From: | walshw@pepperlaw.com |
Date: | 23 Jan 2003 16:39:48 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | RE: [CPEO-MEF] Administrative Record example sought |
I agree with the comments provided in the e-mail to which I am replying. I would emphasis the following. As a matter of law, the court, not the administrative agency, is the ultimate arbiter as to what should be in the administrative record. Most courts will lean toward including documents and submissions that have been made in a timely manner. There is a rich case law pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Superfund ordering the inclusion and consideration of submissions. However, although the courts can lead the administrative agency horse to water and even make the agency explain the reasons that it is not agreeing with the comment, unless the decision is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, the court usually will not make the agency agree with or follow the comment. As administrative law history shows, however, busy officials often try to exclude comments and do not respond to them. Thus, as the prior commenter noted, the first rule is to make your comments. These should be technical, policy, and legal. The second rule is that you should insist that some document responds to the comments. You are more likely to obtain a judge's attention if the agency simply ignores the comment. Finally, if after the administrative decision is made, you may seek to appeal the decision based on the record (a very difficult road to hoe) or seek to reopen the record based on new science, new regulatory findings or requirements, new law or new policy developments. All that said, the likelihood of succeeding in a legal challenge to a cleanup decision (although not impossible) is very difficult. Exactly what is arbitrary and capricious is difficult to define in the abstract. One might look for expert scientific groups who disagree with an agency finding, prior inconsistent statements by agency officials, inconsistent statements by other agencies, inconsistent findings or determinations in other cleanup decisions, and plain old errors. ***************************************************** This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. ***************************************************** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] Administrative Record example sought Next by Date: RE: [CPEO-MEF] Risk-Based End State policy at Energy Department | |
Prev by Thread: RE: [CPEO-MEF] Administrative Record example sought Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Explosives cleanup moving forward |