Cluster 776507

Council v. U.S. E.P.A. , 279 F.3d 1180 , 1186 (9th Cir. 2002) ("A decision made without adequate notice and comment is arbitrary or an abuse of discretion.") (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) ). 3.

In sum, it appears that (1) the interested parties could not have reasonably anticipated the Order, see Empire Health Found., 958 F.3d at 882, (2) the Order is not a “logical outgrowth of the notice and comments received,” id. (quoting Rybachek v. U.S. E.P.A., 904 F.2d 1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 1990)), and (3) “a new round of notice and comment would provide the first opportunity for interested parties to offer comments that could persuade the agency to modify its rule.” Id. at 8…

In sum, it appears that (1) the interested parties could not have reasonably anticipated the Order, see Empire Health Found., 958 F.3d at 882 , (2) the Order is not a “logical outgrowth of the notice and comments received,” id. (quoting Rybachek v. U.S. E.P.A., 904 F.2d 1276, 1288 (9th Cir. 1990)), and (3) “a new round of notice and comment would provide the first opportunity for interested parties to offer comments that could persuade the agency to modify its rule.” Id. at …

Def. 21 Council, 279 F.3d at 1186.

Cir. 1998)). ‐52‐ must either certify, or waive its right to certify, that the discharge will comply with the stateʹs water quality standards ‐‐ commonly known as a ʺ401 Certification.ʺ NRDC, 279 F.3d at 1183; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (b).

Cir. 1998)). ‐52‐ must either certify, or waive its right to certify, that the discharge will comply with the stateʹs water quality standards ‐‐ commonly known as a ʺ401 Certification.ʺ NRDC, 279 F.3d at 1183; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (b).

Under section 401 of the CWA, before EPA issues a permit, the state in which the discharge is to occur must either certify, or waive its right to certify, that the discharge will comply with the state’s water quality standards-commonly known as a “401 Certification.” NRDC, 279 F.3d at 1183; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (b).

“The law does not require that every alteration in a proposed rule be reissued for notice and comment.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 279 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).

Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 279 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).

Council, 279 F.3d at 1183 (noting that general permits “are issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures”); E.P.A., General Permit Program Guidance 21 (1988), available at http://www. epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0381.pdf (“[General permits are considered to be rulemak-ings .... ”).

Council, 279 F.3d at 1186). .

Council, 279 F.3d at 1186. ' In addition, the FCC had an obligation to remain “open-minded” about the issues raised and engage with the substantive responses submitted.

As we explained in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA, 279 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir.2002): NPDES permits come in two varieties: ■individual and general.

Council, 279 F.3d at 1188. 11 .

Defense Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 279 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th Cir.2002).

“Indeed, it is the expectation that the final rules will be somewhat different and improved from the rules originally proposed by the agency,” and “every alteration in a proposed rule [need not] be reissued for notice and comment.” NRDC II, 279 F.3d at 1186.

Council, 279 F.3d at 1186. 2.

Council, 279 F.3d at 1186. 2.

See Alaska Community Action, 765 F3d at 1172 (noting that “general permits ‘are issued pursuant to administrative rulemaking procedures’ ”), quoting Natural Resources Defense Council v US Environmental Protection Agency, 279 F3d 1180 , 1183 (CA 9, 2002) (NRDC).

See NRDC , 279 F.3d at 1186 .