€particular€situation.ðð€€òòIdóó.€Ð °  Ðð ðA€court€cannot€substitute€its€discretion€for€the€discretion€of€theÐ  à Ð[Department]€where€there€is€evidence€that€reasonably€justifies€theÏ[Departmentððs]€finding,€even€though€the€court€may€disagree€with€theÏ[Department]."€€òòIdóó.€at€273.€€This€Court€can€only€disturb€anÐ @  Ðagencyððs€decision€if€it€is€limited€to€correcting€errors€of€law€andÏdeterminations€which€were€arbitrary,€capricious,€or€unsupported€byÏsubstantial€evidence.€€òòIdóó.Ð @ ÐÓÓà8  àð ðMandamus€is€an€original€action,€as€distinguished€from€anÐ  p Ðappeal."€52€Am.€¢Jur£.2d€Mandamus€ðð€4€(1970)€(footnoteÏomitted).€It€is€"not€a€substitute€for€appeal€or€writ€ofÏerror."€In€re€Petition€for€Writ€of€Prohibition,€312€Md.Ï280,€306,€539€A.2d€664,€676€(1988).€It€is,€however,€"anÏextraordinary€remedy[,]"€¢Ipes£€v.€Board€of€FireÏCommissioners€of€Baltimore,€224€Md.€180,€183,€167€A.2dÏ337,€339€(1961),€"that€.€.€.€will€not€lie€if€[there€is]Ïany€other€adequate€and€convenient€remedy[.]"€A.S.€¢Abell£ÏCo.€v.€Sweeney,€274€Md.€715,€718,€337€A.2d€77,€79€(1975)Ï(quoting€¢Applestein£€v.€Baltimore,€156€Md.€40,€45,€143€A.Ï666,€668€(1928)).€Mandamus€is€generally€used€"to€compelÏinferior€tribunals,€public€officials€or€administrativeÏagencies€to€perform€their€function,€or€perform€someÏparticular€duty€imposed€upon€them€which€in€its€nature€isÏimperative€and€to€the€performance€of€which€duty€the€partyÏapplying€for€the€writ€has€a€clear€legal€right."€CriminalÏInjuries€Compensation€Board€v.€Gould,€273€Md.€486,€514,Ï331€A.2d€55,€72€(1975);€see€also€George's€Creek€Coal€&ÏIron€Co.€v.€County€Commissioners,€59€Md.€255,€259€(1883).ÏThe€writ€ordinarily€does€not€lie€where€the€action€to€beÏreviewed€is€discretionary€or€depends€on€personalÏjudgment.€Board€of€Education€of€Prince€George's€County€v.ÏSecretary€of€Personnel,€317€Md.€34,€46,€562€A.2d€700,€706Ï(1989);€In€re€Petition,€supra,€312€Md.€305-06,€539€A.2dÏat€676;€see€also€¢Tabler£€v.€Medical€Mutual€LiabilityÏInsurance€Society,€301€Md.€189,€202€n.7,€482€A.2d€873,Ï880€n.7€(1984);€¢Bovey£€v.€Executive€Director,€¢HCAO£,€292Ð 8,ˆ'1 ÐMd.€640,€646,€441€A.2d€333,€337€(1982);€Maryland€ActionÏfor€Foster€Children€v.€State,€279€Md.€133,€138-39,€367ÏA.2d€491,€494€(1977).Ó:…ÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðòò¢Goodwich£,€óó343€Md.€130,€145,€680€A.2d€1040€(1996).€€€€€€€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àAppellant€reliance€on€cases€dealing€with€the€appropriateÏstandard€of€review€is€misplaced.€€Appellant€cites€òòWhite€v.€Northóó,Ð @  Ð121€Md.€App.€196,€219,€708€A.2d€1093€(1998).€€That€case€wasÏòòreversed€and€remandedóó€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòWhite€v.€Northóó,Ð °  Ð356€Md.€31,€736€A.2d€1072€(1999).€€That€case,€which€did€not€involveÏa€writ€of€mandamus,€is€inapposite€to€the€instant€case,€as€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€discussed€only€judicial€review€of€òòzoningóó€matters€andÐ ° Ðapplied€a€ð ðfairly€debatableðð€test.€€Moreover,€appellant€apparentlyÐ à Ðloses€sight€of€the€fact€that€mandamus€can€be€granted€only€if€¢MDE£Ïacted€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€or€contrary€to€law.€€Any€errorÏshort€of€this€standard€does€not€call€for€the€granting€ofÏappellantððs€mandamus.€€€€€€€€€€Ìà  àà ` àà@””%ìàòòDiscussionˆÐ `° Ðà  àóóHaving€articulated€the€appropriate€rule€of€law,€we€proceed€toÐ ð@  Ðthe€substance€of€appellantððs€claims.€€We€observe€that,€where€theÏclassification€of€appellantððs€costs€was€completely€within€¢MDE£ððsÏdiscretion,€we€should€not€substitute€our€expertise€for€that€of€anÏagency€interpreting€its€own€regulations.€€ð ðUpon€appellate€review,Ð 0%€ ( Ðcourts€bestow€special€favor€on€an€agency's€interpretation€of€itsÏown€regulation.ðð€€òòDept.€of€Health€and€Mental€Hygiene€v.€¢Reeders£Ð P( #, ÐMemorial€Homeóó,€86€Md.€App.€447,€453€(1991).€€Recognizing€anÐ 0*€%. Ðagency's€superior€ability€to€understand€its€own€rules€andÐ ,`'0 Ðregulations,€a€"court€should€not€substitute€its€judgment€for€theÏexpertise€of€those€persons€who€constitute€the€administrative€agencyÏfrom€which€the€appeal€is€taken".€òòId.€€óó(quoting€òò¢Bulluck£€v.€PelhamÐ Ð  ÐWood€Apartmentsóó,€283€Md.€505,€513,€390€A.2d€1119€(1978)).€€€€€€€Ð °  Ðà  àAppellant€contends€that€the€manner€in€which€¢MDE£€applied€itsÏregulations€was€arbitrary,€capricious€and€contrary€to€law.€€InÏorder€to€disturb€¢MDE£ððs€decision,€we€would€have€to€find€thisÏcontention€to€be€true.€€In€òòHurl€v.€Board€of€Educationóó,€107€Md.€App.Ð @  Ð286,€305,€667€A.2d€970€(1995),€this€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àIn€order€to€determine€whether€the€appellant€sufficientlyÏalleged€facts€of€"arbitrariness€and€capriciousness,"€weÏfirst€must€define€what€is€meant€by€those€terms.Ï"Decisions€contrary€to€law€or€unsupported€by€substantialÏevidence€are€not€within€the€exercise€of€soundÏadministrative€discretion,€but€are€arbitrary€and€illegalÏacts."€€Department€of€Health€v.€Walker,€238€Md.€512,€523,Ï209€A.2d€555€(1965).€See€also€¢Hackley£€v.€City€ofÏBaltimore,€70€Md.€App.€111,€116,€519€A.2d€1354€(1987).ÏBLACK'S€LAW€DICTIONARY€(6th€ed.€1990)€(citations€omitted)Ïdefines€the€term€"arbitrary"€as€including€something€doneÏ"without€adequate€determining€principle,"€"nonrational,"Ïand€"willful€and€unreasoning€action,€withoutÏconsideration€and€regard€for€facts€and€circumstancesÏpresented";€and€the€term€"arbitrary€and€capricious"€asÏ"willful€and€unreasonable€action€without€consideration€orÏin€disregard€of€facts€or€law€or€without€determiningÏprinciple."€€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHurlóó,€107€Md.€App.€at€306.Ð ˆ"Ø% ÐÌÓ¯•Óà  àIn€òòHurlóó,€we€were€addressing€whether€the€Board€of€EducationððsÐ @$' Ðactions€had€been€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€We€stated€that€ð ðtheÐ  &p!) ÐState€Board€regulations€define€decisions€of€a€county€board€as€beingÏððarbitraryðð€where€ððcontrary€to€sound€educational€policyðð€and/orÏwhere€a€ñÇñððñÇñreasoning€mind€could€not€have€reasonably€reached€theÏconclusion€the€county€board€reached.ñÈñððñÈññÉñððñÉñ€€òòIdóó.€€In€that€case,€we€wereÐ `,°'1 Ðunable€to€find€any€evidence€that€the€Superintendent€actedÏarbitrarily€or€capriciously€in€any€way€in€transferring€appellant,Ïa€veteran€teacher.€€We€stated,€ð ðFirst,€appellant€has€not€shown,€norÐ Ð  Ðhave€we€found,€anything€to€indicate€that€a€superintendent€isÏforbidden€from€making€a€transfer€decision€based€on€his€subjectiveÏprofessional€judgment.€€Second,€even€if€his€or€her€subjectiveÏrationale€is€without€merit,€that€does€not€mean€the€decision€isÏarbitrary.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€309.€€We€also€stated€that€appellant€ð ðhad€beenÐ  ð  Ðgiven€reasons€for€her€transfer.€€Although€the€reasons€were€not€toÏher€liking,€this€does€not€make€the€decision€itself€arbitrary.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð ` Ðat€310.€€Ìà  àSimilarly,€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€we€find€no€implication€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€agency€(in€this€case€¢MDE£)€acted€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€orÏillegally.€€Our€review€indicates€that€¢MDE£€acted€reasonably€withinÏits€administrative€discretion.€€From€the€record€before€us,€we€findÏno€reason€to€believe€that€¢MDE£€acted€unreasonably€or€withoutÏconsideration€and€regard€for€the€facts€and€circumstances€presentedÏin€this€case.€€In€our€prior€unreported€opinion€in€this€case,€weÏstated€that€appellantððs€pleading€was€ð ðmuch€too€general€to€supportÐ À!$ Ða€mandamus€claim.ðð€€We€recognized€appellantððs€allegations€thatÐ P# & ТMDE£ððs€refusal€to€grant€all€of€the€requested€reimbursement€wasÐ à$0 ( Ðð ðunsupported€by€competent,€material€and€substantial€evidence€.€.€.Ð p&À!* Ðis€in€direct€conflict€with€the€clearly€expressed€intent€of€theÏlegislature€.€.€.€exceeds€the€authority€granted€by€the€Statute€.€.Ï.€is€unreasonable€in€light€of€all€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€.Ð  +p&0 Ð.€.€.ðð€€Nonetheless,€we€found€that€appellantððs€ð ðallegations€are€muchÐ ° Ðtoo€sparse€and€conclusory€to€support€a€claim€that€¢MDE£€officialsÏacted€arbitrarily€and€capriciously.ðð€€Ð Ð  Ðà  àWe€reach€the€same€conclusion€today.€€¢MDE£€reviewed€appellantððsÏreimbursement€request.€€It€decided€to€reimburse€appellant€an€amountÏthat€it€found€to€be€correct€and€appropriate€according€to€theÏrelevant€statute€and€the€regulations€it€had€adopted€in€furtheranceÏof€that€statute.€€It€responded€to€appellantððs€letters,€and€at€allÏtimes€provided€appellant€with€a€consistent€explanation€as€to€howÏthe€reimbursement€amounts€were€determined€in€this€case.€€¢MDE£ððsÏfindings€and€interpretations€in€this€case€appear€sensible,€logicalÏand€wholly€based€on€the€applicable€rules€and€regulations.€€NowhereÏdo€we€find€any€reason€to€believe€that€¢MDE£€acted€arbitrarily€orÏcapriciously.€€¢MDE£ððs€decision€was€ultimately€decided€based€on€itsÏdiscretion€whether€to€include€appellantððs€costs€under€ðð€.¢05B£,€andÏwe€will€not€disturb€that€finding.€€€€€€€€Ì€€à  àAppellantððs€applications€to€the€Fund€for€the€two€subject€sitesÐ °  Ðwere€approved€in€1994€and€1995,€thus€subjecting€this€situation€toÏthe€applicable€statute€as€it€was€written€prior€to€the€1996Ïamendment.׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€maximum€reimbursement€amount€for€any€site€was,€andÐ `"°& Ðis,€$125,000.€€Appellant€owned€and€operated€more€than€thirtyÏunderground€storage€tanks€within€Maryland;€therefore,€pursuant€toÏthe€statute,€the€applicable€deductible€for€each€site€was€$40,000.ÏAs€a€result,€the€maximum€reimbursable€amount€for€each€site€wasÐ  (ð#. Ð$85,000.€€This€amount€was€then€subject€to€the€application€of€theÏcategory€limits€as€detailed€in€ðð€.¢05A£.€€According€to€ðð€.¢05A£,€aÏmaximum€of€$2,000€for€soil€handling€and€a€maximum€of€$30,000€forÏsoil€treatment€could€be€awarded€to€appellant€at€each€site.€€Ìà  à¢MDE£ððs€determination€of€what€type€of€costs€appellant€hadÏincurred€was€dispositive€as€to€how€much€reimbursement€appellantÏwould€be€entitled.€Appellant€contends€that€it€should€be€reimbursedÏadditional€expenses€under€ðð€.¢05B£€because€its€costs€representedÐ  ð  Ðð ðother€site€rehabilitation€costs,ðð€and€thus€should€not€have€beenÐ 0€  Ðsubjected€to€the€limitations€imposed€by€ðð€.¢05A£.€€ñÊñ¢Appelant£€¢corectly£Ïstates€ñÊññËñIt€is€true€ñËñthatñÌñ,ñÌñ€had€¢MDE£€not€classified€appellantððs€expenses€underÏðð.¢05A£,€appellantððs€expenses€may€have€been€covered€instead€by€ðð.¢05B£,Ïwhich€provides€for€much€more€liberal€reimbursement.€€Ìà  àSection€.¢05B£€provided€that€ð ðthe€Department€òòmayóó€assess€otherÐ P Ðsite€rehabilitation€costs€for€reimbursement€òòif€it€determinesóó€theÐ à0 Ðcosts€are€for€effective€and€necessary€treatment.ðð€€(EmphasisÐ À Ðadded.)€€¢MDE£€contends€that,€ð ðeven€assuming€that€[appellantððs]€costsÐ P   Ðqualified€for€consideration€under€[ðð.¢05B£],€the€relief€[appellant]Ïseeks€is€simply€beyond€the€reach€of€mandamus,€because€it€wouldÏrequire€the€court€to€substitute€its€discretion€for€that€of€[¢MDE£].ðð€Ð #P& ТMDE£€argues€that€ð ðthe€permissive€language€of€[ðð.¢05B£]€conveys€broadÐ $à( Ðdiscretion€to€[¢MDE£]€in€determining€whether€and,€if€so,€how€muchÏreimbursement€to€award€an€applicant€for€qualifying€costs.ðð€€Ð °'#, Ðà  àOn€the€other€hand,€Appellant€argues:€ÌÓÓà8  àSection€.¢05B£€may€reasonably€be€read€as€a€ð ðsavings€clauseððÐ Ð* &0 Ðthat€not€only€applies€to€activities€not€listed€in€ðð.¢05A£,Ïbut€also€supplements€ð ðother€costsðð€incurred€in€connectionÐ `,°'2 Ðwith€the€listed€activities.€€So€read,€the€regulationsÏwould€provide€reasonable€reimbursement€where€siteÏconditions€demand€or€permit€unusual€or€innovativeÏtreatment€methods,€even€if€they€also€involve€activitiesÏlisted€in€ðð.¢05A£.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ ±Óà  àAppellant€attempts€to€convince€us€that€its€activities€ð ðlistedÐ ` ° Ðin€ðð€.¢05A£ðð€should€nonetheless€be€interpreted€to€qualify€forÐ ð @ Ðreimbursement€under€ðð.¢05B£€because€they€involve€ð ðunusual€orÐ € Ð  Ðinnovative€methods.ðð€€Applying€this€argument,€appellant€contendsÐ `  Ðthat€its€off„site€¢bioremediation£€should€not€be€classified€as€ð ðsoilÐ  ð  Ðtreatmentðð€under€the€statute,€and€thus€should€be€considered€underÐ 0€  Ððð.¢05B£.€€Ìà  à¢MDE£€addresses€this€contention€in€its€brief,€replying€thatÏðð.¢05A£(1)€ð ðdeals€expressly€with€excavation,€transportation,€andÐ à0 Ðproper€disposal€.€.€.€[¢t]hese£€activities€by€their€very€natureÏencompass€the€removal€of€soil€from€the€site€.€.€.€ðð€.¢05A£(2)€isÏentirely€neutral€as€to€the€location€at€which€soil€treatment€takesÏplace€...[¢f]inally£,€the€term€ððon„siteðð€appears€nowhere€in€eitherÏprovision.ðð€€¢MDE£€further€explains€that€appellantððs€treatment€of€theÐ °  Ðsoil€was€not€distinct€from€the€soil€treatment€described€in€ðð€.¢05A£.€Ï¢MDE£€asserts€that€its€interpretation€of€the€term€ð ðsoil€treatmentððÐ Ð $ Ðdoes€òònotóó€exclude€the€¢bioremediation£€method€used€by€appellant,€thatÐ `"°& Ðthe€soil€was€treated€at€a€facility€licensed€by€¢MDE£,€and€thatÏ¢bioremediation£€is€one€of€several€methods€used€by€the€licensedÏfacilities€to€treat€oil€contaminated€soil.€€Consequently,€¢MDE£Ïcontends€that€there€is€no€merit€to€appellantððs€argument€that€itsÏsoil€treatment€was€not€performed€pursuant€to€ðð.€¢05A£,€nor€that€itÏused€ð ðunusual€or€innovative€treatment€methods.ðð€€We€agree.€€€€Ð ,`'2 Ðà  àAppellant€asserts€that€MDEððs€interpretation€of€the€statute€isÏillogical€and€ð ðunfathomable,ðð€and€takes€particular€exception€toÐ @ Ððð.05A(1),€which€limits€reimbursement€for€soil€handling€activitiesÏto€ð ðup€to€$20€per€ton€up€to€100€tons€per€site,ðð€or€$2,000.€Ð ` ° ÐAppellant€argues€that€ð ð[a]€rationale€for€the€$2,000€limit€does€notÐ ð @ Ðappear€on€the€face€of€the€regulationðð€and€that€ð ð[¢t]here£€has€been€òònoóóÐ € Ð  Ðfinding€by€the€Agency€that€$20€per€ton€is€the€usual,€customary,€orÏreasonable€cost€for€soil€handling.ðð€€Ð ð@  Ðà  àñÏñAppellantððs€œñÏññÎñThese€ñÎñcontentions›€are€simply€not€persuasive.€€This€CourtÏis€not€the€proper€forum€for€appellantððs€disagreement€with€theÏrationale€and€purpose€of€specific€provisions€of€the€applicableÏregulation.€€Such€concerns€are€not€for€the€courts€to€address.€ÏInstead,€appellant€may€wish€to€direct€its€dissatisfaction€with€theÏpractical€consequences€of€this€statute€to€the€legislature,€therebyÏpossibly€working€toward€less€costly€clean„up€efforts€in€the€future.€ÏCOMAR€26.10.14.05€was€a€regulation€established€by€MDE€for€purposesÏof€implementing€the€legislative€intent€of€the€Fund€that€was€setÏforth€by€the€General€Assembly€in€Title€4,€subtitle€7€of€theÏEnvironment€Article.€€Appellantððs€contention€that€MDEððs€regulationsÏare€not€effective€at€encouraging€expeditious€cleanups€is€beyond€theÏproper€scope€of€our€review.׃×Ý ƒ/ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð @$( ÐÓÓà8  àThis€power€of€review,€whether€authorized€by€statute€orÏassumed€inherently,€cannot€be€a€substitution€of€theÏcourt's€judgment€for€that€of€the€agency.€In€thoseÏinstances€where€an€administrative€agency€is€acting€in€aÏmanner€which€may€be€considered€legislative€in€natureÏ(quasi-legislative),€the€judiciary's€scope€of€review€ofÏthat€particular€action€is€limited€to€assessing€whetherÏthe€agency€was€acting€within€its€legal€boundaries.ÓhÀÓÐ Ð Ð  ÐòòFogle€v.€H&G€Restaurantóó,€337€Md.€441,€454,€654€A.2d€449€(1995).Ð ¸   ÐÓÓà8  àState€agencies€often€perform€functions€that€areÏlegislative€in€nature.€Promulgation€of€new€regulations€byÏagencies€is€one€of€these€so-called€quasi-legislativeÏactivities.€€The€regulation€at€issue€in€the€instant€caseÏwas€adopted€by€way€of€the€rule-making€process.€AgencyÏregulations€must€be€consistent€with€the€letter€and€theÏspirit€of€the€law€under€which€the€agency€acts.ÏFurthermore,€while€it€is€well-settled€that€there€must€beÏsufficient€guidance€given€when€legislative€authority€isÏdelegated€to€agencies,€we€have€held€that€"the€modernÏtendency€of€the€courts€is€toward€greater€liberality€inÏpermitting€grants€of€discretion€to€administrativeÏofficials€in€order€to€facilitate€the€administration€ofÏlaws€as€the€complexity€of€governmental€and€economicÏconditions€increase."Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.€€óóat€453€(citations€omitted)€(footnotes€Ó¸ÂÓomitted).€€Ð h ÐÓÓà8  àThe€"substantial€evidence"€standard€of€judicial€review,Ïas€set€forth€in€ðð€215(c)(2),€namely,€whether€a€reasoningÏmind€could€have€reached€the€factual€conclusion€the€agencyÏreached,€is€inapplicable€as€our€prior€cases€indicateÏwhere€the€agency€is€acting€in€a€quasi-legislative€mode€inÏconsidering€and€adopting€regulations€within€theÏboundaries€of€its€rule-making€authority.€See€alsoÏMontgomery€County€v.€Woodward€&€Lothrop,€Inc.,€280€Md.Ï686,€711,€376€A.2d€483€(1977).€€It€is€thus€"not€theÏfunction€of€the€courts€to€pass€upon€the€wisdom€of€theÏregulation,€or€to€approve€or€disapprove€it,€if€it€doesÏnot€exceed€constitutional€limits."€Givner€v.€CommissionerÏof€Health,€207€Md.€184,€192,€113€A.2d€899€(1954).€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓXÆÓòòIdóó.€at€456.€€Ð è&8"+ Ðà  àIn€any€event,€our€reading€of€the€relevant€legislationÏindicates€that€the€legislature€did€not€intend€to€provideÏcontaminators€with€òòfullóó€reimbursement€in€their€clean„up€efforts.€Ð è+8'1 ÐIt€appears€that€the€Fund€œñÐñwasñÐññÑñisñÑñ›€a€means€of€subsidizing€a€portion€of€theÏclean„up€costs€associated€with€underground€storage€tanks;€nowhereÏis€it€stated€or€implied€that€this€Fund€should€provide€contaminatorsÏwith€òòfullóó€reimbursement€for€their€clean„up€efforts.€€The€Fund€wasÐ ` ° Ðestablished€to€provide€assistance€and€òòadequateóó€financial€resourcesÐ @  Ðfor€these€clean„up€efforts.€€We€are€somewhat€troubled€byÏappellantððs€assertions,€as€appellant€too€readily€finds€that€it€isÐ °  Ðòòentitledóó€to€reimbursement€for€merely€òòobeying€the€lawóó.€€We€note€thatÐ @  Ðthere€exist€a€multitude€of€laws€within€our€society€that€requireÏcitizens€and€corporations€to€spend€large€amounts€of€money€in€orderÏto€comply€with€numerous€social€policies,€without€any€provisions€forÏany€type€of€government€reimbursement.€€Aside€from€reimbursement€forÏclean„up€costs,€the€contaminatorððs€desire€to€be€environmentallyÏresponsible,€to€abide€by€the€laws€of€the€State,€and€to€increase€theÏmarketability€of€its€property€seem€to€be€strong€encouragement€forÏcompanies€in€this€predicament€to€ð ðclean€up.ðð€Ð ` Ðà  àAppellant€points€out€that€the€100„ton€limit€imposed€by€thisÏlegislation€pertaining€to€soil€handling€activities€was€eliminatedÏin€the€1996€amendment€to€this€statute.€€This€amendment€wasÏestablished€to€be€effective€prospectively,€for€applications€filedÏafter€July€1,€1996,€and€therefore€does€not€affect€the€case€òòsubÐ à$0 ( Ðjudiceóó.€€Appellant€argues,€however,€that€the€amendment€itselfÐ À&"* Ðindicates€¢MDE£ððs€acknowledgment€that€the€100„ton€limit€wasÏinappropriate.€€We€do€not€assess€whether€this€contention€is€trueÏand€find€it€to€be€irrelevant.€€The€limit€was€in€effect€during€theÐ À+'0 Ðcritical€time€pertaining€to€the€facts€of€this€case.€€MDE€hadÏundoubtedly€imposed€this€limit,€as€well€as€the€other€limits€withinÏthis€legislation,€in€order€to€be€certain€that€enough€money€would€beÏavailable€to€assist€a€larger€number€of€applicants.€€Therefore,€theÏlimit€was€directly€related€to€the€intent,€and€we€do€not€concernÏourselves€with€the€fact€that€MDE€saw€it€necessary€at€a€later€timeÏto€eliminate€this€limit.€€€€Ìà  àAppellant€contends€that€ð ðthe€regulation€can€be€harmonized€withÐ  ð  Ðthe€statute€by€reading€ðð€.05B€to€include€òòcosts€óónot€covered€byÐ 0€  Ððð.05A€which€are€for€effective€and€necessary€activities,€regardlessÏof€whether€the€particular€òòactivities€óóare€also€listed€in€ðð€.05A.€Ð  ð ÐAppellant€argues€that,€ð ð[¢b]y£€giving€ðð€.05A€preclusive€effect,€theÐ €Ð ÐAgency€effectively€renders€ðð€.05B€a€nullity,€since€ðð€.05A€coversÏjust€about€every€activity€involved€in€site€rehabilitation.ðð€Ð  ð ÐAppellant€states€that€ð ð[¢t]here£€is€hardly€any€activity€left€that€canÐ 0€ Ðpossibly€qualify€for€ðð€.05B,€if€B€only€applies€to€otherÏððactivities.ðððð€€It€asserts€that€MDE€should€have€looked€outside€ofÐ P   Ððð.05A€because€its€rehabilitation€system€was€innovative€and€notÏcontemplated€by€the€regulations.€€It€also€posits€that€ðð€.05B€is€aÏsavings€clause€and€should€have€been€applied€in€this€case,€and€thatÏMDEððs€refusal€to€do€so€was€ð ðan€abuse€of€discretion€based€on€itsÐ $à( Ðillegal€interpretation€of€the€regulation.ðð€€Ð  &p!* Ðà  àAppellant€further€asserts€that€MDEððs€interpretation€of€theÏregulation€is€inconsistent€with€the€legislatureððs€stated€intent,Ïand€that€the€regulation,€as€interpreted€by€MDE,€disadvantages€anÏapplicant,€who,€like€appellant,€rehabilitates€its€siteÐ `,°'2 Ðexpeditiously,€because€the€benefits€under€the€statute€are€reducedÏwhen€an€applicant€rehabilitates€its€site€within€one€year.€€It€aversÏthat€this€is€the€case€because,€if€an€applicant€completes€the€clean„¼up€within€one€year,€the€applicant€would€not€be€eligible€for€theÏfull€statutory€benefit€of€$125,000.€€We€find€this€argument€withoutÏmerit.€€Appellant€completely€and€erroneously€rules€out€theÏpossibility€that€an€applicant€would€receive€reimbursement€underÏðð.05B€for€additional€activities€not€listed€in€ðð€.05A,€thereforeÏproviding€the€applicant€with€a€means€of€receiving€additionalÏreimbursement€above€and€beyond€what€is€allowable€within€ðð€.05A.€ÏThus,€an€applicant€could€indeed€be€reimbursed€up€to€the€limit€ofÏ$125,000€per€occurrence,€provided€the€appropriate€deductible€isÏpaid.Ìà  àMDEððs€response€to€these€contentions€is€that€ðð€.05B€providesÏreimbursement€only€for€site€rehabilitation€activities€notÏidentified€in€ðð€.05A.€€As€we€have€stated,€the€language€in€ðð€.05B,Ïas€it€was€written€prior€to€the€1996€amendment,€provided:€€ð ðTheÐ °  ÐDepartment€may€approve€otheròò€óósite€rehabilitation€costs€forÐ @" Ðreimbursement€if€it€determines€the€costs€are€for€effective€andÏnecessary€site€rehabilitation€activities.ðð€€We€find€that€MDEððsÐ °"& Ðinterpretation€of€the€statute€appears€to€be€in€line€with€theÏlegislative€intent.€€As€the€Court€of€Appeals€recently€stated€inÏòòSacchet€v.€Blanóó,€ð ðthe€cardinal€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€toÐ `'°", Ðascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€true€legislative€intent€that€liesÏbehind€the€statutory€enactment€itself.ðð€€353€Md.€87,€92,€724€A.2dÐ Ð* &0 Ð667€(1999);€òòsee€also€Catonsville€Nursing€v.€Lovemanóó,€349€Md.€560,Ð `,°'2 Ð570,€709€A.2d€749€(1998);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€311€Md.€398,€405,€535Ð ° ÐA.2d€471€(1988).€€To€determine€the€legislative€intent,€we€primarilyÏlook€to€ð ðthe€plain€language€of€the€statute,€with€the€words€givenÐ  p Ðtheir€ordinary€and€natural€meanings.ðð€€òò¢Sacchet£óó,€353€Md.€at€92;€òòseeÐ °  Ðalso€Whack€v.€Stateóó,€338€Md.€665,€672,€659€A.2d€1347€(1995).Ð  à Ðà  àWhen€the€words€in€a€statute€could€be€given€more€than€oneÏmeaning,€ð ðthe€court€may€consider€the€consequences€resulting€fromÐ P  Ðone€meaning,€rather€than€another,€and€adopt€the€construction€thatÏpromotes€the€most€reasonable€result€in€light€of€the€objectives€andÏpurpose€of€the€enactment.ðð€€òòFox€v.€Comptroller€of€the€Treasuryóó,€126Ð ° ÐMd.€App.€279,€285,€728€A.2d€776,€òòcert.€deniedóó,€355€Md.€612,€735Ð à ÐA.2d€1106€(1999)€(citing€òòTucker€v.€Firemanððs€Fund€Ins.€Co.óó,€308€Md.Ð pÀ Ð69,€75,€517€A.2d€730€(1986)).€ð ð[¢A]ll£€sections€.€.€.€must€be€readÐ P  Ðtogether,€in€conjunction€with€one€another,€to€discern€the€trueÏintent€of€the€legislature.ðð€€òòPhilip€Electronics€North€America,€etÐ pÀ Ðal.€v.€Wrightóó,€348€Md.€209,€216,€703€A.2d€150€(1997);€òòsee€also€VestÐ P  Ðv.€Giant€Food€Stores,€Inc.óó,€329€Md.€461,€466„67,€620€A.2d€340Ð 0 €  Ð(1993);€òòRyder€Truck€Lines€v.€Kennedyóó,€296€Md.€528,€537,€463€A.2dÐ "`" Ð850€(1983).€Ìà  àAs€¢MDE£€explains€in€its€brief,€it€ð ðinterpreted€this€language€toÐ €%Ð & Ðallow,€but€not€require,€it€to€award€site€rehabilitation€costs€forÏremedial€activities€not€falling€within€the€remedial€categoriesÏlisted€in€section€.¢05A£.ðð€€It€further€asserts€that€if€ðð€.¢05B£€ð ðwereÐ 0*€%, Ðused€to€pay€site€rehabilitation€costs€in€amounts€exceeding€theÐ À+'. Ðlimits€imposed€by€section€.¢05A£,€it€would€render€section€.¢05A£€aÏnullity.ðð€€We€agree,€and€find€this€reasoning€not€only€veryÐ @ Ðpersuasive,€but€succinctly€on€point€and€dispositive€in€this€case.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòWrightóó,€348€Md.€at€216€(ð ðOf€course,€we€seek€to€avoid€anÐ ` ° Ðinterpretation€which€would€lead€to€an€untenable€or€illogicalÏoutcome.ðð)€(citations€omitted).€Ð Ð   Ðòòà@””%ìàCONCLUSIONóóˆÐ `°  Ðà  àWe€find€that€the€court€properly€granted€appelleeððs€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€We€therefore€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Montgomery€County€in€this€matter.ÌÌÓÓà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àò òJUDGMENT€AFFIRMED.€€COSTS€TO€BEÐ 0€ ÐPAID€BY€APPELLANT.ó óÐ p(#(# ÐÓOêÓà  àÐ  ` ÐÑ ýa ÑñÒñòòHomes€Oil€Co.,€Inc.€v.€Maryland€Department€of€the€EnvironmentóóÐ ° ÐÌHEADNOTES:ÌÓÓWRIT€OF€MANDAMUS:€€PRIOR€TO€GRANTING€A€WRIT€OF€MANDAMUS€TO€REVIEWÏDISCRETIONARY€ACTS,€THERE€MUST€BE€BOTH€A€LACK€OF€AN€AVAILABLEÏPROCEDURE€FOR€OBTAINING€REVIEW€AND€AN€ALLEGATION€THAT€THE€ACTIONÏCOMPLAINED€OF€IS€ILLEGAL,€ARBITRARY,€CAPRICIOUS€OR€UNREASONABLE.ÌÌADMINISTRATIVE€DISCRETION€WHEN€AGENCY€IS€ACTING€IN€QUASI„¼LEGISLATIVE€MANNER:€€WHILE€IT€IS€WELL-SETTLED€THAT€THERE€MUST€BEÏSUFFICIENT€GUIDANCE€GIVEN€WHEN€LEGISLATIVE€AUTHORITY€IS€DELEGATEDÏTO€AGENCIES,€THE€MODERN€TENDENCY€OF€THE€COURTS€IS€TOWARD€GREATERÏLIBERALITY€IN€PERMITTING€GRANTS€OF€DISCRETION€TO€ADMINISTRATIVEÏOFFICIALS€IN€ORDER€TO€FACILITATE€THE€ADMINISTRATION€OF€LAWS€AS€THEÏCOMPLEXITY€OF€GOVERNMENTAL€AND€ECONOMIC€CONDITIONS€INCREASE.€ÌÌMARYLAND€OIL€CONTAMINATED€SITE€ENVIRONMENTAL€CLEANUP€FUND:€THEÏLEGISLATURE€DID€NOT€INTEND€TO€PROVIDE€CONTAMINATORS€WITH€FULLÏREIMBURSEMENT€IN€THEIR€CLEAN„UP€EFFORTS.€€RATHER,€IT€APPEARS€THATÏTHE€FUND€IS€A€MEANS€OF€SUBSIDIZING€A€PORTION€OF€THE€CLEAN„UP€COSTSÏASSOCIATED€WITH€UNDERGROUND€STORAGE€TANKS.€€THE€FUND€WASÏESTABLISHED€TO€PROVIDE€ASSISTANCE€AND€ADEQUATE€FINANCIAL€RESOURCESÏFOR€THESE€CLEAN„UP€EFFORTS.ÌÌCOMAR€26.10.14.05:€€¢MDE£€ADOPTED€REGULATIONS€TO€ASSIST€IN€THE€CLEAN„¼UP€FUNDððS€IMPLEMENTATION.€€SECTION€B€OF€THIS€REGULATION€AUTHORIZESÏ¢MDE£€TO€REIMBURSE€ð ðOTHER€SITE€REHABILITATION€COSTSðð€WITHIN€ITSÐ ¨ø ÐDISCRETION€THAT€ARE€NOT€COVERED€BY€SECTION€A€OF€THIS€REGULATION.€ÏTHIS€LANGUAGE€ALLOWS,€BUT€DOES€NOT€REQUIRE,€¢MDE£€TO€AWARDÏREIMBURSEMENT€FOR€ACTIVITIES€NOT€COVERED€BY€SECTION€B€OF€THISÏREGULATION.€€IF€SECTION€B€WERE€USED€TO€PAY€SITE€REHABILITATIONÏCOSTS€IN€AMOUNTS€EXCEEDING€THE€LIMITS€IMPOSED€BY€SECTION€A,€ITÏWOULD€RENDER€SECTION€A€¢A£€NULLITY.ÌÐ   !p$ý ÐÑ = ÑÌÔ‡¼ »XXÔÔ‡'XÎß XXXÔà@ìàRaymond€G.€Thieme,€Jr.ˆÐ xÈ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À ààHP P Àà€€€€€Court€of€Special€AppealsˆÌà@þ þ ìàRobert€C.€Murphy€Courts€of€Appeal€BuildingˆÌà@àà!ìà361€Rowe€BoulevardˆÌà@’’ ìàAnnapolis,€MD€€21401ˆÌà@PP$ìà410„260„1520ˆÌÔ#†'XÎß X »'¼ÿÒò#ÔÔ#†Xg`X X'XÎßñò#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ"USú ú, úÔNovember€22,€2000ÌÌÌÌHonorable€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.ÌHonorable€Charles€E.€Moylan,€Jr.ÌHonorable€Arrie€W.€DavisÌHonorable€Ellen€L.€HollanderÌHonorable€James€P.€SalmonÌHonorable€James€R.€EylerÌHonorable€Andrew€L.€SonnerÌHonorable€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÌHonorable€Deborah€S.€ByrnesÌHonorable€Sally€D.€AdkinsÌHonorable€Peter€B.€KrauserÌÌ€à  àà ` àà ¸ àRe:€€òòHomes€Oil€v.€Dept.€of€EnvironmentóóÐ P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àNo.€2917,€1999€TermÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àòòArgued€November€9,€2000€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ X ÐÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àEnclosed€is€an€opinion€I€am€proposing€for€publication.€€PleaseÏreview€it€and€advise€me€of€any€comments,€corrections,€orÏsuggestions€for€changes.€€Ìà  àThe€¢headnote£€will€be€sent€to€you€on€Monday.ÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àSincerely,ÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ‡,XÛ XXXÔÔ‡,°X“ ° X,XÛ ÔòòRayóóÔ#†,XÛ X °,°X“où#ÔÔ#†Xg`X X,XÛ Pù#ÔÔ‡*X(XXXÔÐ 0%€ ' ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àRaymond€G.€Thieme,€Jr.ÌÌRGT/dhÌEnclosureÌÔ#†Xg`XX*X(Ýù#ÔñÒñ