Cluster 786715

See Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d at 417 (“[W]e must uphold an agency's line-drawing decision when it is supported by the evidence in the record.”).

We upheld the same determination in Prometheus I, 373 F.3d at 417-18 (“[W]e must uphold an agency’s line-drawing decision when it is supported by the evidence in the record....

“A threshold determination in any takings case is whether the plaintiff has asserted a legally cognizable property interest.” Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City, 45 F.4th 662, 669 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing In re Trs. of Conneaut Lake Park, Inc., 855 F.3d 519, 526 (3d Cir. 2017)); see also Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 , 428 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[T]he plaintiff[s] must first show that a legally cognizable property interest is affected by the Government’s action in quest…

See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 , 382–89 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Prometheus I”); Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 , 438–44 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Prometheus II”); and Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 824 F.3d 33 , 37–39 (3d Cir. 2016) (“Prometheus III”).

See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004) (“Prometheus I”).

We recognize that our decision appears to put us in tension with the Third Circuit’s decision in Prometheus I, 373 F.3d at 394-95, in which the court declined to read the “repeal or modify” provision of Section 202(h) as a “one-way ratchet.” But the Third Circuit’s brief analysis on this point improperly suggested that such a reading “ignores both ‘modify’ and the requirement that the Commission act ‘in the public interest.’” Id. at 394.

It then directed the FCC on remand to “consider . . . proposals for enhancing ownership opportunities for women and mi- norities.” Id., at 435, n. 82; accord, 652 F. 3d 431, 471 (2011) (reiterating that its “prior remand requir[ed] the Commis- sion to consider the effect of its rules on minority and female ownership”).

As a reviewing court, we must ensure that the EPA “articulate[s] a satisfactory explanation” for its decision to approve Pennsylvania’s SIP, “including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d at 389-90 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Because EPA “examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made,” Prometheus Radio, 373 F.3d at 390 (internal quotation marks omitted), we conclude that the agency action here was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (d)(9)(A).

Further, we are satisfied after a review of the record that the EPA thoroughly examined the relevant scientific data and clearly articulated a “satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Prometheus Radio, 373 F.3d at 389-90 (internal quotations omitted).

Prometheus, 373 F.3d at 430.

Id. at 435. 7 On July 22, 2004, Tribune filed a motion with the Third Circuit requesting that the stay be lifted on the New Rules, as they pertain to cross-ownership in that segment of the media market which included the Hartford area.

But the statutory amendment enacted during FAIR’s pending appeal, see supra Part I.C, has rendered moot both the challenge to the Solomon Amendment, see Black United Fund of N.J., Inc. v. Kean, 763 F.2d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 1985), and the challenge to the regulatory policy, see Prometheus Radio Project, Inc. v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 396 (3d Cir. 2004).

See Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 , 428 (3d Cir. 2004), as amended (June 3, 2016).

See Prometheus v. F.C.C. , 373 F.3d 372 , 433 (3d Cir. 2007).

See Prometheus v. F.C.C., 373 F.3d 372 , 433 (3d Cir. 2007).

Co. , 463 U.S. 29 , 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ; accord Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372 , 389-90 (3d Cir. 2004).

See Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d at 390.

See Euclid Street, LLC v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 41 A.3d 453 (D.C. 2012) (holding that because the "WASA Hearing Officer declined to opine on the legal and statutory issues presented here ... our review of the relevant statute and regulations is de novo.")', Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C., 373 F.3d 372 , 406 (3d Cir.2004) ("[W]e may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given....” (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs.

See [FCC v. Nat’l Citizens Comm, for Broad.], 436 U.S. [775] at 796-97, 98 S.Ct. 2096 [ (1978) ] (finding that the Commission acted rationally in determining that diversification of ownership would enhance the possibility of increasing diverse viewpoints). ... ’ “373 F.3d at 389-90.” Alabama Dep’t of Human Res. v. Dye, 921 So.2d 421, 426 (Ala.Civ.App.2005).

See Alabama Dep't of Human Res. v. Dye, 921 So.2d at 426 (quoting Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d at 389 (quoting in turn Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 , 83 S.Ct. 239 , 9 L.Ed.2d 207 (1962))).

Such a failure to address 'an important aspect of the problem' that is factually substantiated in the record is unreasoned, arbitrary, and capricious decisionmaking." (quoting State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 ) ); see also Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC , 373 F.3d 372 , 420-21 (3d Cir. 2004) (vacating an agency's repeal of a rule where the agency failed to consider or even acknowledge "the effect of its decision on minority television station ownership"); Connec…

Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); see also Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 , 389-90 (3d Cir.2004) (“[W]e must ensure that, in reaching its decision, the agency examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’ ” (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 )).

Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); see also Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 , 389-90 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[W]e must ensure that, in reaching its decision, the agency examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” (quoting State Farm, 463 F.3d at 43)).