Cluster 446519

Id. § 1.1206(b)(1) (stating that the cover letter that provides notice “must be labeled as an ex parte presentation”); see Deukmejian, 751 F.2d at 1324 (“In discharging their obligation to moni tor agency action, courts review a record compiled by the agency and containing its rationale and supporting findings .... ”).

Because the electronic submission failed to identify that it disclosed an ex parte letter submitted on March 3, it is not 20 properly part of the record that the agency should have included. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206 (b)(1) (stating that the cover letter that provides notice “must be labeled as an ex parte presentation”); see Deukmejian, 751 F.2d at 1324 (“In discharging their obligation to monitor agency action, courts review a record compiled by the agency and containing its rati…

While offering diverse views on what consequences they would consider "remote and highly speculative," courts have stressed either the low probability of the risk, see e.g., San Luis Obispo, 751 F.2d at 1299 ("[t]here is a point at which the probability of an occurrence may be so low as to render it almost totally unworthy of consideration") (citation omitted), or the breadth of the inquiry required, see e.g., Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 551-52 , 98 S.Ct. at 1215-16 (NRC did…

While offering diverse views on what consequences they would consider “remote and highly speculative,” courts have stressed either the low probability of the risk, see e.g., San Luis Obispo, 751 F.2d at 1299 (“[t]here is a point at which the probability of an occurrence may be so low as to render it almost totally unworthy of consideration”) (citation omitted), or the breadth of the inquiry required, see e.g., Vermont Yankee, 435 U.S. at 551-52 , 98 S.Ct. at 1215-16 (NRC did…

Cir. 1984) ) ); Deukmejian v. NRC , 751 F.2d 1287 , 1325 (D.C.

Cir. 1984))); Deukmejian v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 , 1325 (D.C.

Grow- ers Ass'n v. Donovan, 774 F.2d 89, 92 (4th Cir. 1985) ("the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court") (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 143 (1973)); Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 751 F.2d 1287 , 1325 (D.C.

“The rationale for this rule derives from a commonsense understanding of the court’s functional role in the administrative state[:] ‘Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.’ ” Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pe…

“Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better in-, formed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.” Deukmejian, 751 F.2d at 1325.

“The rationale for this rule derives from a commonsense understanding of the court’s functional role in the administrative state[:] ‘Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.’ ” Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pe…

“The rationale for this rule derives from a commonsense understanding of the court’s functional role in the administrative state[:] Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.’ ” Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pea…

“The rationale for this rule derives from a commonsense understanding of the court’s functional role in the administrative state[:] “Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.’ ” Amfac Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Pe…

“The rationale for this rule derives from a commonsense understanding of the court’s functional role in the administrative state[:] “Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.’ ” Amfac *16 Resorts, L.L.C. v. Dep’t of Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers fo…

“Were courts cavalierly to supplement the record, they would be tempted to second-guess agency decisions in the belief that they were better informed than the administrators empowered by Congress and appointed by the President.” Amfac Resorts, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 143 F.Supp.2d 7, 11 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc)).

Levy Court v. EPA, 963 F.2d 391, 396 (D.C.Cir.1992) (quoting San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated in another part, 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C.Cir.1985) (en banc), and aff'd, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1986) (en banc)).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir. 1984), rev’d en banc on other grounds, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1984), aff'd 789 F.2d 26 (1986). (а) Two Documents Stipulated to In Previous Litigation In Am.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1329 (D.C.Cir.1984).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir.1984), decision aff'd on reh’g en banc, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Aug. 11, 1999) (observing that the administrative record enjoys a presumption of regularity); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (stating that “[t]he task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate *197 APA standard of review ... based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court”) (emphasis added); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324 (D.C.Cir…

Aug.11, 1999) (observing that the administrative record enjoys a presumption of regularity); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (stating that “[t]he task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review ... based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court”) (emphasis added); San Lids Obis-po Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1984…

Aug.11, 1999) (observing that the administrative record enjoys a presumption of regularity); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (stating that “[t]he task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review ... based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court”) (emphasis added); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1984)…

It is well established that “judges review administrative action on the basis of the agency’s stated rationale and findings.” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir.1986) (en banc).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir.1984) (review of administrative action on the basis of the agency’s stated rationale and findings), aff'd in relevant part en banc, 789 F.2d 26 , 44-45 (D.C.Cir.1986).

See, e.g., Int'l Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 , 1324 (D.C.Cir.1991) (late-filed comments problematic only where vital to agency's support of rule); cf. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325-26 (D.C.Cir.1984) (review of administrative action on the basis of the agency's stated rationale and findings), aff'd in relevant part en banc, 789 F.2d 26 , 44-45 (D.C.Cir.1986).

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986); Doraiswamy v. Secretary of Labor, 555 F.2d 832, 834-42 (D.C.Cir.1976).

Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617 , 626 (10th Cir.1985), citing Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1323-1326 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Several years ago, a panel of this court (Wilkey, Wald & Bork, JJ.) also disagreed: "the mere fact that a party can seek reopening is not a sufficient substitute for the hearing rights guaranteed by section 189(a)." San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1984) (emphasis in original), reh'g en banc, 789 F.2d 26 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986); see also id. at 1316 ("we cannot conclude that the opportunity to…

Several years ago, a panel of this court (Wilkey, Wald & Bork, JJ.) also disagreed: “the mere fact that a party can seek reopening is not a sufficient substitute for the hearing rights guaranteed by section 189(a).” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1312 (D.C.Cir.1984) (emphasis in original), reh’g en banc, 789 F.2d 26 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986); see also id. at 1316 (“we cannot conclude that the opportunity to…

In San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated in another part, 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C.Cir.1985) (en banc), and aff'd, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 *396 (1986), this court recognized that supplementing the administrative record might be proper “if petitioners made a prima facie showing that the agency excluded from the record evidence adverse to its position....” While we d…

Again, however, the Court is constrained to reject an agency’s interpretation of a regulation if the interpretation is clearly at odds with the language of the regulation itself — that is, an interpretation is acceptable only if it “does no violence to the plain meaning of the [regulatory] provision.” University of Cincinnati v. Bowen, 875 F.2d 1207, 1209 (6th Cir. 1989), quoting Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1310-11 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Flu…

February 28, 1989) (order after remand to USDA granting summary judgment to the USDA) [this unpublished order will hereinafter be referred to as Northwest Forest Workers III In judging the rationality of the regulation, the reviewing court may only consider the material that was before the agency at the time of its rulemaking and the agency’s explanation for the promulgation of its rule. 1 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. de…

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986); Doraiswamy v. Secretary of Labor, 555 F.2d 832, 839-42 (D.C.Cir.1976).

SLO, 751 F.2d at 1314 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original).

It is well established that “judges review administrative action on the basis of the agency’s stated rationale and findings.” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325 (D.C.Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986).

For reasons well articulated by our Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Mothers for *41 Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1324-26 (D.C.

At the outset, the Court notes that “judges review administrative action on the basis of the agency’s stated rationale and findings.” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1325 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 330 , 93 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986) (emphasis in the original).

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision in Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 420 , 91 S.Ct. at 825 , requires that “where there are administrative findings that were made at the same time as the decision, ..., there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior before such inquiry may be made.” See San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1327 (D.C.Cir.1984); National Nutritional Foods Ass’n v. Food and Drug Admin., 491 F.2d 1141…

One of the purposes of the NRC's discretionary option to refuse reopening the record is to assure that the party who would reopen the record offers such material assistance rather than a mere continuation or rehash of the process ostensibly terminated when the record was closed initially. 21 "Under Commission practice, reopening is required when new evidence is shown to be timely, safety significant, and sufficiently material to have changed the result initially taken." San …

“Under Commission practice, reopening is required when new evidence is shown to be timely, safety significant, and sufficiently material to have changed the result initially taken.” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1318 (D.C.Cir.1984) (emphasis in original), aff'd, 789 F.2d 26 (D.C.Cir.1986) (en banc).

HHS relies on San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1227 (D.C.Cir.1984) affd 760 F.2d 1320 (1985) (en banc), for the proposition that “judges review administrative action on the basis of the agency’s stated rationale and findings, and the court’s correlative reluctance to supplement the record, is well established.” Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 3.

Reply Br. at 3 {quoting 751 F.2d at 1335 (Wald, J., dissenting)); see also Pet.

Reply Br. at 3 (quoting 751 F.2d at 1335 (Wald, J., dissenting)); see also Pet.Supp.Br. at 15-21.

As with the duty to prepare an initial EIS, the duty to supplement an EIS is governed by a “rule of reason.” San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1301 (D.C.Cir.1984), vacated in part and rehearing en banc granted on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (D.C.Cir.1985); see Friends of the Biver v. FERC, 720 F.2d 93 , 109 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citing reasonableness standard).

This test has been judicially sanctioned, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. N.R.C., 751 F.2d 1287, 1316-18 (D.C.Cir.1984). 79 At the outset, we reject petitioners' contention that the Commission cannot rely on extra-record material in assessing the significance of evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen the record.

We agree with the comments in Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1323-1326 (D.C.Cir.1984), that the agency's action must be reviewed on the basis articulated by the agency and on the evidence and proceedings before the agency at the time it acted.

We agree with the comments in Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1323-1326 (D.C.Cir.1984), that the agency’s action must be reviewed on the basis articulated by the agency and on the evidence and proceedings before the agency at the time it acted.

This test has been judicially sanctioned, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. N.R.C., 751 F.2d 1287, 1316-18 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Again referring to the NRC, we have stated that our high regard “is appropriate *1149 only so long as the agency’s interpretation does no violence to the plain meaning of the provision [at issue].” Deukmejian v. NEC, 751 F.2d 1287 at 1310 (D.C.Cir.1984); see Union of Concerned, Scientists v. NEC, 711 F.2d 370 , 381 (D.C.Cir.1983).