Cluster 786909

If an agency conducts an EA and concludes that project impacts will not be significant, it may issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) and forego the preparation of an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4336 (b)(2); Monsanto Co., 561 U.S. at 145 ; Pellissippi Parkway, 375 F.3d at 414 (“After analyzing the EA, the agency decides whether to prepare an EIS or issue a finding of no significant impact.”).

Accordingly, "[w]hen an agency seeks a remand to take further action consistent with correct legal standards, courts should permit such a remand in the absence of apparent or clearly articulated countervailing reasons." Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2004).

Given “considerations of judicial efficiency,” voluntary remand may be appropriate “even without a change in the law or new evidence.” Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta (“Pellissippi”), 375 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir. 2004).

While SKF USA “explained in careful dictum [when a] voluntary remand is appropriate,” Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, 375 F.3d at 417, the majority of courts apparently have read the decision as solidifying in the law “the presumption in favor of voluntary remands.” Voluntary Remands, 70 Admin.

Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2004).

Id .; Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir.2004).

Id.; Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir. 2004).

Citizens Against The Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 418 (6th Cir.2004).

Against Toxics v. United States EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2012); Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2004) (“[W]hen an agency seeks a remand to take further action consistent with correct legal standards, courts should permit such a remand in the absence of apparent or clearly articulated countervailing reasons.”).

Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416-17 (6th Cir. 2004) (“CAPPE”) (citing Belville Mining Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 989, 997 (6th Cir.1993)). “[W]hen an agency makes an error of law in its administrative proceedings, a reviewing court should remand the ease to the agency so that the agency may take further action consistent with the correct legal standards.” Cissell Mfg.

Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416-17 (6th Cir. 2004) (“CAPPE”) (citing Belville Mining Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 989, 997 (6th Cir. 1993)). “[W]hen an agency makes an error of law in its administrative proceedings, a reviewing court should remand the case to the agency so that the agency may take further action consistent with the correct legal standards.” 3 The BIA made no finding regarding whether either offense cons…

Remanding an agency proceeding in lieu of determin- ing the merits of the challenge to it was commended by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163, 165-74 (1996) (per curiam); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985); Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1939); Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416-17 (6th Cir. 2004); Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman, 310 F.3d 747 , 755-56 (D.C.

Remanding an agency proceeding in lieu of determining the merits of the challenge to it was commended by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163, 165-74 , 116 S.Ct. 604, 133 L.Ed.2d 545 (1996) (per curiam); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985); Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364, 375-76 , 59 S.Ct. 301 , 83 L.Ed. 221 (1939); Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 3…

Id. at 417.

See Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2004).

See id. at 15 (quoting Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 2004)).

See Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta , 375 F.3d 412 , 416-17 (6th Cir. 2004).

See FBME Bank Ltd., 142 F. Supp. 3d at 73 (quoting Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 2004)).

See FBME Bank Ltd. , 142 F.Supp.3d at 73 (quoting Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta , 375 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 2004) ).

See Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 417-18 (6th Cir.2004) (explaining that although “courts typically grant an agency’s motion to remand a ease” a court may refuse an agency’s request for remand if the “request is frivolous or in bad faith” or if does not occur in a reasonable period of time (internal quotation marks omitted)); 3 see also Natural Resources De fense Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 676 F.Supp.2d 307, 312 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“W…

Cir. 2017)); see also FBME Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 142 F. Supp. 3d 70, 73 (D.D.C. 2015) (“In general . . . ‘[w]hen an agency seeks a remand to take further action consistent with correct legal standards, courts should permit such a remand in the absence of apparent or clearly articulated countervailing reasons.’” (quoting Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 2004))).

Solid Waste Activities Grp., 901 F.3d at 436 ; see also FBME Bank Ltd. v. Lew, 142 F. Supp. 3d 70, 73 (D.D.C. 2015) (“In general . . . ‘[w]hen an agency seeks a remand to take further action consistent with correct legal standards, courts should permit such a remand in the absence of apparent or clearly articulated countervailing reasons.’” (quoting Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 , 416 (6th Cir. 2004)).2 An agency need not confes…

“If the record before the agency does not support the agency action . . . the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985); see also Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2004) (it may be “an abuse of discretion to prevent an agency from acting to cure the very legal defects asserted by p…

See, e.g., Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412 , 417-18 (6th Cir. 2004); Ethyl Corp., 989 F.2d at 523-24 ; Carpenters Indus.

See, e.g., Citizens Against Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 417-18 (6th Cir.2004); Ethyl Corp., 989 F.2d at 523-24 ; Carpenters Indus.

See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1028 (Fed.Cir.2001) (holding that Commerce may request a remand when it "believes that its original decision was incorrect on the merits and it wishes to change the result”); Borlem S.A.—Empreedimentos Indust riais v. United States, 913 F.2d 933, 937, 941-42 (Fed.Cir.1990) (affirming Trade Court's grant of the ITC's motion to remand to the ITC for reconsideration of its determination of material injury in light of Commerce's …

Where “an intervening event may affect the validity of the agency action at issue, a remand is generally required.” Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 560 F.Supp.2d 21, 23 (D.D.C.2008); accord Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 (D.C.Cir.1993); see also Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2004) (it may be “an abuse of discretion to prevent an agency from acting to cure the very legal defects asserted by plaintiffs cha…

Cir. 1993); see also Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2004) (it may be "an abuse of discretion to prevent an agency from acting to cure the very legal defects asserted by plaintiffs challenging federal action"); cf. Fl.

See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1028-29 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing Ethyl, 989 F.2d at 524 ); see also Citizens Against the Pellissippi Parkway Extension, Inc. v. Mineta, 375 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir.2004) (noting that it can be “an abuse of discretion to prevent an agency from acting to cure the very legal defects asserted by plaintiffs challenging federal action”).