ÿWPCk  ÉF7Ípû)Α˯aîç.(âàËUÝ¢tûaÜÆ<Š~®·KLÄ:ioÇS¾F&öKÝ+–ƒ5*x{õGç‹ß6_x;•xå™fNßfñÑ¿=ñŒ“†Ýäµ0¬àòóèxµ6!õ2@F*„#t œÛS‚忹´ñü~‰Ç©÷Ù·–]«]uÒ×Q$€¾°í;Ÿ«fª7^|Ë §Ôp ÑÀ°N€^¡@rñÙJ-o¼b¾Ö×]WíÙ}ÄAÑ·“{wa;«[m$¾?®&ú–—­¨”Hµ»ØtÚçà‰ù÷~ÙÈÝ…@Ý 1¥LïèŽ;xåU§#Še­Âˆæ!ÖÃÓeYMƒœKK 5sãk;NwO¦ªv?ˆ}¾ Aò OðŸNí¸œÖ)™ÁŒËo×òš`‚·lÁŒ\ÜjÞ&+CL++Gòˆ¼ ®ÿÀƒžå³tò¡™è´•*‡ãIeƒ´ÌB2Ò1Li”Æt#ÁX % 0D 0(c UF‹ 0ÆÑ ™— nT0 N„!†^ §w³4·ËÚ mÜEófõa÷N > zKbÅNÍ 0UÏ 0é$  0æ) 0ã 0àò 0ÝÒ¯ 0Ú·ª‘ 0×;! 0Ô" 0Cæ" 0×)# B$UF$UFc$U@©$ 0Ôé$ 0ѽ% 0ÎŽ& 0Ë\' 0È'( 0Åï( 0À´) 0@t* 0Ô´* 0ш+ 0ÎY, 0Ë'- 0Èò- 0ź. 0Â/ 0½A0 00þ0 0<.1 0¾j1 0>(2 0vf2 0`Ü2 0`<3 0`œ3 0`ü3 0`\4 08¼4 0Òô4 02Æ5 0üø5 0:ô6 0Y.7 0_‡7 0 æ7 0jð8 0„Z: B*Þ; D/< D+7< 0„b< D/æ= 0Î> 06ã> 0? 0:!@ 0^[@ 0<¹@ 1eõ@ 1uZA 72ÏA^BU6_BU>•BU*ÓBNýB 72ÿB^1CU8CUBÇCb DzD‹H‹J»¦LaOÎ}T¹KV{XY<‡^ºÃd}f‚h˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0)X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡.Courier New Regular(d:2S[$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(z(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€pages€that€follow,€we€use€the€modifiers€"on€theÐ ° Ðrecord"€and€"formal"€interchangeably€to€refer€to€adjudicationsÐ †Ö Ðconducted€in€accordance€with€sections€554,€556,€and€557€of€the€APA.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@  Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSubpart€G€was€amended€by€the€new€rules,€but€the€changes€to€itÐ ° Ðare€not€pertinent€here.˜£‰1s ÉL=1y File3|x6ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT pÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€say€"for€the€most€part"€because€there€are€exceptions.€€TheÐ ° Ðnew€rules€still€provide€for€the€use€of€subpart€G€procedures€for,Ð †Ö Ðinter€alia,€reactor€licensing€hearings€if€the€presiding€officerÐ \¬ Ðfinds€that€the€"contested€matter€necessitates€resolution€of€issuesÐ 2‚ Ðof€material€fact€relating€to€the€occurrence€of€a€past€activity,Ð X Ðwhere€the€credibility€of€an€eyewitness€may€reasonably€be€expectedÐ Þ. Ðto€be€at€issue,€and/or€issues€of€motive€or€intent€of€the€party€orÐ ´  Ðeyewitness€[are]€material€to€the€resolution€of€the€contestedÐ Š Ú Ðmatter."€€10€C.F.R.€ðð€2.310.- ù- *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€APA€requires€the€presiding€officer€to€be€the€agency,€aÐ ° Ðmember€of€the€agency,€or€an€administrative€law€judge.€€5€U.S.C.€ððÐ †Ö Ð556(b).€€In€NRC€hearings,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2241€explicitly€authorizesÐ \¬ Ðthe€Commission€to€empanel€safety€and€licensing€boards€consisting€ofÐ 2‚ Ðone€person€"qualified€in€the€conduct€of€administrative€proceedings"Ð X Ðand€two€persons€with€"such€technical€or€other€qualifications€as€theÐ Þ. ÐCommission€deems€appropriate"€to€preside€at€hearings€under€sectionÐ ´  Ð2239.*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó *8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó  Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNotwithstanding€this€assumption,€we€believe€it€prudent€toÐ ° Ðpoint€out€that€òòSeacoastóó€predates€the€Supreme€Court's€watershedÐ †Ö Ðdecision€in€òòChevron€U.S.A.€Inc.óó€v.€òòNatural€Resources€DefenseÐ \¬ ÐCouncil,€Inc.óó,€467€U.S.€837€(1984),€and€that€òòÔ_ ÔDantranÔ_ Ôóó€merelyÐ 2‚ Ðfollowed€òòSeacoastóó€without€assessing€its€vitality€in€the€post„Ð X ÐòòChevronóó€era.€€It€seems€clear€that€while€the€type€of€hearingÐ Þ. Ðrequired€by€a€statute€turns€on€congressional€intent,€òòChevronóó€addsÐ ´  Ða€new€dimension,€requiring€that€the€agency's€reasonableÐ Š Ú Ðinterpretation€be€accorded€deference€if€there€is€any€ambiguity€asÐ ` ° Ðto€that€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€843.€€To€what€extent€(if€at€all)€thisÐ 6 †  Ðreality€erodes€òòSeacoastóó's€rationale€is€a€question€that€we€leave€forÐ  \  Ðanother€day.*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman *DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡^<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡^<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡^<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€P(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡`%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Q(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dO)1dxd'dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€S(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡`%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Q(€X7ÓO)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡^<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡^<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡_ô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô%&+,-./0 ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)[i)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial [i)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<4šÛ 9Z+‹ Courier New <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- pÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn„the„record€hearings€at€most€agencies€must€be€presided€overÐ ° Ðby€the€agency,€one€of€the€members€of€the€body€that€comprises€theÐ †Ö Ðagency,€or€an€administrative€law€judge€(Ô_ÔALJÔ_Ô).€€5€U.S.C.€ðð€556(b).€Ð \¬ ÐBecause€of€the€highly€technical€nature€of€hearings€before€the€NRC,Ð 2‚ Ðhowever,€Congress€authorized€the€NRC€"to€establish€one€or€moreÐ X Ðatomic€safety€and€licensing€boards,€each€comprised€of€threeÐ Þ. Ðmembers,€one€of€whom€shall€be€qualified€in€the€conduct€ofÐ ´  Ðadministrative€proceedings€and€two€of€whom€shall€have€suchÐ Š Ú Ðtechnical€or€other€qualifications€as€the€Commission€deemsÐ ` ° Ðappropriate€to€the€issues€to€be€decided."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2241.€€TheseÐ 6 †  ÐÔ_ÔASLBsÔ_Ô€now€preside€over€the€bulk€of€licensing€hearings€at€the€NRC. öÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔA€request€for€hearing€or€a€petition€for€leave€to€intervene€inÐ ° Ða€licensing€hearing€must€set€forth€with€particularity€theÐ †Ö Ðcontentions€sought€to€be€litigated€in€the€hearing.€€TheseÐ \¬  Ðrequirements€were€further€tightened€by€the€Ô_ÔrulemakingÔ_Ô. Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPublic€Citizen€emphasizes€this€point€in€its€reply€brief,Ð ° Ðstating:€ð ðThe€retention€of€Subpart€G€procedures€for€enrichmentÐ †Ö Ðfacility€hearings€confirms€that€the€NRC€concluded€in€the€Ô_ÔrulemakingÔ_ÔÐ \¬ Ðthat€òòonlyóó€Subpart€G€provided€on„the„record€hearing€procedures.ðð ±Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€APA€has€various€provisions€intended€to€keep€the€presidingÐ ° Ðofficer€independent€of€the€parties€and€of€the€agency.€€òòSeeóó€5€U.S.C.Ð †Ö Ððððð€554(d),€556(b),€and€557(d)(1).€€Ô_ ÔALJsÔ_ Ô'€compensation€is€handled€byÐ \¬ Ðthe€Office€of€Personnel€Management,€not€the€agency€appointing€themÐ 2‚ Ðfor€adjudications.€€This€arrangement€is€designed€to€keep€them€freeÐ X Ðof€any€undue€influence€from€the€agency. Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Final€Rule€explains€elsewhere€some€of€this€passageððs€moreÐ ° Ðobscure€terms.€€For€hearings€conducted€under€subpart€J,€the€NRC€andÐ †Ö Ðpotential€parties€mustÐ \¬ ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òdisclose€pertinent€documents€by€participating€in€theÐ X Ð"Licensing€Support€Network"€(LSN)€before€an€applicationÐ Þ. Ðis€filed.€In€addition,€under€Ô_ ÔsubpartsÔ_ Ô€G,€L,€and€N€the€NRCÐ ´  Ðstaff€is€required€to€prepare,€make€available,€and€updateÐ Š Ú Ða€"hearing€file"€consisting€of€the€application€and€anyÐ ` ° Ðamendments,€NRC€safety€and€environmental€reports€relatingÐ 6 †  Ðto€the€application,€and€any€correspondence€between€theÐ  \  ÐNRC€and€the€applicant€that€is€relevant€to€theÐ â 2  Ðapplication.€A€parallel€concept€is€provided€in€subpart€JÐ ¸  Ðby€the€requirement€for€the€NRC€staff€to€maintain€anÐ ŽÞ  Ð"electronic€docket."Ð d´  ÐÒ°–ÒÒ°ˆÒÌ69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2189. ÄÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€Public€Citizen€says,€the€NRC€filled€both€the€Notice€ofÐ ° ÐProposed€Ô_ ÔRulemakingÔ_ Ô€and€the€Final€Rule€with€ð ðpage€after€page€ofÐ †Ö Ðargumentðð€meant€to€establish€this€proposition.Ô‡dXoÛXX)XÔ ¯Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHowever,€the€amici€States€did€devote€a€section€of€theirÐ ° Ðbrief,€filed€before€the€NRC's€opposition,€to€arguing€that€the€newÐ †Ö Ðprocedures€fail€to€meet€the€APA's€requirements€for€on„the„recordÐ \¬ Ðhearings. qÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPublic€Citizen€refers€to€ðð€189€of€the€AEA,€now€codified€atÐ ° Ð42€U.S.C.€ðð€2239,€which€provides€for€hearings€in€licensingÐ †Ö Ðdecisions€and€judicial€review. þÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCiting€broad€equitable€principles€of€fiduciary€duty€takenÐ ° Ðfrom€case€law,€the€SEC€had€refused€to€approve€a€stockÐ †Ö Ðreorganization€plan€until€it€was€amended€to€eliminate€the€effect€ofÐ \¬ Ðsome€suspect€stock€purchases€by€the€company's€management.€€TheÐ 2‚ Ðcompany€amended€the€plan€accordingly€and€the€SEC€approved€it.€€TheÐ X ÐCourt€found€that€the€case€law€cited€by€the€SEC,€however,€did€notÐ Þ. Ðsupport€its€decision.€€Rather€than€deciding€whether€the€SEC'sÐ ´  Ðdecision€could€be€sustained€on€a€second€basis€„„€that€of€theÐ Š Ú Ðspecial€authority€given€by€Congress€to€the€SEC€to€administer€theÐ ` ° Ðsecurities€laws€„„€the€Court€remanded€the€case€to€the€agency€forÐ 6 †  Ðfurther€proceedings.€€If€the€SEC€had€intended€to€invoke€that€secondÐ  \  Ðbasis€as€an€alternative€ground,€it€had€not€done€so€with€sufficientÐ â 2  Ðclarity€to€allow€the€Court€to€review€its€action.Ð ¸  ÐÔ‡dXoÛXX)XÔ 2Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/apa/refrnc/malj.pdf.€€TheÐ ° Ðcurrent€edition€of€the€Manual€is€not€an€official€governmentÐ †Ö Ðpublication.€€Previous€editions€of€this€Manual,€however,€had€beenÐ \¬ Ðpublished€by€the€Administrative€Conference€of€the€United€StatesÐ 2‚ Ð(Ô_ÔACUSÔ_Ô),€a€government€body.€€Prof.€Ô_ÔMorellÔ_Ô€E.€Mullins€of€theÐ X ÐUniversity€of€Arkansas€at€Little€Rock€School€of€Law€was€theÐ Þ. Ðprincipal€editor€and€revisor€of€the€third€edition€in€1990.€€AfterÐ ´  ÐCongress€eliminated€funding€for€the€Ô_ÔACUSÔ_Ô€in€the€1990s,€Prof.Ð Š Ú ÐMullins€took€it€upon€himself€in€2001€to€reproduce€the€Manual€on€theÐ ` ° Ðweb€in€somewhat€updated€form.ò òó ó€€Recently,€this€2001€"interimÐ 6 †  ÐInternet€edition,"€as€he€called€it,€was€published€in€substantiallyÐ  \  Ðunchanged€form€in€the€journal€of€the€National€Association€ofÐ â 2  ÐAdministrative€Law€Judges,€a€nonprofit€professional€organization.€Ð ¸  ÐAlso,€the€website€of€the€Office€of€Administrative€Law€Judges,€U.S.Ð ŽÞ  ÐDepartment€of€Labor,€links€to€the€Manual€(while€not€guaranteeingÐ d´  Ðits€accuracy€or€expressing€a€view€on€its€contents). °Ý ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€5€U.S.C.€ðð€556(d)€provides€that,€in€decidingÐ ° Ðapplications€for€initial€licenses,€all€evidence€may€be€submitted€inÐ †Ö Ðwritten€form€only€so€long€as€"a€party€will€not€be€prejudicedÐ \¬ Ðthereby." úÝ ƒS[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€(oÛ(X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€it€hardly€needs€repeating€that€"[Ô_Ôn]aturallyÔ_Ô,€theÐ ° ÐAdministrator's€decision€regarding€the€necessity€of€holdingÐ †Ö Ðcross-examination€will€be€subject€to€judicial€review.€€5€U.S.C.€ððÐ \¬ Ð706(2)(A)."€€òòSeacoastóó,€572€F.2d€at€880€n.18. Ô  # ' Turner0Turner .   Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡)°¸°X)XÔÔ‡*°³ê°°)°¸ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†*X`ÞX°*°³êÅ#ÔÔ‡*„{„X*X`ÞÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†*X`ÞX„*„{Y#ÔÔ#†)XoÛXX*X`Þä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€04„1145Ð K › ÐÌà@0 0 ìàCITIZENS€AWARENESS€NETWORK,€INC.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@XX%ìàPetitioner,ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@88)ìàandˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@@ @ ìàNATIONAL€WHISTLEBLOWER€CENTER€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@$ìàIntervenors,ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ S£ ÐÌà@\ \ ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA€ANDˆÐ ÿO Ðà@` ` ìà€UNITED€STATES€NUCLEAR€REGULATORY€COMMISSION,ˆÐ Õ% ÐÌà@$ìàRespondents,ˆÐ Ñ ÐÌà@88)ìàandˆÐ -} ÐÌà@¨ ¨ ìàNUCLEAR€ENERGY€INSTITUTE,€INC.,ˆÐ Ù) ÐÌà@XX%ìàIntervenor.ˆÐ …Õ ÐÌà@hh#ìà_______________ˆÐ 1   ÐÌNo.€04„1359Ð Ý!-" ÐÌà@¸ ¸ ìàPUBLIC€CITIZEN€CRITICAL€MASS€ENERGYˆÐ ‰#Ù$ Ðà@¨ ¨ ìàAND€ENVIRONMENT€PROGRAM€ET€AL.,ˆÐ _$¯% ÐÌà@$ìàPetitioners,ˆÐ  &[!' ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ ·'#) ÐÌà@\ \ ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA€ANDˆÐ c)³$+ Ðà@œ œ ìàUNITED€STATES€NUCLEAR€REGULATORY€COMMISSION,ˆÐ 9*‰%, ÐÌà@$ìàRespondents.ˆÐ å+5'. ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<-` AßÐ ‘-á(0 ÐÐ  -ð(1? Ðà@Ø Ø ìàPETITIONS€FOR€REVIEW€OF€A€Ô_ÔRULEMAKINGÔ_Ô€OF€THEˆÐ ° Ðò òà@ ìàó óNUCLEAR€REGULATORY€COMMISSIONˆÐ †Ö ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<1` AßÐ 2‚ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ g ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€Lipez€and€Howard,Ð à  ÐÌòòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð o ¿  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  k  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòJonathan€Mark€Blockóó€for€petitioner€Citizens€Awareness€Network.Ð P  Ðà  àòòStephen€M.€Ô_ÔKohnÔ_Ôóó€on€brief€for€intervenors€NationalÐ Ö&  ÐWhistleblower€Center€and€Committee€for€Safety€at€Plant€Zion.Ð ¬ü  Ðà  àòòMichael€T.€Kirkpatrickóó,€with€whom€òòBonnie€I.€Robin„Ô_ÔVergeerÔ_Ôóó€andÐ ‚Ò  ÐòòScott€L.€Nelsonóó€were€on€brief,€for€petitioners€Public€CitizenÐ X¨  ÐCritical€Mass€Energy€and€Ô_ÔEnvironmentÔ_Ô€Program€and€NuclearÐ .~  ÐInformation€and€Resource€Service.Ð T Ðà  àòòThomas€F.€Reillyóó,€Attorney€General€(Massachusetts),€and€òòNoraÐ Ú* ÐJ.€Ô_ÔChoroverÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€Attorney€General€(Massachusetts),€on€briefÐ ° Ðfor€Massachusetts,€California,€Connecticut,€New€Hampshire,€and€NewÐ †Ö ÐYork,€amici€curiae.Ð \¬ Ðà  àòòSteven€F.€Ô_ÔCrockettÔ_Ôóó,€Special€Counsel,€United€States€NuclearÐ 2‚ ÐRegulatory€Commission,€with€whom€òòThomas€L.€Ô_ÔSansonettiÔ_Ôóó,€AssistantÐ X ÐAttorney€General,€òòGreer€S.€Goldmanóó€and€òòLisa€E.€Jonesóó,€Attorneys,Ð Þ. ÐEnvironment€and€Natural€Resources€Division,€United€StatesÐ ´ ÐDepartment€of€Justice,€òòKaren€D.€Cyróó,€General€Counsel,€òòJohn€F.Ð ŠÚ ÐÔ_ÔCordesÔ_Ô,€Jr.óó,€Solicitor,€òòE.€Leo€Ô_ÔSlaggieÔ_Ôóó,€Deputy€Solicitor,€andÐ `° ÐòòShelly€D.€Coleóó,€Attorney,€United€States€Nuclear€RegulatoryÐ 6† ÐCommission,€were€on€brief,€for€respondents.Ð  \ Ðà  àòòEllen€C.€Ginsbergóó,€with€whom€òòRobert€W.€Bishopóó€and€òòMichael€A.Ð â2  ÐÔ_ÔBauserÔ_Ôóó€were€on€brief,€for€intervenor€Nuclear€Energy€Institute,€Inc.Ð ¸! ÐÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ d ´#d ´ ‹‹ÐÓî ÓÐ SIÈ $ @·â@38330„„‰@·â@‰‹‹SÐÌDecember€10,€2004Ð ž!î& ÐÐ RHCt"Ä'" @·â@38330 @·â@ ‹‹RÐÐ(È (  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÓ  ÓÐ  P$ ) ÐÔ_ ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€oÛXXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Disenchanted€with€its€existingÐ ° Ðprocedural€framework€for€the€conduct€of€adjudicatory€hearings,€theÐ xÈ ÐNuclear€Regulatory€Commission€(NRC€or€Commission)€promulgated€newÐ $t Ðrules€designed€to€make€its€hearing€processes€more€efficient.€€TheseÐ Ð  Ðnew€rules€greatly€reduce€the€level€of€formality€in€reactorÐ | Ì Ðlicensing€proceedings€but,€at€the€same€time,€place€certainÐ ( x  Ðunaccustomed€restrictions€upon€the€parties.€€The€petitioners€andÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner„intervenors€are€public€interest€groups.€€Supported€byÐ €Ð  Ðthe€Attorneys€General€of€five€states€(who€have€filed€a€helpfulÐ ,|  Ðamicus€brief),€they€claim€that€the€new€rules€violate€a€statutoryÐ Ø( Ðrequirement€that€all€reactor€licensing€hearings€be€conducted€inÐ „Ô Ðaccordance€with€sections€554,€556,€and€557€of€the€AdministrativeÐ 0€ ÐProcedure€Act€(APA),€5€U.S.C.€ðððð€554,€556€&€557.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€theÐ Ü, Ðalternative,€they€claim€that€the€Commission€has€not€put€forth€anÐ ˆØ Ðadequate€justification€for€so€substantial€a€departure€from€priorÐ 4„ Ðpractice€and€that,€therefore,€the€new€rules€must€be€set€aside€asÐ à0 Ðarbitrary€and€capricious.€€Fully€cognizant€of€the€gravity€of€ourÐ ŒÜ  Ðtask,€we€have€studied€the€complex€statutory€and€regulatoryÐ 8!ˆ" Ðframework€and€scrutinized€the€plenitudinous€administrative€record.€Ð ä"4$ ÐAfter€completing€that€perscrutation€and€grappling€with€anÐ $à& Ðantecedent€jurisdictional€question,€we€find€that€the€new€proceduresÐ <&Œ!( Ðin€fact€comply€with€the€relevant€provisions€of€the€APA€and€that€theÐ è'8#* ÐCommission€has€furnished€an€adequate€explanation€for€the€changes.€Ð ° ÐConsequently,€we€deny€the€petitions€for€review.Ð \¬ Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ X Ðà ` àThe€NRC€is€the€federal€agency€charged€with€regulating€theÐ Ð  Ðuse€of€nuclear€energy,€including€the€licensing€of€reactors€used€forÐ | Ì Ðpower€generation.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2201.€€The€Atomic€Energy€ActÐ ( x  Ðrequires€the€Commission€to€hold€a€hearing€"upon€the€request€of€anyÐ Ô$  Ðperson€whose€interest€may€be€affected,"€òòid.óó€ðð€2239(a)(1)(A),€beforeÐ €Ð  Ðgranting€a€new€license,€a€license€amendment,€or€a€license€renewal.Ð ,|  Ðà ` àThe€NRC's€predecessor€agency,€the€Atomic€EnergyÐ Ø( ÐCommission€(AEC),€originally€interpreted€this€provision€asÐ „Ô Ðrequiring€on„the„record€hearings€in€accordance€with€the€APA.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0€ ÐHearings€Before€the€Subcommittee€on€Legislation,€Joint€Committee€onÐ Ü, ÐAtomic€Energy,€87th€Cong.€60€(1962)€(letter€of€AEC€CommissionerÐ ˆØ ÐLoren€K.€Olsen).ò òó ó€€These€hearings€closely€resembled€federal€courtÐ 4„ Ðtrials,€complete€with€a€full€panoply€of€discovery€devices€andÐ à0 Ðdirect€and€cross„examination€of€witnesses€by€advocates€for€theÐ ŒÜ  Ðparties.€€Such€hearings€proved€to€be€very€lengthy;€some€lasted€asÐ 8!ˆ" Ðlong€as€seven€years.Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àIn€1982,€the€NRC€relaxed€its€approach€for€certain€typesÐ $à& Ðof€licensing€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€Kerr„McGee€Corp.óó,€15Ð <&Œ!( ÐN.R.C.€232,€235€(1982)€(determining€that€formal€hearings€are€notÐ è'8#* Ðnecessary€in€materials€licensing€cases).€€Although€the€results€wereÐ ”)ä$, Ðheartening,€the€Commission€nevertheless€retained€the€full€range€ofÐ @+&. Ðtrial„like€procedures€for€reactor€licensing€cases.€€The€passage€ofÐ ° Ðtime€brought€further€changes:€€faced€with€the€prospect€of€hearingsÐ \¬ Ðon€many€license€renewal€applications€in€the€near€future€ð"ð€a€largeÐ X Ðnumber€of€reactors€were€initially€licensed€in€the€decade€from€1960Ð ´  Ðto€1970€and€the€standard€term€for€such€licenses€was€forty€years€ð"ðÐ ` ° Ðthe€Commission€began€to€reassess€its€adjudicatory€processes,Ð  \  Ðfocusing€particularly€on€the€procedures€used€in€reactor€licensingÐ ¸  Ðcases.€€The€NRC's€issuance,€in€1998,€of€a€policy€on€the€conduct€ofÐ d´  Ðadjudicatory€proceedings,€63€Fed.€Reg.€41,872€(Aug.€5,€1998),Ð `  Ðmarked€the€inception€of€this€process.€€This€policy€statementÐ ¼  Ðreiterated€the€NRC's€commitment€to€expeditious€adjudication€andÐ h¸ Ðurged€hearing€officers€to€employ€a€variety€of€innovative€case„Ð d Ðmanagement€techniques€in€order€to€improve€hearing€efficiency.Ð À Ðà ` àWhile€encouraging€better€utilization€of€existingÐ l¼ Ðprocedures,€the€Commission€also€began€pondering€possible€proceduralÐ h Ðrevisions.€€In€January€of€1999,€the€NRC's€general€counsel€draftedÐ Ä Ða€legal€memorandum€concluding€that€the€Atomic€Energy€Act€did€notÐ pÀ  Ðrequire€reactor€licensing€hearings€to€be€on€the€record€and,Ð !l" Ðaccordingly,€that€the€Commission€had€the€option€of€replacing€theÐ È"$ Ðexisting€format€with€a€truncated€regime.€€Later€that€year,€theÐ t$Ä& ÐCommission€held€a€widely€attended€workshop€on€hearing€procedures.€Ð  &p!( ÐBuilding€on€this€foundation,€the€Commission€published€a€notice€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðproposed€rulemaking€on€April€16,€2001,€66€Fed.€Reg.€19,610,Ð x)È$, Ðsuggesting€a€major€revision€of€its€hearing€procedures.€€In€anÐ $+t&. Ðaccompanying€statement,€the€Commission€took€the€position€thatÐ ° Ðsection€189€of€the€Atomic€Energy€Act,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2239,€does€notÐ \¬ Ðrequire€reactor€licensing€proceedings€to€be€on€the€record.Ð X Ðà ` àOn€January€14,€2004,€the€NRC€published€a€final€rule,Ð ´  Ðalong€with€a€response€to€the€comments€that€the€proposed€rule€hadÐ ` ° Ðgenerated.€€òòSeeóó€69€Fed.€Reg.€2,182.€€With€minor€exceptions,€theÐ  \  Ðfinal€rule€replicated€the€proposed€rule.€€The€statement€ofÐ ¸  Ðconsiderations€for€the€final€rule€reiterated€the€Commission's€viewÐ d´  Ðthat€reactor€licensing€hearings€may€be€informal.Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€new€rules€took€effect€on€February€13,€2004.€€AlthoughÐ ¼  Ðthey€apply€to€all€adjudications€conducted€by€the€NRC,€theÐ h¸ Ðpetitioners€only€challenge€their€application€to€reactor€licensingÐ d Ðproceedings.€€We€therefore€confine€our€ensuing€discussion€to€thatÐ À Ðaspect€of€the€new€rules.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àUnder€the€old€protocol,€all€reactor€licensing€hearingsÐ h Ðwere€conducted€according€to€the€procedures€outlined€in€10€C.F.R.Ð Ä Ðpart€2,€subpart€G.€€The€subpart€G€rules€resemble€those€associatedÐ pÀ  Ðwith€judicial€proceedings.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€They€include€a€complete€armamentariumÐ !l" Ðof€traditional€discovery€devices€(e.g.,€requests€for€documentÐ È"$ Ðproduction,€interrogatories,€and€depositions).€€10€C.F.R.€ðð€2.705.€Ð t$Ä& ÐThe€parties€may€make€motions€for€summary€disposition€(although€theÐ  &p!( Ðhearing€officer€is€not€required€to€entertain€them).€€òòId.óó€ðð€2.710.€Ð Ì'#* ÐThere€is€an€evidentiary€hearing€at€which€testimony€is€presentedÐ ° Ðthrough€direct€and€cross„examination€of€witnesses€by€the€parties.€Ð \¬ ÐòòId.óó€ðð€2.711.Ð X Ðà ` àUnder€the€new€rules,€reactor€licensing€hearings€are,€forÐ ´  Ðthe€most€part,€to€be€conducted€according€to€a€less€elaborate€set€ofÐ ` ° Ðprocedures€described€in€10€C.F.R.€pt.€2,€subpart€L.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€newÐ  \  Ðsubpart€ð"ð€which€differs€materially€from€the€old€subpart€L€ð"ð€limnsÐ ¸  Ða€streamlined€hearing€procedure.€€Unlike€subpart€G,€subpart€L€doesÐ d´  Ðnot€provide€for€traditional€discovery.€€10€C.F.R.òòóó€ðð€2.1203.ò òó ó€Ð `  ÐInstead,€parties€in€hearings€governed€by€subpart€L€are€required€toÐ ¼  Ðmake€certain€mandatory€disclosures€(akin€to€"open€file"€discovery)Ð h¸ Ðanent€expert€witnesses,€expert€witness€reports,€relevant€documents,Ð d Ðdata€compilations,€and€claims€of€privilege.€€òòId.óó€ðð€2.336.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€hearings€themselves€also€differ.€€Under€subpart€L,Ð l¼ Ðthe€presumption€is€that€all€interrogation€of€witnesses€will€beÐ h Ðundertaken€by€the€hearing€officer,€not€the€litigants.€€òòId.óó€ððÐ Ä Ð2.1207.€€Parties€are€allowed€to€submit€proposed€questions€inÐ pÀ  Ðadvance€of€the€hearing,€but€the€presiding€officer€is€under€noÐ !l" Ðcompulsion€to€pose€them.€€òòId.óó€€Parties€are€not€allowed€to€submitÐ È"$ Ðproposed€questions€during€the€hearing€unless€requested€to€do€so€byÐ ° Ðthe€presiding€officer.€€òòId.óó€€Cross„examination€is€not€available€asÐ \¬ Ðof€right,€although€a€party€may€request€permission€to€conduct€cross„Ð X Ðexamination€that€it€deems€"necessary€to€ensure€the€development€ofÐ ´  Ðan€adequate€record€for€decision."€€òòId.óó€ðð€2.1204.€€A€party€seekingÐ ` ° Ðleave€to€conduct€cross„examination€must€submit€a€cross„examinationÐ  \  Ðplan,€which€will€be€included€in€the€record€of€the€proceedingÐ ¸  Ðregardless€of€whether€the€request€is€allowed.€€òòId.óóÐ d´  Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€ð"ð€we€use€that€phrase€broadly€to€includeÐ `  Ðthe€petitioner„intervenors€ð"ð€took€umbrage€at€these€changes€andÐ ¼  Ðbrought€these€petitions€for€judicial€review.€€Their€primary€claimÐ h¸ Ðis€that€the€Commission€erred€in€its€determination€that€reactorÐ d Ðlicensing€proceedings€do€not€have€to€be€fully€formal€adjudications.€Ð À ÐIn€their€view,€the€new€rules€do€not€comply€with€the€APA'sÐ l¼ Ðrequirements€for€on„the„record€adjudication€and,€therefore,€cannotÐ h Ðstand.€€As€a€fallback,€the€petitioners€assert€that€even€if€the€newÐ Ä Ðrules€are€not€ultra€vires,€they€must€be€set€aside€as€arbitrary€andÐ pÀ  Ðcapricious.Ð !l" Ðò òII.€€APPELLATE€JURISDICTIONó óÐ È"$ Ðà ` àThe€parties€have€operated€on€the€assumption€that€thisÐ $à& Ðcourt€has€first„instance€jurisdiction€to€hear€and€determine€theirÐ <&Œ!( Ðpetitions€for€judicial€review.€€We€are€not€so€sanguine€ð"ð€and€we€areÐ è'8#* Ðcognizant€that,€as€a€court€of€limited€jurisdiction,€subject„matterÐ ”)ä$, Ðjurisdiction€will€not€accrete€to€us€either€by€the€parties'Ð @+&. Ðacquiescence€or€by€their€consent.€€òòEspinal„Dominguezóó€v.€òòPuertoÐ ° ÐRicoóó,€352€F.3d€490,€495€(1st€Cir.€2003).€€Consequently,€we€askedÐ \¬ Ðthe€parties€to€address€what€we€perceived€to€be€a€thorny€questionÐ X Ðrelating€to€our€authority€to€entertain€these€petitions.€€BeforeÐ ´  Ðproceeding€to€the€merits€of€the€petitioners'€asseverational€array,Ð ` ° Ðwe€must€resolve€that€question.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€facts€are€as€follows.€€The€petitioners€premiseÐ ¸  Ðjurisdiction€on€the€Administrative€Orders€Review€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ððððÐ d´  Ð2341„2351,€better€known€as€the€Hobbs€Act.€€In€pertinent€part,€thatÐ `  Ðstatute€confers€original€jurisdiction€on€the€courts€of€appeals€toÐ ¼  Ðhear€petitions€for€judicial€review€of€"all€final€orders€of€theÐ h¸ Ð[NRC]€made€reviewable€by€section€2239€of€title€42."€€òòId.óó€at€ððÐ d Ð2342(4).€€In€turn,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2239(b)€makes€reviewable,€interÐ À Ðalia,€"[a]ny€final€order€entered€in€any€proceeding€of€the€kindÐ l¼ Ðspecified€in€subsection€(a)€of€this€section."€€The€proceedingsÐ h Ðenumerated€in€that€subsection€include€those€for€"the€granting,Ð Ä Ðsuspending,€revoking,€or€amending€of€any€license€or€constructionÐ pÀ  Ðpermit,€or€application€to€transfer€control,€and€in€any€proceedingÐ !l" Ðfor€the€issuance€or€modification€of€rules€and€regulations€dealingÐ È"$ Ðwith€the€activities€of€licensees."€€òòId.óó€ðð€2239(a).Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àRead€literally,€these€interlocking€statutes€would€notÐ  &p!( Ðseem€to€grant€jurisdiction€to€this€court.€€After€all,€theÐ Ì'#* Ðpetitioners€are€challenging€a€rule,€not€an€order.€€The€APA,€whichÐ x)È$, Ðis€made€applicable€to€the€Commission€by€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2231,€definesÐ $+t&. Ðan€order€as€"the€whole€or€a€part€of€a€final€disposition,€whetherÐ ° Ðaffirmative,€negative,€injunctive,€or€declaratory€in€form,€of€anÐ \¬ Ðagency€òòin€a€matter€other€than€rule€makingóó€.€.€.€."€5€U.S.C.€ððÐ X Ð551(6)€(emphasis€supplied).€€Thus,€the€action€at€issue€here€ð"ð€aÐ ´  Ðrulemaking€ð"ð€would€appear€to€fall€outside€the€scope€of€reviewÐ ` ° Ðprovided€by€the€Hobbs€Act.Ð  \  Ðà ` àEven€if€one€were€tempted€to€suppose€that€Congress€simplyÐ ¸  Ðmisspoke€in€limiting€Hobbs€Act€jurisdiction€to€the€review€ofÐ d´  Ðorders,€other€sections€of€the€Act€would€seem€to€militate€against€aÐ `  Ðjudicial€reconstruction€of€the€term€"order"€to€encompassÐ ¼  Ðrulemaking.€€The€Act€explicitly€provides€for€initial€court€ofÐ h¸ Ðappeals€review€of€"all€rules,€regulations,€or€final€orders"€of€theÐ d ÐSecretary€of€Transportation,€the€Federal€Maritime€Commission,€andÐ À Ðthe€Surface€Transportation€Board.€€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€2342(3),€2342(5).€Ð l¼ ÐThe€principle€is€clear€that€Congress's€use€of€differential€languageÐ h Ðin€various€sections€of€the€same€statute€is€presumed€to€beÐ Ä Ðintentional€and€deserves€interpretive€weight.€€òòSeeóó€òòDuncanóó€v.Ð pÀ  ÐòòWalkeróó,€533€U.S.€167,€173€(2001);€òòIn€re€229€Main€St.€Ltd.€P'shipóó,Ð !l" Ð262€F.3d€1,€5„6€(1st€Cir.€2001).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àWere€we€writing€on€a€pristine€page,€we€would€likely€findÐ t$Ä& Ðthis€careful€parsing€persuasive€and€thus€dismiss€the€case€so€thatÐ  &p!( Ðthe€petitioners€could€seek€initial€review€in€an€appropriateÐ Ì'#* Ðdistrict€court.€€The€page,€however,€is€cluttered,€not€pristine.€Ð x)È$, ÐThere€is€a€substantial€body€of€precedent€elaborating€the€scope€ofÐ $+t&. Ðthe€Hobbs€Act€with€respect€to€both€the€NRC€and€other€agencies€toÐ ° Ðwhich€it€applies.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€key€case€is€òòFlorida€Power€&€Light€Co.óó€v.€òòLorionóó,€470Ð X ÐU.S.€729€(1985),€in€which€the€Supreme€Court€determined€that€HobbsÐ ´  ÐAct€jurisdiction€existed€in€the€courts€of€appeals€for€initialÐ ` ° Ðreview€of€the€NRC's€denial€of€citizen€petitions€to€suspend€orÐ  \  Ðrevoke€licenses.€€òòId.óó€at€746.€€In€making€this€determination,€theÐ ¸  ÐCourt€declared€that€the€language€of€section€2239€was€ambiguous€asÐ d´  Ðto€whether€it€limited€judicial€review€to€orders€entered€inÐ `  Ðproceedings€under€that€section.€€òòId.óó€at€736.€€The€Court€thenÐ ¼  Ðdeclared€that€the€Hobbs€Act€should€be€interpreted€broadly,€so€as€toÐ h¸ Ðmaximize€the€availability€of€initial€circuit€court€review€ofÐ d Ðlicensing€proceedings.€€òòId.óó€at€745.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€Court€laid€out€two€grounds€in€support€of€thisÐ l¼ Ðreasoning.€€First,€it€cited€efficiency€concerns.€€In€this€regard,Ð h Ðthe€Court€deemed€initial€circuit€court€review€the€better€use€ofÐ Ä Ðjudicial€resources,€observed€that€such€a€course€eliminates€oneÐ pÀ  Ðlayer€of€review,€and€stressed€that€there€is€usually€no€need€for€theÐ !l" Ðcompilation€of€either€a€fresh€or€an€augmented€record€in€agencyÐ È"$ Ðreview€proceedings.€€òòId.óó€at€744.€€Second,€the€Court€haranguedÐ t$Ä& Ðagainst€the€evils€of€piecemeal€review.€€In€this€regard,€it€warnedÐ  &p!( Ðthat€when€Congress€clearly€places€initial€review€of€some€agencyÐ Ì'#* Ðactions€in€the€courts€of€appeals,€the€jurisdictional€provisionÐ x)È$, Ðshould€not€be€interpreted€narrowly€to€shunt€review€of€other€agencyÐ $+t&. Ðactions€to€the€district€courts.€€òòId.óó€at€741„42.€€For€these€reasons,Ð ° Ðthe€Court€admonished€that€"[a]bsent€a€firm€indication€that€CongressÐ \¬ Ðintended€to€locate€initial€APA€review€of€agency€action€in€theÐ X Ðdistrict€courts,€we€will€not€presume€that€Congress€intended€toÐ ´  Ðdepart€from€the€sound€policy€of€placing€initial€APA€review€in€theÐ ` ° Ðcourts€of€appeals."€€òòId.óó€at€745.Ð  \  Ðà ` àòòLorionóó€has€displayed€remarkable€vitality.€€The€SeventhÐ ¸  ÐCircuit€applied€its€teachings€in€òòCommonwealth€Edison€Co.óó€v.€òòNRCóó,Ð d´  Ð830€F.2d€610€(7th€Cir.€1987),€finding€jurisdiction€to€review€theÐ `  ÐCommission's€assessment€of€fees€for€the€processing€of€a€licensingÐ ¼  Ðapplication.€€òòId.óó€at€613.€€In€the€court's€view,€the€assessment€wasÐ h¸ Ðsufficiently€related€to€a€licensing€proceeding€to€ground€circuitÐ d Ðcourt€jurisdiction.€€òòId.óó€at€612„13.€€Pertinently€for€presentÐ À Ðpurposes,€the€court,€in€the€exercise€of€its€discerned€jurisdiction,Ð l¼ Ðreviewed€the€underlying€rules€on€which€the€Commission€had€based€itsÐ h Ðassessment.€€òòId.óó€at€616.Ð Ä Ðà ` àCloser€to€home,€this€court€has€applied€òòLorionóó€to€findÐ pÀ  Ðjurisdiction€when€a€contrary€reading€of€the€applicable€statuteÐ !l" Ðwould,€for€no€apparent€reason,€have€divided€judicial€review€betweenÐ È"$ Ðthe€district€courts€and€the€courts€of€appeals.€€òòSeeóó€òòCity€of€BostonóóÐ t$Ä& Ðv.€òòHUDóó,€898€F.2d€828,€834„35€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€The€Third€CircuitÐ  &p!( Ðhas€gone€even€further,€holding€that€òòLorionóó€creates€a€presumption€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âinitial€circuit€court€review€"absent€clear€and€convincing€evidenceÐ x)È$, Ðof€a€contrary€congressional€intent."€€òòConoco,€Inc.óó€v.€òòSkinneróó,€970Ð ° ÐF.2d€1206,€1214€(3d€Cir.€1992).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àAlthough€the€question€is€close,€we€conclude€thatÐ X Ðappellate€jurisdiction€is€proper€in€this€case.€€In€reaching€thisÐ ´  Ðconclusion,€we€start€with€the€premise€that€both€the€Hobbs€Act€andÐ ` ° Ðthe€Atomic€Energy€Act€are€ambiguous€as€to€their€reach.€Ð  \  ÐFurthermore,€while€the€term€"order"€has€a€clear€meaning€for€APAÐ ¸  Ðpurposes,€its€placement€in€section€2239€of€the€Atomic€Energy€ActÐ d´  Ðsuggests€that€Congress€might€not€have€used€it€with€the€sameÐ `  Ðprecision€in€connection€with€the€intersection€of€the€Hobbs€Act€andÐ ¼  Ðthe€Atomic€Energy€Act.€€òòCf.óó€òòHanover€Ins.€Co.óó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€880Ð h¸ ÐF.2d€1503,€1504€(1st€Cir.€1989)€(noting€that€the€same€word€may€haveÐ d Ðdifferent€meanings€in€different€statutory€contexts).€€That€premiseÐ À Ðis€bolstered€by€the€fact€that€the€Atomic€Energy€Act€uses€the€termsÐ l¼ Ð"order"€and€"rule"€inconsistently.€€For€example,€section€2239(b)Ð h Ðrefers€to€"[a]ny€final€order€entered€in€any€proceeding€of€the€kindÐ Ä Ðspecified€in€subsection€(a),"€but€section€2239(a)€includesÐ pÀ  Ðproceedings€"for€the€issuance€or€modification€of€rules€andÐ !l" Ðregulations€dealing€with€the€activities€of€licensees."€€ThisÐ È"$ Ðdisharmony€renders€the€meaning€of€"order"€in€this€contextÐ t$Ä& Ðuncertain.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àGiven€these€amphibolies,€we€believe€that€the€policiesÐ Ì'#* Ðannounced€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòLorionóó€deserve€special€weight.€Ð x)È$, ÐWe€interpret€òòLorionóó€as€holding€that€original€jurisdiction€in€theÐ $+t&. Ðcourts€of€appeals€is€proper€to€review€any€NRC€action€that€could€beÐ ° Ðcognizable€in€a€petition€for€review€from€a€proceeding€under€sectionÐ \¬ Ð2239.€€This€interpretation€is€consistent€with€the€òòLorionóó€Court'sÐ X Ðinstruction€that€jurisdictional€statutes€should€be€construed€soÐ ´  Ðthat€agency€actions€will€always€be€subject€to€initial€review€in€theÐ ` ° Ðsame€court,€regardless€of€the€procedural€package€in€which€they€areÐ  \  Ðwrapped.€€òòLorionóó,€470€U.S.€at€742.€€By€like€token,€an€affirmationÐ ¸  Ðof€jurisdiction€in€this€case€is€consistent€with€the€òòLorionóó€Court'sÐ d´  Ðconclusion€that€judicial€efficiency€is€best€served€by€limiting€theÐ `  Ðlayers€of€review.€€òòId.óó€at€744„45.€€On€this€basis,€and€in€conformityÐ ¼  Ðwith€our€earlier€decision€in€òòCity€of€Bostonóó,€we€conclude€that€weÐ h¸ Ðhave€jurisdiction€to€entertain€these€petitions.Ð d Ðò òIII.€€THE€MERITSó óÐ À Ðà ` àWe€divide€our€discussion€of€the€merits€into€threeÐ ˆØ Ðsegments,€corresponding€with€the€petitioners'€most€lively€bruitedÐ 4„ Ðpoints.Ð à0 Ðà@,,"ìàò òA.€€òòUltra€Viresóó.ó óˆÐ ŒÜ  Ðà ` àThe€mainstay€of€the€petitioners'€challenge€is€theÐ T!¤" Ðproposition€that€the€new€rules€exceed€the€Commission's€statutoryÐ #P$ Ðauthority.€€The€petitioners€start€with€the€premise€that€42€U.S.C.Ð ¬$ü& Ððð€2239€requires€the€NRC€to€conduct€licensing€hearings€on€theÐ X&¨!( Ðrecord,€that€is,€in€strict€accordance€with€the€relevant€provisionsÐ (T#* Ðof€the€APA.€€òòSeeóó€òòsupraóó€note€1.€€In€their€view,€the€new€rules€failÐ °)%, Ðto€satisfy€that€requirement€and,€therefore,€must€be€pole„axed.€€InÐ \+¬&. Ðthe€pages€that€follow,€we€examine€both€the€petitioners'€premise€andÐ ° Ðtheir€conclusion.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àSection€2239€requires€the€Commission,€"upon€the€requestÐ X Ðof€any€person€whose€interest€may€be€affected"€by€certain€agencyÐ ´  Ðactions,€to€hold€"a€hearing."€€It€does€not€explicitly€require€thatÐ ` ° Ðthe€hearing€be€on€the€record.€€We€have€held,€however,€that€theÐ  \  Ðdegree€of€formality€that€a€hearing€must€afford€does€not€necessarilyÐ ¸  Ðturn€on€the€presence€or€absence€of€an€explicit€statutory€directive.€Ð d´  ÐIf,€even€absent€such€a€directive,€the€nature€of€the€hearing€thatÐ `  ÐCongress€intended€to€grant€is€clear,€then€that€intention€governs.€Ð ¼  ÐòòDantran,€Inc.óó€v.€òòDep't€of€Laboróó,€246€F.3d€36,€46€(1st€Cir.€2001);Ð h¸ ÐòòSeacoast€Anti„Pollution€Leagueóó€v.€òòCostleóó,€572€F.2d€872,€876€(1stÐ d ÐCir.€1978).€€We€assume€arguendo,€favorably€to€the€petitioners,€thatÐ À Ðthe€òòSeacoastóó€rule€still€obtains.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€advance€several€arguments€for€holdingÐ h Ðthat€Congress,€in€enacting€section€2239,€purposed€to€require€on„Ð Ä Ðthe„record€hearings€in€reactor€licensing€cases.€€In€addition€toÐ pÀ  Ðcanvassing€the€legislative€history€and€cataloging€the€relevantÐ ° Ðamendments€to€the€statute,€they€point€out€that€for€approximatelyÐ \¬ Ðfour€decades€the€NRC€and€its€predecessor€agency,€the€AEC,Ð X Ðinterpreted€the€statute€as€requiring€on„the„record€hearings€inÐ ´  Ðreactor€licensing€proceedings.€€In€response,€the€NRC€highlights€theÐ ` ° Ðambiguity€of€the€statute€and€attempts€to€situate€the€latest€roundÐ  \  Ðof€changes€in€a€larger€history€of€procedural€experimentation.€€TheÐ ¸  ÐCommission€also€notes€that€some€courts€have€interpreted€sectionÐ d´  Ð2239€to€allow€informal€hearings€in€licensing€proceedings€notÐ `  Ðinvolving€reactors.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCity€of€W.€Chicagoóó€v.€òòNRCóó,€701€F.2dÐ ¼  Ð632,€645€(7th€Cir.€1983)€(licensing€of€nuclear€materials).€€Last€ð"ðÐ h¸ Ðbut€far€from€least€ð"ð€the€Commission€urges€us€to€defer€to€itsÐ d Ðjudgment€that€informal€hearings€are€a€suitable€prophylactic€forÐ À Ðreactor€licensing.€€òòCf.óó€òòLattabóó€v.€òòAshcroftóó,€384€F.3d€8,€19„20€(1stÐ l¼ ÐCir.€2004)€(deferring€to€the€agency's€judgment€on€the€properÐ h Ðapplication€of€a€procedural€statute).Ð Ä Ðà ` àFor€years,€the€courts€of€appeals€have€avoided€theÐ pÀ  Ðquestion€of€whether€section€2239€requires€reactor€licensingÐ !l" Ðhearings€to€be€on€the€record.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòKelleyóó€v.€òòSelinóó,€42€F.3dÐ È"$ Ð1501,€1510„14€(6th€Cir.€1995)€(discussing,€but€not€resolving,€theÐ t$Ä& Ðissue€while€approving€the€use€of€informal€hearings€for€materialsÐ  &p!( Ðstorage€issues);€òòNuclear€Info.€&€Res.€Serv.óó€v.€òòNRCóó,€969€F.2d€1169,Ð Ì'#* Ð1180€(D.C.€Cir.€1992)€(en€banc)€(deeming€the€issue€forfeited€andÐ x)È$, Ðdeclining€to€decide€it);€òòUnion€of€Concerned€Scientistsóó€v.€òòNRCóó,€920Ð $+t&. ÐF.2d€50,€53€n.3€(D.C.€Cir.€1990)€(finding€the€procedural€rules€atÐ ° Ðissue€to€comply€with€the€APA€and€declining€to€decide€whether€formalÐ \¬ Ðhearings€are€required);€òòCity€of€W.€Chicagoóó,€701€F.2d€at€642„43Ð X Ð(distinguishing€reactor€licensing€from€materials€licensing€andÐ ´  Ðaddressing€only€the€latter).€€We€too€decline€to€resolve€this€issue.€Ð ` ° ÐBecause€the€new€rules€adopted€by€the€Commission€meet€theÐ  \  Ðrequirements€of€the€APA€it€does€not€matter€what€type€of€hearing€theÐ ¸  ÐNRC€is€required€to€conduct€in€reactor€licensing€cases.Ð d´  Ðà ` àBefore€elaborating€our€reasoning€on€this€point,€we€mustÐ `  Ðdispense€with€a€procedural€theory€advocated€by€the€petitionerÐ ¼  ÐPublic€Citizen.€€It€is€a€bedrock€principle€that€a€court€may€onlyÐ h¸ Ðuphold€an€administrative€action€on€a€rationale€advanced€by€theÐ d Ðagency€in€the€administrative€proceeding.€€òòSECóó€v.€òòChenery€Corp.óó,€318Ð À ÐU.S.€80,€95€(1943).€€Embracing€this€principle,€Public€CitizenÐ l¼ Ðasserts€that€the€Commission€has€waived€the€argument€that€the€newÐ h Ðrules€satisfy€the€APA's€requirements€because,€in€promulgating€theÐ Ä Ðnew€rules,€it€relied€exclusively€on€its€view€that€section€2239€doesÐ pÀ  Ðnot€mandate€on„the„record€hearings.€€Thus,€it€cannot€now€rely€on€aÐ !l" Ðdifferent€rationale€to€defend€the€rules€in€court.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àThis€assertion€reads€the€record€through€rose„coloredÐ t$Ä& Ðglasses.€€The€Commission€explicitly€memorialized€in€the€statementÐ  &p!( Ðof€considerations€for€the€final€rule€the€view€that€even€if€reactorÐ Ì'#* Ðlicensing€hearings€were€required€to€be€on€the€record,€the€new€rulesÐ x)È$, Ðwould€meet€that€requirement.€€69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2,192€("[T]heÐ $+t&. ÐCommission€believes€that€.€.€.€the€hearing€procedures€in€each€ofÐ ° Ðthese€subparts€meets€[sic]€the€requirements€for€an€on„the„recordÐ \¬ Ðhearing€under€the€APA€.€.€.€.").€€No€more€was€exigible€to€preserveÐ X Ðthe€point.€€Accordingly,€we€turn€to€the€merits€of€this€rationale.Ð ´  Ðà ` àWe€exercise€plenary€review€over€the€Commission'sÐ ` ° Ðcompliance€with€the€APA.€€òòSeeóó€òòDantranóó,€246€F.3d€at€48€(stating€thatÐ  \  Ðagencies'€interpretations€of€statutes€they€do€not€administer€areÐ ¸  Ðnot€entitled€to€particular€deference).€€The€APA€lays€out€only€theÐ d´  Ðmost€skeletal€framework€for€conducting€agency€adjudications,Ð `  Ðleaving€broad€discretion€to€the€affected€agencies€in€formulatingÐ ¼  Ðdetailed€procedural€rules.€€òòSeeóó€òòAm.€Trucking€Ass'ns,€Inc.óó€v.€òòUnitedÐ h¸ ÐStatesóó,€627€F.2d€1313,€1321€(D.C.€Cir.€1980).€€In€specific€terms,Ð d Ðthe€APA€requires€only€that€the€agency€provide€a€hearing€before€aÐ À Ðneutral€decisionmaker€and€allow€each€party€an€opportunity€"toÐ l¼ Ðpresent€his€case€or€defense€by€oral€or€documentary€evidence,€toÐ h Ðsubmit€rebuttal€evidence,€and€to€conduct€such€cross„examination€asÐ Ä Ðmay€be€required€for€a€full€and€true€disclosure€of€the€facts."€€5Ð pÀ  Ðâ âU.S.C.€ðð€556(d).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð !l" Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€urge€that€the€magnitude€of€the€risksÐ ° Ðâ âinvolved€in€reactor€licensing€proceedings€warrant€the€imposition€ofÐ \¬ Ða€more€elaborate€set€of€safeguards.€€It€is€beyond€cavil,€however,Ð X Ðthat,€short€of€constitutional€constraints,€a€court€may€not€imposeÐ ´  Ðprocedural€requirements€in€administrative€cases€above€and€beyondÐ ` ° Ðthose€mandated€by€statute€(here,€the€APA).€€òòVt.€Yankee€NuclearÐ  \  ÐPower€Corp.óó€v.€òòNatural€Res.€Def.€Council,€Inc.óó,€435€U.S.€519,€543„Ð ¸  Ð44€(1978);€òòUnion€of€Concerned€Scientistsóó,€920€F.2d€at€53.€Ð d´  ÐAccordingly,€we€are€not€at€liberty€to€impress€on€the€Commission€(orÐ `  Ðany€other€agency,€for€that€matter)€a€procedural€regime€not€mandatedÐ ¼  Ðby€Congress.€€The€NRC's€new€rules€will,€therefore,€succumb€to€theÐ h¸ Ðpetitioners'€first€line€of€attack€only€if€they€fail€to€provide€theÐ d Ðminimal€procedural€safeguards€actually€demanded€by€the€APA.€€òòSeeóóÐ À ÐòòNat'l€Classif.€Comm.óó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€765€F.2d€1146,€1151€(D.C.Ð l¼ ÐCir.€1985).Ð h Ðà ` àWe€turn€now€from€the€general€to€the€particular.€€TheÐ Ä Ðrulemaking€at€issue€here€effected€several€changes€in€theÐ pÀ  ÐCommission's€procedures.€€The€petitioners€focus€their€challenge€onÐ !l" Ðtwo€aspects€of€the€newly€minted€process.€€First,€they€object€to€theÐ È"$ ÐCommission's€decision€to€eliminate€discovery.€€Second,€theyÐ t$Ä& Ðcomplain€about€the€Commission's€decision€to€circumscribe€theÐ  &p!( Ðavailability€of€cross„examination.€€Because€these€are€the€onlyÐ Ì'#* Ðissues€on€which€the€petitioners€have€offered€developedÐ x)È$, Ðargumentation,€we€confine€our€analysis€to€those€portions€of€the€newÐ $+t&. Ðrules.€€òòCf.óó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.Ð ° Ð1990)€(holding€that€"a€litigant€has€an€obligation€to€spell€out€itsÐ \¬ Ðarguments€squarely€and€distinctly,€or€else€forever€hold€its€peace"Ð X Ð(citations€and€internal€quotation€marks€omitted)).Ð ´  Ðà ` àWe€begin€with€the€question€of€whether€the€new€rules€fallÐ ` ° Ðbelow€the€APA's€minimum€requirements€by€eliminating€discovery.€€TheÐ  \  ÐCommission€points€out,€and€the€petitioners€do€not€seriouslyÐ ¸  Ðcontest,€that€the€APA€does€not€explicitly€require€the€provision€ofÐ d´  Ðany€discovery€devices€in€formal€adjudications.€€òòSeeóó€5€U.S.C.€ðð€556;Ð `  Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòKellyóó€v.€òòEPAóó,€203€F.3d€519,€523€(7th€Cir.€2000);€òòFriletteóóÐ ¼  Ðv.€òòKimberlinóó,€508€F.2d€205,€208€(3d€Cir.€1974).€€Thus,€if€the€APAÐ h¸ Ðrequires€the€Commission€to€provide€any€discovery€to€satisfy€theÐ d Ðstandards€for€formal€adjudications,€that€discovery€must€beÐ À Ðnecessary€either€to€effectuate€some€other€procedural€rightÐ l¼ Ðguaranteed€by€the€APA€or€to€ensure€an€adequate€record€for€judicialÐ h Ðreview.€€òòCf.óó€òòU.S.€Lines,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFed.€Maritime€Comm'nóó,€584€F.2dÐ Ä Ð519,€540€(D.C.€Cir.€1978)€(stating€that€an€agency€charged€withÐ pÀ  Ðholding€a€hearing€to€determine€the€public€interest€must€provideÐ !l" Ðadequate€means€of€public€participation);€òòSeacoastóó,€572€F.2d€at€876„Ð È"$ Ð77€(noting€that€in€some€cases€procedural€requirements€may€beÐ t$Ä& Ðimplied€to€ensure€adequate€judicial€review).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€suggest€that€discovery€is€necessary€toÐ Ì'#* Ðrealize€the€right€of€citizen„intervenors€to€present€their€case€andÐ x)È$, Ðsubmit€an€informed€rebuttal.€€òòSeeóó€5€U.S.C.€ðð€556.€€If€discovery€isÐ $+t&. Ðunavailable,€this€thesis€runs,€citizen„intervenors€will€be€unableÐ ° Ðto€gather€the€evidence€needed€to€support€their€contentions€and,Ð \¬ Ðthus,€will€be€shut€out€of€meaningful€participation€in€licensingÐ X Ðhearings.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThis€thesis€is€composed€of€more€cry€than€wool.€€TheÐ ` ° Ðpetitioners€argue€as€if€the€new€rules€have€eliminated€all€access€toÐ  \  Ðinformation€from€opposing€parties€ð"ð€but€that€is€a€gross€distortion.€Ð ¸  ÐThe€new€rules€provide€meaningful€access€to€information€from€adverseÐ d´  Ðparties€in€the€form€of€a€system€of€mandatory€disclosure.€€òòSeeóó€10Ð `  ÐC.F.R.€ðð€2.336.€€Although€there€might€well€be€less€informationÐ ¼  Ðavailable€to€citizen„intervenors€under€the€new€rules,€theÐ h¸ Ðdifference€is€one€of€degree.€€There€is€simply€no€principled€wayÐ d Ðthat€we€can€say€that€the€difference€occasioned€by€replacingÐ À Ðtraditional€discovery€methods€with€mandatory€disclosure€is€suchÐ l¼ Ðthat€citizen„intervenors€are€left€with€no€means€of€adequatelyÐ h Ðpresenting€their€case.Ð Ä Ðà ` àNor€do€we€think€that€full„dress€discovery€is€essential€toÐ pÀ  Ðensure€a€satisfactory€record€for€judicial€review.€€The€Commission'sÐ !l" Ðfinal€decision€in€any€hearing€must€survive€review€based€on€theÐ È"$ Ðevidence€adduced€in€the€hearing.€€5€U.S.C.€ðð€556(e).€€The€applicantÐ t$Ä& Ðbears€the€burden€of€proof€in€any€licensing€hearing,€òòid.óó€ðð€556(d),Ð  &p!( Ðand€it€will€have€every€incentive€to€proffer€sufficient€informationÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âto€allow€the€agency€to€reach€a€reasoned€decision.€€That€sameÐ x)È$, Ðquantum€of€information€should€be€adequate€for€a€reviewing€court€toÐ ° Ðdetermine€whether€the€agency's€action€is€supportable.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àTo€say€more€on€this€point€would€be€to€paint€the€lily.€Ð X ÐThere€is€simply€no€discovery„linked€conflict€between€the€new€rulesÐ ´  Ðand€the€APA's€on„the„record€adjudication€requirement.€€TheÐ ` ° Ðpetitioners'€first€line€of€argument€is,€therefore,€a€dead€end.Ð  \  Ðà ` àTurning€to€cross„examination,€the€petitioners'Ð ¸  Ðcontentions€fare€no€better:€€the€new€rules€meet€the€APA'sÐ d´  Ðrequirements.€€To€explain€this€conclusion,€we€first€must€strip€awayÐ `  Ðthe€rhetorical€flourishes€in€which€the€petitioners€shroud€theirÐ ¼  Ðreasoning.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIt€is€important€to€understand€that,€contrary€to€theÐ d Ðpetitioners'€importunings,€the€new€rules€do€not€extirpate€cross„Ð À Ðexamination.€€Rather,€they€restrict€its€use€to€situations€in€whichÐ l¼ Ðit€is€"necessary€to€ensure€an€adequate€record€for€decision."€€10Ð h ÐC.F.R.€ðð€2.1204.€€The€legitimacy€of€this€restriction€must€beÐ Ä Ðweighed€in€light€of€the€fact€that€the€APA€does€not€provide€anÐ pÀ  Ðabsolute€right€of€cross„examination€in€on„the„record€hearings.€Ð !l" ÐòòSeacoastóó,€572€F.2d€at€880.€€The€APA€affords€a€right€only€to€suchÐ È"$ Ðcross„examination€as€may€be€necessary€for€a€full€and€fairÐ t$Ä& Ðadjudication€of€the€facts.€€òòId.óó€€Equally€to€the€point,€"[t]he€partyÐ  &p!( Ðseeking€to€cross„examine€bears€the€burden€of€showing€that€cross„Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âexamination€is€in€fact€necessary."€€òòId.óó€at€880€Ô_ Ôn.16.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àThe€Commission€represents€that,€despite€the€difference€inÐ ° Ðâ âlanguage,€it€interprets€the€standard€for€allowing€cross„examinationÐ \¬ Ðunder€the€new€rules€to€be€equivalent€to€the€APA€standard.€€69€Fed.Ð X ÐReg.€at€2,195„96.€€When€an€agency€provides€a€plausibleÐ ´  Ðinterpretation€of€its€own€procedural€rules€and€there€is€no€recordÐ ` ° Ðor€pattern€of€contrary€conduct€a€court€has€no€right€either€toÐ  \  Ðslough€off€that€interpretation€or€to€deem€it€disingenuous.€€òòCf.óóÐ ¸  ÐòòÔ_ ÔAlbathaniÔ_ Ôóó€v.€òòINSóó,€318€F.3d€365,€378„79€(1st€Cir.€2003)€(acceptingÐ d´  Ðthe€agency's€good€faith€in€carrying€out€its€procedures,€whileÐ `  Ðacknowledging€that€evidence€to€the€contrary€might€warrant€judicialÐ ¼  Ðintervention).ò òó ó€€Given€the€Commission's€stated€interpretation,€theÐ h¸ Ðnew€rules€on€cross„examination€cannot€be€termed€inconsistent€withÐ d Ðthe€dictates€of€the€APA.€€Nor€do€we€see€how€cross„examination€thatÐ À Ðis€not€"necessary€to€ensure€an€adequate€record€for€decision"€couldÐ l¼ Ðbe€necessary€to€ensure€appropriate€judicial€review.Ð h Ðà ` àBecause€we€find€that€the€new€rules€meet€the€APAÐ Ä Ðrequirements€for€on„the„record€adjudications,€we€hold€that€theirÐ pÀ  Ðpromulgation€does€not€exceed€the€Commission's€authority.€Ð !l" ÐConsequently,€the€petitioners'€ultra€vires€argument€founders.Ð È"$ Ðà@ ìàò òB.€€òòArbitrary€and€Capriciousóó.ó óˆÐ t$Ä& Ðà ` àOur€labors€are€not€yet€done.€€Even€though€we€hold€thatÐ <&Œ!( Ðthe€new€rules€are€within€the€ambit€of€the€NRC's€authority,€we€stillÐ è'8#* Ðmust€consider€whether€its€decision€to€discard€the€old€in€favor€ofÐ ”)ä$, Ðthe€new€was€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€òòSeeóó€5€U.S.C.€ðð€706.Ð @+&. Ðà ` àAn€agency's€rules,€once€adopted,€are€not€frozen€in€place.€Ð ° ÐThe€opposite€is€true:€€an€agency€may€alter€its€rules€in€light€ofÐ \¬ Ðits€accumulated€experience€in€administering€them.€€òòRustóó€v.Ð X ÐòòSullivanóó,€500€U.S.€173,€186„87€(1991).€€An€agency€must,€however,Ð ´  Ðoffer€a€reasoned€explanation€for€the€change.€€If€the€agency€failsÐ ` ° Ðto€furnish€such€an€explanation,€or€if€the€proffered€explanationÐ  \  Ðfails€to€demonstrate€that€the€agency€fully€considered€its€newÐ ¸  Ðcourse,€the€revised€rules€must€be€set€aside.€€òòSeeóó€òòMotor€VehicleÐ d´  ÐÔ_ ÔMfrsÔ_ Ô.€Ô_ ÔAss'nÔ_ Ô€of€the€U.S.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòState€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óó,Ð `  Ð463€U.S.€29,€42€(1983)€("If€Congress€established€a€presumption€fromÐ ¼  Ðwhich€judicial€review€should€start,€that€presumption€.€.€.€is€.€.Ð h¸ Ð.€òòagainstóó€changes€in€current€policy€that€are€not€justified€by€theÐ d ÐÔ_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€record.").Ð À Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€begin€this€branch€of€their€assault€withÐ l¼ Ða€global€challenge€to€the€rationality€of€departing€from€the€NRC'sÐ h Ðforty„year„old€procedural€regime.€€They€do€not€suggest€that€theÐ Ä ÐCommission's€goal€of€improving€hearing€efficiency€is€impermissible;Ð pÀ  Ðrather,€they€maintain€that€the€current€procedures€worked€wellÐ !l" Ðenough€and€that€the€Commission€has€made€no€showing€that€they€wereÐ È"$ Ðthe€source€of€any€past€inefficiencies.€€The€petitioners€furtherÐ t$Ä& Ðnote€evidence€in€the€Ô_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€record€suggesting€that€efficiencyÐ  &p!( Ðgains€could€be€brought€about€through€less€drastic€measures,€such€asÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âmore€aggressive€case€management.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àTo€resolve€this€point,€we€first€must€determine€what€anÐ ° Ðâ âagency€must€show€to€justify€modifying€its€procedural€rules.€€As€aÐ \¬ Ðgeneral€principle,€agencies€have€broad€authority€to€formulate€theirÐ X Ðown€procedures€ð"ð€and€the€NRC's€authority€in€this€respect€has€beenÐ ´  Ðtermed€particularly€great.€€òòUnion€of€Concerned€Scientistsóó,€920€F.2dÐ ` ° Ðat€54;€òòBPIóó€v.€òòAtomic€Energy€Ô_ ÔComm'nÔ_ Ôóó,€502€F.2d€424,€428€n.3€(D.C.Ð  \  ÐCir.€1974).€€A€necessary€corollary€of€this€authority€is€the€freedomÐ ¸  Ðto€experiment€with€different€procedural€formats.€€Consequently,Ð d´  Ðtinkering€with€rules€is€by€no€means€a€forbidden€activity.Ð `  Ðà ` àOf€course,€there€are€limits€on€this€prerogative.€€AnÐ ¼  Ðagency€may€not€act€precipitously€or€in€an€irrational€manner€inÐ h¸ Ðrevising€its€rules.€€But€so€long€as€these€limits€are€observed,€itÐ d Ðis€not€the€place€of€a€reviewing€court€to€second„guess€the€agency'sÐ À Ðdecision€as€to€òòwhenóó€to€make€procedural€changes.€€It€is€enough€thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€agency€reasonably€determines€that€existing€processes€areÐ h Ðunsatisfactory€and€takes€steps€that€are€fairly€targeted€atÐ Ä Ðimproving€the€situation.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€NRC€has€determined€that€its€existingÐ !l" Ðrules€of€practice€lead€to€hearings€that€are€cumbersome,Ð È"$ Ðunnecessarily€protracted,€and€wasteful€of€the€resources€of€theÐ t$Ä& Ðparties€and€the€Commission.€€This€determination€warrants€a€highÐ  &p!( Ðdegree€of€deference.€€òòSeeóó€òòVt.€Yankeeóó,€435€U.S.€at€543„44€(holdingÐ Ì'#* Ðthat€agencies'€evaluations€of€their€procedural€needs€are€entitledÐ x)È$, Ðto€great€respect).€€Although€the€petitioners€may€disagree,€weÐ $+t&. Ðdescry€nothing€in€the€record€that€would€support€setting€aside€theÐ ° Ðrule€on€the€basis€that€the€agency€should€have€left€well€enoughÐ \¬ Ðalone.€€It€would€unfairly€handcuff€administrators€if€agencies€couldÐ X Ðnot€change€their€procedures€simply€because€certain€of€theirÐ ´  Ðconstituencies€admired€the€status€quo.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThat€leaves€the€òòhowóó€of€the€Commission's€new€rules;€thatÐ  \  Ðis,€the€question€whether€the€Commission€acted€arbitrarily€in€makingÐ ¸  Ða€specific€set€of€changes€in€order€to€achieve€its€goal€of€improvedÐ d´  Ðhearing€efficiency.€€To€clear€this€hurdle,€the€Commission€must€showÐ `  Ðboth€that€its€new€rules€constitute€a€rational€means€for€achievingÐ ¼  Ðits€stated€objective€and€that€it€sensibly€rejected€other€optionsÐ h¸ Ðconsidered€in€the€Ô_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€proceeding€(including€the€option€ofÐ d Ðmaintaining€the€status€quo).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€Farmóó,€463€U.S.€at€43„44.€Ð À ÐThis€calculus€must€fairly€account€for€any€benefits€lost€byÐ l¼ Ðmodifying€existing€rules,€as€well€as€any€advantages€expected€to€beÐ h Ðgained€through€the€adoption€of€updated€rules.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ Ä Ðà ` àHere,€too,€we€address€only€the€NRC's€decisions€to€replaceÐ pÀ  Ðtraditional€discovery€with€mandatory€disclosure€and€to€restrict€theÐ !l" Ðavailability€of€conventional€cross„examination.€€With€regard€toÐ È"$ Ðdiscovery,€the€NRC€explained€in€its€statement€of€considerations€forÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€final€rule€that€the€proposed€substitute€"has€the€potential€toÐ  &p!( Ðsignificantly€reduce€delays€and€resources€expended€by€all€partiesÐ Ì'#* Ðin€discovery."€€69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2,194.€€The€Commission€alsoÐ x)È$, Ðexpressed€the€view€that€replacing€traditional€discovery€withÐ $+t&. Ðmandatory€disclosure€would€eliminate€a€substantial€amount€of€motionÐ ° Ðpractice€related€to€discovery€matters.€€òòId.óó€€Finally,€theÐ \¬ ÐCommission€determined€that€any€prejudice€to€citizen„intervenorsÐ X Ðfrom€eliminating€traditional€discovery€would€be€offset€by€theÐ ´  Ðmandatory€disclosure€requirements€and€the€general€publicÐ ` ° Ðavailability€of€NRC€documents.€€òòId.óóÐ  \  Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€renew€their€exhortation€that€discovery€isÐ ¸  Ðnecessary€for€citizen„intervenors€to€participate€effectively€inÐ d´  Ðreactor€licensing€hearings.€€They€speculate€that€without€discoveryÐ `  Ðthey€will€be€without€access€to€large€amounts€of€detailed€technicalÐ ¼  Ðinformation€(information€that€is€available€to€the€applicant€and€theÐ h¸ ÐCommission€staff)€and,€thus,€will€be€unable€to€respond€adequatelyÐ d Ðto€technical€and€factual€arguments.Ð À Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€petitioners€that€the€Commission'sÐ l¼ Ðexplanation€for€the€change€in€discovery€practice€is€thin.€€TheÐ h ÐCommission€baldly€states€its€belief€that€eliminating€traditionalÐ Ä Ðdiscovery€will€shorten€hearings€and€conserve€resources,€but€itÐ pÀ  Ðprovides€no€empirical€analysis€of€its€experience€with€traditionalÐ !l" Ðdiscovery€from€which€an€outside€observer€can€determine€whatÐ È"$ Ðbenefits€the€Commission€might€reasonably€expect.€€In€a€substantiveÐ t$Ä& Ðrule,€this€omission€might€be€fatal.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPortland€CementÐ  &p!( ÐÔ_ ÔAss'nÔ_ Ôóó€v.€òòÔ_ ÔRuckelhausÔ_ Ôóó,€486€F.2d€375,€393€(D.C.€Cir.€1973)€("It€is€notÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âconsonant€with€the€purpose€of€a€Ô_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€proceeding€to€promulgateÐ x)È$, Ðrules€on€the€basis€of€inadequate€data,€or€on€data€that,€[in]Ð ° Ðcritical€degree,€is€known€only€to€the€agency.").ò òó óÐ \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€the€realm€of€procedure,€however,€agencies€are€presumedÐ X Ðto€have€special€competence€and,€accordingly,€are€held€to€lessÐ ´  Ðexacting€standards€of€explication.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnion€of€ConcernedÐ ` ° ÐScientistsóó,€920€F.2d€at€54€(noting€that€procedural€determinationsÐ  \  Ð"fall€uniquely€within€the€expertise€of€the€agency").ò òó ó€€To€add€toÐ ¸  Ðthis€leeway,ò òó ó€we€are€not€willing€to€ignore€matters€that€are€commonÐ d´  Ðknowledge€to€courts€of€law.€€Discovery,€especially€in€complexÐ `  Ðmatters,€is€both€time„consuming€and€costly.€€We€do€not€think€it€canÐ ¼  Ðreasonably€be€questioned€that€the€replacement€of€discovery€withÐ h¸ Ðmandatory€disclosure€will€make€reactor€licensing€hearings€fasterÐ d Ðand€less€expensive.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€Commission€also€has€explained€that€it€believes€anyÐ l¼ Ðharm€to€citizen„intervenors€will€be€minimal.€€Although€theÐ h Ðpetitioners€offer€some€hypothetical€examples€of€information€thatÐ Ä Ðmay€be€unavailable€under€the€new€rules,€they€have€not€made€aÐ pÀ  Ðpersuasive€case€that€mandatory€disclosure€will€Ô_ ÔundercompensateÔ_ Ô€forÐ !l" Ðthe€loss€of€traditional€discovery.€€We€thus€find€no€basis€forÐ È"$ Ðsetting€aside€the€new€rules€on€discovery„related€grounds.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àThe€new€rules'€outlook€on€cross„examination€presents€aÐ  &p!( Ðcloser€question.€€The€Commission€reasons€that€restricting€cross„Ð Ì'#* Ðexamination€will€reduce€the€amount€of€testimony€taken€and€makeÐ x)È$, Ðhearings€more€efficient.€€69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2,196.€€The€CommissionÐ $+t&. Ðfurther€observes€that,€in€its€experience,€cross„examination€is€notÐ ° Ðalways€helpful€to€the€resolution€of€scientific€or€technical€issues.€Ð \¬ ÐòòId.óóÐ X Ðà ` àThe€petitioners€retort€that€cross„examination€is€a€vitalÐ ´  Ðcomponent€of€a€citizen„intervenor's€case.€€They€note€that€citizen„Ð ` ° Ðintervenors€often€lack€the€resources€to€present€their€own€expertÐ  \  Ðtestimony€and€must€rely€on€cross„questioning€of€the€adverse€party'sÐ ¸  Ðexperts€to€make€their€case.€€They€also€stress€the€value€of€cross„Ð d´  Ðexamination€as€a€means€for€bolstering€public€confidence€inÐ `  Ðlicensing€hearings.€€Tellingly,€the€Commission's€own€administrativeÐ ¼  Ðjudges€agree€that€cross„examination€is€helpful€for€the€resolutionÐ h¸ Ðof€issues€raised€in€many€licensing€hearings.€€In€addition€to€theÐ d Ðreasons€advanced€by€the€petitioners,€the€administrative€judges€noteÐ À Ðthat€the€prospect€of€cross„examination€discourages€exaggeration€inÐ l¼ Ðdirect€testimony€because€witnesses€are€aware€that€they€will€have€toÐ h Ðdefend€their€statements€later.Ð Ä Ðà ` àExperience€in€the€courts€has€left€no€doubt€that€cross„Ð pÀ  Ðexamination€can€be€a€useful€tool.€€Had€the€new€rules€abolishedÐ !l" Ðcross„examination€entirely,€we€might€well€find€the€Commission'sÐ È"$ Ðaction€insupportable.€€Importantly,€however,€the€new€rules€do€notÐ t$Ä& Ðcompletely€do€away€with€cross„examination.€€Rather,€they€leave€itsÐ  &p!( Ðavailability€to€the€discretion€of€the€hearing€officer.€€Just€as€weÐ Ì'#* Ðwill€not€ignore€the€fact€that€discovery€is€resource„consuming,€weÐ x)È$, Ðwill€not€presume€that€all€ð"ð€or,€perhaps,€even€most€ð"ð€cross„Ð $+t&. Ðexamination€is€essential€to€the€just€resolution€of€issues.€€WithÐ ° Ðthis€in€mind,€we€find€no€fault€with€the€Commission's€decision€toÐ \¬ Ðattempt€to€curtail€unnecessary€cross„examination.€€òòCf.óó€5€U.S.C.€ððÐ X Ð556(d)€("[Ô_ ÔT]heÔ_ Ô€agency€as€a€matter€of€policy€shall€provide€for€theÐ ´  Ðexclusion€of€irrelevant,€immaterial,€or€unduly€repetitiousÐ ` ° Ðevidence.").€€Accordingly,€we€cannot€say€that€it€is€arbitrary€andÐ  \  Ðcapricious€for€the€Commission€to€leave€the€determination€of€whetherÐ ¸  Ðcross„examination€will€further€the€truth„seeking€process€in€aÐ d´  Ðparticular€proceeding€to€the€discretion€of€the€individual€hearingÐ `  Ðofficer.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àWe€do,€however,€add€a€caveat.€€The€APA€does€require€thatÐ h¸ Ðcross„examination€be€available€when€"required€for€a€full€and€trueÐ d Ðdisclosure€of€the€facts."€€òòId.óó€€If€the€new€procedures€are€to€complyÐ À Ðin€practice€with€the€APA,€cross„examination€must€be€allowed€inÐ l¼ Ðappropriate€instances.€€Should€the€agency's€administration€of€theÐ h Ðnew€rules€contradict€its€present€representations€or€otherwise€floutÐ Ä Ðthis€principle,€nothing€in€this€opinion€will€inoculate€the€rulesÐ pÀ  Ðagainst€future€challenges.Ð !l" Ðà@Ô Ô ìàò òC.€€òòConstitutional€Claimsóó.ó óˆÐ È"$ Ðà ` àOne€petitioner,€Citizens€Awareness€Network€(CAN),€chargesÐ $à& Ðthat€the€new€rules€are€unconstitutional€because€they€depriveÐ <&Œ!( Ðcitizen„intervenors€of€fundamental€political€rights€andÐ è'8#* Ðdiscriminate€against€them€in€violation€of€the€Fifth€Amendment.€€WeÐ ”)ä$, Ðexplore€these€charges.Ð @+&. Ðà ` àCAN's€first€charge€implodes€because€there€is€noÐ ° Ðfundamental€right€to€participate€in€administrative€adjudications.€Ð \¬ ÐReactor€licensing€(unlike,€say,€voting)€is€not€"preservative€ofÐ X Ðother€basic€civil€and€political€rights."€€òòReynoldsóó€v.€òòSimsóó,€377Ð ´  ÐU.S.€533,€562€(1964).€€Assuming,€for€argument's€sake,€that€citizen„Ð ` ° Ðintervenors€have€a€protected€liberty€interest€in€the€outcome€ofÐ  \  Ðreactor€licensing€proceedings€ð"ð€a€proposition€that€we€considerÐ ¸  Ðextremely€dubious,€òòseeóó€òòCity€of€W.€Chicagoóó,€701€F.2d€at€645€ð"ð€theÐ d´  Ðquantum€of€process€required€before€the€government€may€depriveÐ `  Ðcitizen„intervenors€of€that€interest€would€depend€on€the€three„partÐ ¼  Ðanalysis€adumbrated€in€òòMathewsóó€v.€òòÔ_ ÔEldridgeÔ_ Ôóó,€424€U.S.€319,€335Ð h¸ Ð(1976).€€CAN€makes€no€effort€to€apply€the€òòMathewsóó€rubric€to€theÐ d Ðrules€at€issue,€and€we€will€not€do€CAN's€homework€for€it.€€TheÐ À Ðissue€is,€therefore,€forfeit.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ ÔZanninoÔ_ Ôóó,€895€F.2d€at€17.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àAs€for€equal€protection,€CAN€claims€that€we€should€applyÐ h Ðstrict€scrutiny€because€citizen„intervenors€are€a€"discrete€andÐ Ä Ðinsular€minority."€€This€claim€is€meritless.€€The€Supreme€Court€hasÐ pÀ  Ðmade€it€crystal€clear€that€the€criteria€for€deeming€a€class€suspectÐ !l" Ðare€both€rigorous€and€specific.€€òòJohnsonóó€v.€òòÔ_ ÔRobisonÔ_ Ôóó,€415€U.S.€361,Ð È"$ Ð375€n.14€(1974);€òòSan€Antonio€Ind.€Sch.€Dist.óó€v.€òòRodriguezóó,€411€U.S.Ð t$Ä& Ð1,€28€(1973).€€As€a€class,€citizen„intervenors€cannot€begin€to€meetÐ  &p!( Ðthose€criteria.€€They€are€not€"saddled€with€such€disabilities,€orÐ Ì'#* Ðsubjected€to€such€a€history€of€purposeful€unequal€treatment,€orÐ x)È$, Ðrelegated€to€such€a€position€of€political€powerlessness€as€toÐ $+t&. Ðcommand€extraordinary€protection€from€the€Ô_ ÔmajoritarianÔ_ Ô€politicalÐ ° Ðprocess,"€òòRodriguezóó,€411€U.S.€at€28,€nor€do€they€share€anyÐ \¬ Ð"immutable€characteristic€determined€solely€by€the€accident€ofÐ X Ðbirth,"€òòJohnsonóó,€415€U.S.€at€375€n.14.Ð ´  Ðà ` àBelaboring€this€point€would€serve€no€useful€purpose.€Ð ` ° ÐWhatever€legitimate€grievances€citizen„intervenors€may€have,€it€isÐ  \  Ðabsurd€to€equate€discrimination€against€them€with€the€historicÐ ¸  Ðdiscrimination€against€racial€and€other€minorities€that€lies€at€theÐ d´  Ðcore€of€Ô_ ÔsuspectednessÔ_ Ô.€€The€bottom€line€is€that€citizen„intervenorsÐ `  Ðare€not€a€suspect€class.€€We€so€hold.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àThis€holding€means,€of€course,€that€rational€basis€reviewÐ h¸ Ðapplies,€not€strict€scrutiny.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ ÔBoivinÔ_ Ôóó€v.€òòBlackóó,€225€F.3d€36,€42Ð d Ð(1st€Cir.€2000).€€Thus,€CAN€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€thatÐ À Ðno€plausible€set€of€facts€exists€that€could€forge€a€rationalÐ l¼ Ðrelationship€between€the€challenged€rules€and€the€government'sÐ h Ðlegitimate€goals.€€òòId.óó€at€44;€òòÔ_ ÔMontalvoÔ_ Ô„Ô_ ÔHuertasÔ_ Ôóó€v.€òòRivera„Cruzóó,€885Ð Ä ÐF.2d€971,€978„79€(1st€Cir.€1989).€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€above,Ð pÀ  Ðòòseeóó€òòsupraóó€Part€III(B),€there€can€be€no€doubt€that€the€Commission'sÐ !l" Ðaction€is€rationally€related€to€a€legitimate€government€purpose.€Ð È"$ ÐIt€follows€inexorably,€as€night€follows€day,€that€CAN'sÐ t$Ä& Ðconstitutional€argument€is€meritless.Ð  &p!( Ðò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€Procedural€flexibility€is€one€ofÐ ”)ä$, Ðthe€great€hallmarks€of€the€administrative€process€ð"ð€and€it€is€aÐ @+&. Ðfeature€that€courts€must€be€reluctant€to€curtail.€€Though€theÐ ° ÐCommission's€new€rules€may€approach€the€outer€bounds€of€what€isÐ \¬ Ðpermissible€under€the€APA,€we€find€the€statute€sufficiently€broadÐ X Ðto€accommodate€them.€€Similarly,€the€Commission's€judgments€as€toÐ ´  Ðwhen€its€procedures€need€fine„tuning€and€how€they€should€beÐ ` ° Ðretooled€are€ones€to€which€we€accord€great€respect.€€We€cannot€sayÐ  \  Ðthat€the€Commission's€desire€for€more€expeditious€adjudications€isÐ ¸  Ðunreasonable,€nor€can€we€say€that€the€changes€embodied€in€the€newÐ d´  Ðrules€are€an€eccentric€or€a€plainly€inadequate€means€for€achievingÐ `  Ðthe€Commission's€goals.€€Accordingly,€both€of€the€instant€petitionsÐ ¼  Ðmust€be€denied.Ð h¸ ÐÌà ` àò òòòThe€petitions€for€judicial€review€are€denied€andÐ À Ðdismissedóó.ó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌà@ä ä ìàò òð"ð€Concurring€Opinion€Follows€ð"ðó óˆÐ  ¨ø  ÐÑ8€eoÛeXXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€fÑò òà ` àLIPEZ,€òòCircuit€Judgeó óóó.€€Although€I€concur€fully€in€JudgeÐ ° ÐSelya's€thoughtful€and€comprehensive€opinion,€I€write€separately€toÐ xÈ Ðdescribe€some€oddities€about€this€case€which€should€not€goÐ $t Ðunnoticed.€€The€basic€proposition€of€Judge€Selya's€decision€isÐ Ð  Ðindisputably€correct:€the€new€rules€promulgated€by€the€NuclearÐ | Ì ÐRegulatory€Commission€(NRC)€to€reduce€the€level€of€formality€inÐ ( x  Ðreactor€licensing€proceedings€comply€with€the€"on„the„record"Ð Ô$  Ðrequirements€of€the€Administrative€Procedure€Act€(APA).€€Yet€thatÐ €Ð  Ðlegal€proposition€was€largely€an€afterthought€of€the€NRC€in€theÐ ,|  Ðeffort€to€justify€its€new€rules.€€Instead,€the€NRC€principallyÐ Ø( Ðargued€in€the€long€run„up€to€this€case€that€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2239,€whichÐ „Ô Ðsimply€requires€the€Commission€to€hold€a€hearing€"upon€the€requestÐ 0€ Ðof€any€person€whose€interest€may€be€affected"€before€granting€a€newÐ Ü, Ðlicense,€did€not€invoke€the€requirements€for€formal€adjudicationÐ ˆØ Ð(commonly€referred€to€as€"on„the„record"€hearings)€under€the€APA.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àIt€is€striking€that€so€many€smart€people€at€the€NRC€couldÐ à0 Ðbe€so€wrong€for€so€long€about€the€requirements€of€the€APA.€Ð ŒÜ  ÐAlthough€this€history€does€not€affect€the€outcome€of€this€case,€itÐ 8!ˆ" Ðshould€be€noted€as€a€cautionary€tale€about€the€power€of€analogy€andÐ ä"4$ Ðthe€endurance€of€unexamined€legal€theories.€€This€history€alsoÐ $à& Ðserves€to€explain€some€of€the€legitimate€frustrations€of€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðpetitioners,€who€felt€that€they€were€dealing€with€a€moving€targetÐ è'8#* Ðas€the€NRC€tried€to€justify€its€new€regulations.€€With€so€much€atÐ ”)ä$, Ðstake€in€these€nuclear€reactor€licensing€proceedings,€theÐ @+&. ÐÔ_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€process€should€have€followed€a€steadier€course.€€ForÐ ° Ðreasons€I€shall€explain,€this€was€not€the€rulemaking€process€at€itsÐ \¬ Ðbest.Ð X ÐÓ  Óò òà @ àòòTerminologyó óóóÐ ´  ÐÓ2 Óà ` àThe€terminology€for€hearings€under€the€APA€can€beÐ | Ì Ðimprecise€and€confusing.€€The€everyday€meaning€of€terms€likeÐ ( x  Ð"formal"€and€"informal"€sometimes€creeps€into€the€discussion,Ð Ô$  Ðalthough€those€terms€have€specific,€functional€definitions€underÐ €Ð  Ðthe€APA.€€As€Judge€Selya€notes,€the€terms€"formal"€and€"on„the„Ð ,|  Ðrecord"€are€generally€used€as€shorthand€for€hearings€that€must€beÐ Ø( Ðconducted€pursuant€to€the€requirements€of€5€U.S.C.€ðððð€554,€556,€andÐ „Ô Ð557€of€the€APA.€€Other€terms,€too,€are€sometimes€used€to€refer€toÐ 0€ Ðsuch€procedures€„„€"trial„type"€and€"quasi„judicial."€€These€vagueÐ Ü, Ðand€indefinite€terms€are€particularly€mischievous€because€theyÐ ˆØ Ðevoke€images€of€courtroom€trials,€and€they€have€contributed€to€theÐ 4„ Ðfalse€impression€that€the€APA's€requirement€of€on„the„recordÐ à0 Ðhearings€involves€procedures€more€akin€to€civil€trials€than€isÐ ŒÜ  Ðactually€the€case.Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àTo€be€specific,€ðð€554€requires€that,€in€cases€of€anÐ ä"4$ Ðð ðadjudication€required€by€statute€to€be€determined€on€the€recordÐ $à& Ðafter€opportunity€for€an€agency€hearing,ðð€the€agency€must€followÐ <&Œ!( Ðthe€procedures€outlined€in€ðððð€556€and€557.€€Although€the€statutoryÐ è'8#* Ðtext€at€issue€here€is€itself€rather€pithy,€these€procedures€can€beÐ ”)ä$, Ðusefully€condensed€into€the€following€ten€points:Ð @+&. ÐÓÓÒ°ÒÒ°Ò1.€The€agency€must€give€notice€of€legal€authority€andÐ ° Ðmatters€of€fact€and€law€asserted.€€ðð€554(b).Ð †Ö ÐÌ2.€The€oral€evidentiary€hearing€must€be€presided€over€byÐ 2‚ Ðan€officer€who€can€be€disqualified€for€bias.€ðð€556(b).Ð X ÐÌ3.€Presiding€officers€cannot€have€ex€parte€€€€€€Ð ´  Ðcommunications.€€ðððð€554(d),€557(d)(1).Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.€Parties€are€entitled€to€be€represented€by€attorneys.Ð 6 †  Ððð€555(b).Ð  \  ÐÌ5.€The€proponent€of€an€order€has€the€burden€of€proof.€€Ð ¸  Ððð€556(d).Ð ŽÞ  ÐÌ6.€A€party€is€entitled€to€present€oral€or€documentaryÐ :Š  Ðevidence.€ðð€556(d).Ð `  ÐÌ7.€A€party€is€entitled€"to€conduct€such€cross-examinationÐ ¼  Ðas€may€be€required€for€a€full€and€true€disclosure€of€theÐ ’â Ðfacts."€€ðð€556(d).Ð h¸ ÐÌ8.€Orders€can€be€issued€only€on€consideration€of€theÐ d Ðrecord€of€the€hearing.€€ðð€556(d).Ð ê: ÐÌ9.€The€transcript€of€testimony€and€exhibits€is€theÐ –æ Ðexclusive€record€for€decision€and€shall€be€made€availableÐ l¼ Ðto€parties.€€ðð€556(e).Ð B’ ÐÌ10.€The€decision€must€include€"findings€and€conclusions,Ð î> Ðand€the€reasons€or€basis€therefor,€on€all€the€materialÐ Ä Ðissues€of€fact,€law,€or€discretion€presented€on€theÐ šê Ðrecord."€€ðð€557(c)(3)(A).Ð pÀ  ÐÒ°ÒÒ° ÒÌòòÓÓSeeóó€Richard€J.€Pierce,€Jr.,€Administrative€Law€Treatise€ðð€8.1€(4thÐ !l" Ðed.€2002).€€Strikingly,€there€is€no€reference€to€discovery€in€theseÐ È"$ Ðstatutory€provisions€of€the€APA,€and€cross„examination€is€assuredÐ t$Ä& Ðonly€if€necessary€"for€a€full€and€true€disclosure€of€the€facts."€Ð  &p!( Ð5€U.S.C.€ðð€556(d).€€Most€of€these€provisions€relate€to€the€conductÐ Ì'#* Ðand€responsibilities€of€the€presiding€officer€or€the€basis€forÐ x)È$, Ðagency€orders€(on€the€record).€€Only€a€few€relate€to€the€conduct€ofÐ $+t&. Ðthe€hearing€itself.€€These€APA€requirements€leave€agencies€with€aÐ ° Ðgreat€deal€of€flexibility€in€tailoring€on„the„record€hearingÐ \¬ Ðprocedures€to€suit€their€perceived€needs.Ð X Ðà ` àIf€hearings€are€not€required€to€be€ð ðon€the€record,ðð€theÐ ´  Ðprocedures€of€ðððð€556€and€557€are€not€triggered;€the€only€section€ofÐ ` ° Ðthe€APA€applicable€to€the€proceedings€is€ðð€555,€titled€"AncillaryÐ  \  Ðmatters."€€Section€555(b)€entitles€a€party€to€be€represented€by€aÐ ¸  Ðlawyer,€ðð€555(c)€entitles€people€who€have€submitted€data€orÐ d´  Ðevidence€to€retain€copies€of€their€submissions,€and€ðð€555(e)Ð `  Ðrequires€agencies€to€give€prompt€notice€when€they€deny€a€petitionÐ ¼  Ðmade€in€connection€with€a€proceeding,€and€to€give€a€brief€statementÐ h¸ Ðof€the€grounds€for€denial.€€Additionally,€subsections€(c)€and€(d)Ð d Ðrequire€that€process,€subpoenas,€and€other€investigative€demandsÐ À Ðmust€be€made€in€accordance€with€law.€€Of€course,€these€ð ðinformalððÐ l¼ Ðhearings€must€also€comply€with€basic€due€process€requirements.Ð h Ðà ` àFrom€the€beginning€of€its€proposed€rulemaking,€the€NRCÐ Ä Ðrepeatedly€referred€to€the€procedures€outlined€in€the€newÐ pÀ  Ðregulations€as€"informal,"€as€opposed€to€the€outmoded€formalÐ !l" Ðprocedures€of€the€past.€€The€clear€implication€was€that€the€newÐ È"$ Ðinformal€procedures€would€not€meet€the€APAððs€requirements€forÐ t$Ä& Ðformal,€on„the„record€hearings.€€Thus,€the€NRC€believed€that€itÐ  &p!( Ðfirst€had€to€establish€that€its€authorizing€statute,€the€AtomicÐ Ì'#* ÐEnergy€Act€(AEA),€did€not€require€it€to€hold€on„the„record€hearingsÐ x)È$, Ðfor€reactor€licensing.Ð $+t&. ЇÓsÓÓÓÓ  Óà @ àòòò òBackground€to€Rulemakingó óóóÐ ° ÐÓÝ"Óà ` àJudge€Selya€outlines€some€of€the€important€history€of€theÐ xÈ Ðrulemaking€in€this€case.€€However,€there€is€more€to€this€curiousÐ $t Ðhistory€that€is€worth€telling.€€From€the€1998€Policy€Statement€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€Notice€of€Proposed€Rulemaking,€the€NRC€barely€contemplated€theÐ | Ì Ðpossibility€that€it€could€reform€its€hearing€procedures€to€itsÐ ( x  Ðliking€and€still€comply€with€the€APA€after€all.€€Indeed,€at€first,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€NRC€did€not€propose€any€dramatic€changes€to€its€hearingÐ €Ð  Ðprocedures.€€In€its€August€5,€1998€Policy€Statement,€the€NRC€statedÐ ,|  Ðthat€it€hoped€to€encourage€a€renewed€vigor€in€the€enforcement€ofÐ Ø( Ðalready„existing€hearing€procedures€by€the€Atomic€Safety€andÐ „Ô ÐLicensing€Boards€(ASLBs).Ô_ Ô׃g×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€€To€expedite€hearings,€the€NRC€advocatedÐ 0€ Ðgreater€adherence€to€schedules,€more€rigorous€enforcement€of€timeÐ Ü, Ðlimits€for€filing€(for€example,€allowing€extensions€of€time€only€inÐ ˆØ Ð"unavoidable€and€extreme€circumstances"),€more€rigorous€enforcementÐ 4„ Ðof€contention€requirements,Ô_ Ô׃h ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€and€tighter€management€of€discovery.€Ð à0 ÐIt€also€announced€that€the€NRC€"may€consider€further€changes€to€theÐ ° ÐRules€of€Practice€as€appropriate€to€enable€additional€improvementsÐ \¬ Ðto€the€adjudicatory€process."Ð X Ðà ` àTrue€to€its€word,€the€NRC€issued€a€Staff€RequirementsÐ ´  ÐMemorandum€to€its€Office€of€General€Counsel€(OGC)€on€July€22,€1999,Ð ` ° Ðdirecting€it€to€develop€a€proposed€rulemaking.€€At€the€same€time,Ð  \  Ðthe€Commission€noted€that€it€would€also€pursue€a€legislativeÐ ¸  Ðsolution€by€lobbying€Congress€to€confirm€its€authority€to€reformÐ d´  Ðlicensing€hearings€as€it€wished.€€Again,€the€Staff€RequirementsÐ `  ÐMemorandum€never€suggested€that€the€NRC€could€reduce€the€formalityÐ ¼  Ðof€its€hearing€procedures€while€staying€within€the€strictures€ofÐ h¸ Ðthe€APA's€requirements€for€on„the„record€hearings.€€Instead,€theÐ d ÐNRC€apparently€still€believed€that€the€more€informal€licensingÐ À Ðprocedures€it€sought€would€not€comply€with€the€APA,€and€that€it€hadÐ l¼ Ðto€establish€its€freedom€from€the€APA's€strictest€requirements.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€Staff€Requirements€Memorandum€also€directed€the€NRC'sÐ Ä ÐOGC€to€solicit€the€views€of€interested€parties€on€the€proposedÐ pÀ  Ðrulemaking.€€Consequently,€the€general€counsel€held€a€two„dayÐ !l" Ðmeeting€in€October€1999,€called€a€"hearing€process€workshop,"€€withÐ È"$ Ðrepresentatives€from€the€nuclear€industry,€citizens'€groupsÐ t$Ä& Ð(including€the€petitioners€in€this€case),€other€federal€agencies,Ð  &p!( Ðacademia,€and€the€NRC's€Atomic€Safety€Board€and€Licensing€Panel.€Ð Ì'#* ÐAlthough€the€OGC€encouraged€a€wide„ranging€conversation,€no€oneÐ x)È$, Ðraised€the€possibility€that€the€NRC€licensing€procedures€could€beÐ ° Ðmore€informal€yet€still€comply€with€the€APA.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àIn€the€Notice€of€Proposed€Rulemaking€itself,€66€Fed.€Reg.Ð X Ð19,610€(April€16,€2001),€which€for€the€first€time€proposed€specificÐ ´  Ðchanges€to€the€NRC's€hearing€procedures,€there€was€still€noÐ ` ° Ðargument€that€the€proposed€procedures€complied€with€the€APA'sÐ  \  Ðrequirements.€€Instead,€the€notice€offered€pages€of€legal€analysisÐ ¸  Ðon€the€history€of€the€AEA,€all€intended€to€justify€the€NRC'sÐ d´  Ðability€to€promulgate€new€hearing€procedures€that€are€not€subjectÐ `  Ðto€the€APA's€requirements€for€on„the„record€hearings.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOther€choices€made€by€the€NRC€in€its€regulatory€overhaulÐ h¸ Ðfurther€emphasize€the€firmness€of€its€conviction€that€theÐ d Ðsupposedly€ð ðinformalðð€procedures€it€was€proposing€did€not€complyÐ À Ðwith€the€APA's€requirements€for€on„the„record€hearings.€€In€the€oneÐ l¼ Ðinstance€where€no€one€disputes€that€the€NRC€must€hold€on„the„recordÐ h Ðhearings€„„€the€licensing€of€construction€and€operation€of€uraniumÐ Ä Ðenrichment€facilities,€òòseeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2243(b)€„„€the€NoticeÐ pÀ  Ðdescribed€this€process€as€"requiring€formal€trial„type€hearingÐ !l" Ðprocedures€to€be€used."€€66€Fed.€Reg.€at€19,623.€€Consequently,€theÐ È"$ ÐNRC€believed€that€it€could€not€use€new€subpart€L€for€these€hearingsÐ t$Ä& Ðbut€had€to€resort€to€the€more€formal€procedures€of€subpart€G.Ô_ Ô׃i×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ ÔÐ  &p!( Ðà ` àStrikingly,€in€the€entire€record€of€this€rulemaking€priorÐ ° Ðto€the€promulgation€of€the€Final€Rule,€I€can€find€only€one€footnoteÐ \¬ Ðhinting€that€anyone€at€the€NRC€thought€that€it€could€Ô‡dXoÛXX)XoÛÔreduce€theÐ X Ðformality€of€its€procedures€while€at€the€same€time€complying€withÐ ´  Ðthe€strictures€of€the€APA.Ô#†)XoÛXXdXoÛö8#Ô€€Ô‡dXoÛXX)XoÛÔIn€a€footnote€in€its€January€1999€memo,Ð ` ° Ðthe€OGC€acknowledged€the€possibility€of€eliminating€the€"elementsÐ  \  Ðof€Subpart€G€that€go€beyond€the€Administrative€Procedure€Act'sÐ ¸  Ðrequirements€for€'on„the„record'€hearings.€€One€immediate€effectÐ d´  Ðwould€be€to€eliminate€formal€discovery€in€NRC€adjudications."€€TheÐ `  Ðmemo€contains€no€further€discussion€of€how€far€beyond€the€APA'sÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€the€OGC€understood€Subpart€G€to€go.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àÔ#†)XoÛXXdXoÛÉ9#ÔNot€until€publication€of€the€Final€Rule€itself€did€theÐ d ÐNRC€assert€for€the€first€time€that€the€new€procedures€comply€withÐ À Ðthe€APA's€requirements€for€an€on„the„record€hearing€„„€and€evenÐ l¼ Ðhere,€the€NRC€devotes€only€a€few€sentences€to€the€issues€of€cross„Ð h Ðexamination,€discovery,€and€the€presiding€officer.Ô_ Ô׃j×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€€Indeed,€theÐ Ä ÐNRC's€few€statements€are€easily€reproduced€in€their€entirety.€€InÐ pÀ  Ðresponse€to€concerns€about€the€reforms€to€cross„examination,€theÐ !l" ÐNRC€stated:€"The€Commission€believes€that€this€approach€strikes€anÐ È"$ Ðappropriate€balance€in€the€use€of€cross„examination,€and€isÐ t$Ä& Ðconsistent€with€the€requirements€of€the€Administrative€ProcedureÐ ° ÐAct€(APA),€which€does€not€require€cross„examination€for€on„the„Ð \¬ Ðrecord€proceedings€unless€necessary€for€a€'fair€and€true€disclosureÐ X Ðof€the€facts.'"€€69€Fed.€Reg.€2182,€2188€(Jan.€14,€2004).€€A€littleÐ ´  Ðlater,€the€NRC€states:€"The€Commission's€consideration€of€cross„Ð ` ° Ðexamination€in€the€hearing€process€begins€with€the€observation€thatÐ  \  Ðparties€have€no€fundamental€right€to€cross„examination,€even€in€theÐ ¸  Ðmost€formal€hearing€procedures€provided€in€Subpart€G."€€69€Fed.Ð d´  ÐReg.€at€2195„96.Ð `  Ðà ` àAs€for€concerns€about€the€availability€of€discovery,€theÐ ¼  ÐNRC€stated:€"Thus,€the€mandatory€disclosure€requirement€in€subpartÐ h¸ ÐC,€the€hearing€file€provision€in€subparts€G,€L,€and€N[,]€and€theÐ d Ðrequirement€for€an€LSN€and€'electronic€docket'€in€subpart€J,€goÐ À Ðwell€beyond€the€'discovery'€provisions€for€full,€on„the„recordÐ l¼ Ðadjudicatory€hearings€under€the€APA."Ô_ Ô׃k×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€€69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2189.€€AsÐ h Ðfor€presiding€officers,€the€NRC€described€how€the€new€regulationsÐ ° Ðprovided€for€either€an€ALJ€or€a€three„member€ASLB€to€preside€overÐ \¬ Ðthe€hearing,€and€then€stated:€"The€Commission€has€taken€this€stepÐ X Ðto€ensure€that€all€of€these€proceedings€meet€the€requirements€withÐ ´  Ðregard€to€a€presiding€officer€for€an€on„the„record€hearing€underÐ ` ° Ðthe€APA."€€69€Fed.€Reg.€at€2191.€€However,€despite€these€fewÐ  \  Ðreferences€in€the€Final€Rule€to€meeting€the€APAððs€requirements€forÐ ¸  Ðon„the„record€hearings,€the€NRC's€primary€rationale€for€its€newÐ d´  Ðprocedures€remained€its€long„standing€position€that€reactorÐ `  Ðlicensing€hearings€did€not€have€to€comply€with€the€on„the„recordÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€of€the€APA.Ô_ Ô׃l×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ ÔÐ h¸ Ðà ` àIn€considerable€part,€administrative€agencies€set€theÐ d Ðterms€of€the€debate€in€the€rulemaking€process€with€the€argumentsÐ À Ðthey€advance€in€support€of€their€rulemaking€initiatives.€€IfÐ l¼ Ðcertain€arguments€are€unmistakably€primary,€those€arguments€willÐ h Ðdraw€most€of€the€attention€during€the€administrative€process,€andÐ Ä Ðduring€the€judicial€review€that€follows.€€Not€surprisingly,Ð pÀ  Ðopponents€will€believe€that€the€primacy€of€the€argument€means€thatÐ !l" Ðit€is€the€most€important€argument€to€address.€€If,€in€the€end,€theÐ È"$ Ðdispositive€issue€on€appeal€is€a€different€issue,€addressed€onlyÐ t$Ä& Ðglancingly€in€the€administrative€process,€there€has€been€enormousÐ  &p!( Ðwasted€effort,€and€the€courts€of€appeal€will€be€poorly€served€byÐ Ì'#* Ðappellate€briefing€that€reflects€the€outdated€emphases€of€theÐ ° Ðadministrative€process.€€That€is€precisely€what€happened€here.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àIn€their€petition€for€reviewò òó ó,€petitioners€never€evenÐ X Ðmentioned€the€argument€of€the€NRC€that€its€new€procedures€compliedÐ ´  Ðwith€the€APA's€requirements€for€on„the„record€hearings.€€Not€one€ofÐ ` ° Ðthe€petitioners€addressed€the€argument€in€their€opening€briefs.Ô_ Ô׃m×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ ԀР \  ÐIndeed,€the€NRC€tried€to€exploit€this€omission€by€arguing€thatÐ ¸  Ðpetitioners€had€thereby€waived€the€issue.€€In€response,€PublicÐ d´  ÐCitizen€stated€that€the€NRC€argued€from€the€beginning€of€theÐ `  Ðrulemaking€that€its€freedom€from€the€APA's€on„the„recordÐ ¼  Ðrequirements€was€essential€to€its€ability€to€fashion€informalÐ h¸ Ðprocedures,€and€ð ð[t]here€would€have€been€no€need€for€page€afterÐ d Ðpage€of€argument€that€Section€189€does€not€require€on„the„recordÐ À Ðhearing€procedures€in€reactor€licensing€cases€if€the€NRC€hadÐ l¼ Ðbelieved€that€the€new€Subpart€L€procedures€conformed€to€theseÐ h Ðrequirements.ððÔ_ Ô׃nè×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€€Public€Citizen€added€that€the€few€references€toÐ Ä ÐAPA„compliance€in€the€Final€Rule€were€nothing€more€than€"strayÐ pÀ  Ðremarks"€when€weighed€against€the€overwhelming€number€of€statementsÐ !l" Ðto€the€contrary€made€by€the€NRC€throughout€the€rulemaking.€€PublicÐ È"$ ÐCitizen€then€tried€to€turn€this€lament€into€a€legal€argument€basedÐ ° Ðupon€òòSECóó€v.€òòChenery€Corp.óó,€318€U.S.€80€(1943).€€Although€the€lamentÐ \¬ Ðis€a€fair€one,€the€legal€argument€does€not€work.Ð X ÐÓË"ÓÓÓò òÓ  Óà @ àòòSEC€v.€Cheneryó óóóÐ ´  ÐÓßTÓà ` àIn€òòCheneryóó,€the€Supreme€Court€warned€courts€that€theyÐ | Ì Ðmust€not€substitute€their€own€policy€judgments€for€those€of€theÐ ( x  Ðadministrative€agencies€whose€decisions€they€review.€€The€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðexplained€that€this€rule€did€not€disturb€the€settled€rule€thatÐ €Ð  Ðappellate€courts€can€affirm€trial€court€decisions€that€are€rightÐ ,|  Ðfor€the€wrong€reasons:Ð Ø( ÐÓÊTÓÒ°ÒÒ°ÒIn€confining€our€review€to€a€judgment€upon€the€validityÐ „Ô Ðof€the€grounds€upon€which€the€Commission€itself€based€itsÐ Zª Ðaction,€we€do€not€disturb€the€settled€rule€that,€inÐ 0€ Ðreviewing€the€decision€of€a€lower€court,€it€must€beÐ V Ðaffirmed€if€the€result€is€correct€although€the€lowerÐ Ü, Ðcourt€relied€upon€a€wrong€ground€or€gave€a€wrong€reason.€Ð ² ÐThe€reason€for€this€rule€is€obvious.€€It€would€beÐ ˆØ Ðwasteful€to€send€a€case€back€to€a€lower€court€toÐ ^® Ðreinstate€a€decision€which€it€had€already€made€but€whichÐ 4„ Ðthe€appellate€court€concluded€should€properly€be€based€onÐ  Z Ðanother€ground€within€the€power€of€the€appellate€court€toÐ à0 Ðformulate.€€But€it€is€also€familiar€appellate€procedureÐ ¶ Ðthat€where€the€correctness€of€the€lower€court's€decisionÐ ŒÜ  Ðdepends€upon€a€determination€of€fact€which€only€a€juryÐ b ²! Ðcould€make€but€which€has€not€been€made,€the€appellateÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcourt€cannot€take€the€place€of€the€jury.€LikeÐ "^# Ðconsiderations€govern€review€of€administrative€orders.€IfÐ ä"4$ Ðan€order€is€valid€only€as€a€determination€of€policy€orÐ º# % Ðjudgment€which€the€agency€alone€is€authorized€to€make€andÐ $à& Ðwhich€it€has€not€made,€a€judicial€judgment€cannot€be€madeÐ f%¶ ' Ðto€do€service€for€an€administrative€judgment.€ForÐ <&Œ!( Ðpurposes€of€affirming€no€less€than€reversing€its€orders,Ð 'b") Ðan€appellate€court€cannot€intrude€upon€the€domain€whichÐ è'8#* ÐCongress€has€exclusively€entrusted€to€an€administrativeÐ ¾($+ Ðagency.ò òó óÐ ”)ä$, Ðâ âÐ j*º%- ÐÒ°.WÒÒ° WÒòòÓÓSECóó€v.€òòChenery€Corp.óó,€318€U.S.€80,€88€(1943)€(citation€and€internalÐ ° Ðâ âquotation€marks€omitted)€(òòCheneryóó€I).׃o×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€dispute€in€òòCheneryóó€came€before€the€Court€again€inÐ X Ð1947,€after€the€SEC€had€"reexamined€the€problem,€recast€itsÐ ´  Ðrationale€and€reached€the€same€result."€€òòSECóó€v.€òòChenery€Corp.óó,€332Ð ` ° ÐU.S.€194,€196€(1947)€(òòCheneryóó€II).€Ó©^ÓÓÓ€Accepting€the€SEC's€newÐ  \  Ðdecision€as€justified€by€an€administrative€determination€that€"isÐ ¸  Ðbased€upon€substantial€evidence€and€is€consistent€with€theÐ d´  Ðauthority€granted€by€Congress,"€òòid.óó€at€207,€the€Court€noted€theÐ `  Ð"important€corollary"€to€òòCheneryóó's€rule€of€judicial€review€ofÐ ¼  Ðagency€decisions:Ð h¸ ÐÓaÓÒ°ÒÒ°ÒIf€the€administrative€action€is€to€be€tested€by€the€basisÐ d Ðupon€which€it€purports€to€rest,€that€basis€must€be€setÐ ê: Ðforth€with€such€clarity€as€to€be€understandable.€€It€willÐ À Ðnot€do€for€a€court€to€be€compelled€to€guess€at€the€theoryÐ –æ Ðunderlying€the€agency's€action;€nor€can€a€court€beÐ l¼ Ðexpected€to€chisel€that€which€must€be€precise€from€whatÐ B’ Ðthe€agency€has€left€vague€and€indecisive.€€In€otherÐ h Ðwords,€'We€must€know€what€a€decision€means€before€theÐ î> Ðduty€becomes€ours€to€say€whether€it€is€right€or€wrong.'€Ð Ä ÐÐ šê ÐÒ°èbÒÒ°ÚbÒÓ:lÓòòId.óó€òòóóat€196€(quoting€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòChicago,€M.,€St.€P.€&€P.€R.R.Ð ° ÐCo.óó,€294€U.S.€499,€511€(1935)).€€The€òòCheneryóó€decisions€haveÐ \¬ Ðcontinuing€vitality€today.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòNLRBóó€v.€òòK.€River€Cmty.€Care,Ð X ÐInc.óó,€532€U.S.€706,€721€(2001);€òòNat'l€Tower,€LLCóó€v.€òòPlainvilleÐ ´  ÐZoning€Bd.€of€Appealsóó,€297€F.3d€14,€21€(1st€Cir.€2002);€òòRizekóó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòSECóó,€215€F.3d€157,€161€(1st€Cir.€2000)€(citing€theÐ  \  Ð"well-established€rule€that€agencies€must€sufficiently€articulateÐ ¸  Ðthe€grounds€of€their€decisions€so€that€appellate€courts€are€able€toÐ d´  Ðperform€their€function€of€judicial€review€meaningfully.")Ð `  Ðà ` àDespite€the€NRC's€disproportionate€attention€to€itsÐ ¼  Ðoriginal€premise€that€it€could€alter€its€procedures€for€theÐ h¸ Ðlicensing€of€nuclear€reactors€free€of€the€on„the„recordÐ d Ðrequirements€of€the€APA,€and€its€scant€attention€to€the€APA„Ð À Ðcompliance€argument€that€prevails€here€(found€primarily€in€severalÐ l¼ Ðsentences€placed€in€the€Final€Rule),€I€agree€with€Judge€Selya€thatÐ h Ðthe€NRC€preserved€the€rationale€that€has€become€the€basis€forÐ Ä Ðaffirming€its€rulemaking€initiative.€€However,€if€the€òòCheneryóó€casesÐ pÀ  Ðhave€a€spirit,€the€NRC€came€perilously€close€to€violating€it€here,Ð !l" Ðwith€the€unfortunate€consequences€for€efficient€administrativeÐ È"$ Ðprocess€and€effective€appellate€review€that€I€have€alreadyÐ t$Ä& Ðdescribed.€€Although,€to€quote€òòCheneryóó€II,€we€did€not€have€"toÐ  &p!( Ðguess€at€the€theory€underlying€the€agency's€action,"€332€U.S.€atÐ Ì'#* Ð197,€we€had€to€find€it€with€too€little€help€from€the€partiesÐ x)È$, Ðbecause€of€the€NRC's€failure€to€understand€the€APA's€flexibility.Ð $+t&. ÐÓÖeÓò òó óÓÓÓ  Óà0 @ àòòò òFurther€Historyó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ?nÓà ` àThe€NRC's€belated€recognition€that€the€new€licensingÐ xÈ Ðprocedures€might€in€fact€comply€with€the€on„the„record€requirementsÐ $t Ðof€the€APA€is€all€the€more€surprising€because€sourcesÐ Ð  Ðcontemporaneous€with€the€APA's€passage€suggest€that€flexibility€hasÐ | Ì Ðalways€been€a€hallmark€of€the€APA,€and€that€agencies€have€alwaysÐ ( x  Ðhad€considerable€discretion€to€structure€on„the„record€hearings€toÐ Ô$  Ðsuit€their€particular€needs.€€This€flexibility€is€nowhere€moreÐ €Ð  Ðevident€than€in€determining€the€role€of€cross„examination€in€on„Ð ,|  Ðthe„record€hearings.Ð Ø( Ðà ` àThe€Attorney€General's€Manual€on€the€AdministrativeÐ „Ô ÐProcedure€Act€(1947)€is€a€"key€document"€for€interpreting€the€APA,Ð 0€ ÐòòAm.€Min.€Cong.óó€v.€òòMine€Safety€&€Health€Admin.óó,€995€F.2d€1106,€1109Ð Ü, Ð(D.C.€Cir.€1993).€€We€have€described€it€as€containing€the€"mostÐ ˆØ Ðauthoritative"€account€of€the€history€of€the€Act's€passage,€òòWarderóóÐ 4„ Ðv.€òòShalalaóó,€149€F.3d€73,€79€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòV.€YankeeÐ à0 ÐNuclear€Power€Corp.óó€v.€òòNatural€Res.€Def.€Council,€Inc.óó,€435€U.S.Ð ŒÜ  Ð519,€546€(1978)€(the€Attorney€General's€Manual€is€"aÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcontemporaneous€interpretation€previously€given€some€deference€byÐ ä"4$ Ðthis€Court€because€of€the€role€played€by€the€Department€of€JusticeÐ $à& Ðin€drafting€the€legislation")òòóó.€€The€Attorney€Generalððs€ManualÐ <&Œ!( Ðoffers€a€vision€of€cross„examination€entirely€consistent€with€thatÐ è'8#* Ðâ âadvanced€by€the€NRC€in€this€rulemaking.Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àThe€Manual€begins€by€stressing€the€general€importance€ofÐ ° Ðâ âcross„examination€in€on„the„record€hearings,€cautioning€that€"it€isÐ \¬ Ðclear€that€the€'right€to€present€his€case€or€defense€by€oral€orÐ X Ðdocumentary€evidence'€does€not€extend€to€presenting€evidence€inÐ ´  Ðaffidavit€or€other€written€form€so€as€to€deprive€the€agency€orÐ ` ° Ðopposing€parties€of€opportunity€for€cross„examination."€ò ò€ó óAG'sÐ  \  ÐManual€at€77.€€Technical€evidence€may€be€introduced€in€written€formÐ Ô$  Ðas€long€as€its€admission€"would€not€prejudicially€deprive€otherÐ €Ð  Ðparties€or€the€agency€of€opportunity€for€cross„examination.€€Thus,Ð ,|  Ðtechnical€and€statistical€data€may€be€introduced€in€convenientÐ Ø( Ðwritten€form€subject€to€adequate€opportunity€for€cross„examinationÐ „Ô Ðand€rebuttal."€€òòId.óóÐ 0€ Ðà ` àThe€Attorney€General's€Manual€goes€on,€however,€toÐ Ü, Ðacknowledge€that€the€general€opportunity€to€cross„examine€isÐ ˆØ Ðsubject€to€restrictions€which€become€more€salient€as€the€complexityÐ 4„ Ðof€the€hearing's€subject€matter€increases.€€On€this€point,€theÐ à0 ÐManual€quotes€from€the€Report€of€the€House€Committee€on€theÐ ŒÜ  ÐJudiciary€on€the€APA.€€The€Report€cautions€that€the€APA's€provisionÐ 8!ˆ" Ðfor€"such€cross-examination€as€may€be€required€for€a€full€and€trueÐ ä"4$ Ðdisclosure€of€the€facts"€does€notÐ $à& ÐÓ-nÓÒ°ÒÒ°Òconfer€a€right€of€so-called€'unlimited'Ð <&Œ!( Ðcross-examination.€€Presiding€officers€will€have€to€makeÐ 'b") Ðthe€necessary€initial€determination€whether€theÐ è'8#* Ðcross-examination€is€pressed€to€unreasonable€lengths€byÐ ¾($+ Ða€party€or€whether€it€is€required€for€the€'full€and€trueÐ ”)ä$, Ðdisclosure€of€the€facts'€stated€in€the€provision.€€Nor€isÐ j*º%- Ðit€the€intention€to€eliminate€the€authority€of€agenciesÐ @+&. Ðto€confer€sound€discretion€upon€presiding€officers€in€theÐ ,f'/ Ðmatter€of€its€extent.€€The€test€is€„-€as€the€sectionÐ ° Ðstates€„„€whether€it€is€required€'for€a€full€and€trueÐ †Ö Ðdisclosure€of€the€Ô_ Ôfacts.'Ô_ Ô€€In€many€rule€makingÐ \¬ Ðproceedings€where€the€subject€matter€and€evidence€areÐ 2‚ Ðbroadly€economic€or€statistical€in€character€and€theÐ X Ðparties€or€witnesses€numerous,€the€direct€or€rebuttalÐ Þ. Ðevidence€may€be€of€such€a€nature€that€cross-examinationÐ ´  Ðadds€nothing€substantial€to€the€record€and€unnecessarilyÐ Š Ú Ðprolongs€the€hearings.Ð ` ° ÐÒ°i|ÒÒ°[|ÒÌÓÓH.R.€Rep.€No.€1980,€79th€Cong.,€2d€Sess.,€37.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€Attorney€Generalððs€Manual€and€the€House€Report€serveÐ ¸  Ðas€good€indicators€that€Congress,€when€it€passed€the€APA,Ð d´  Ðunderstood€that€agencies€needed€a€considerable€amount€ofÐ `  Ðflexibility€in€fashioning€hearing€procedures€for€on„the„recordÐ ¼  Ðhearings.€€Despite€the€frequent€use€of€terms€like€"trial„type"€andÐ h¸ Ð"quasi„judicial"€over€the€years€to€refer€to€on„the„record€hearings,Ð d Ðagencies€have€always€been€able€to€adapt€their€procedures€for€on„Ð À Ðthe„record€hearings€under€the€APA.€€Today,€this€statute€of€generalÐ l¼ Ðapplicability€governs€the€procedures€for€an€enormous€variety€ofÐ h Ðhearings€„„€everything€from€relatively€simple€claims€for€workers'Ð Ä Ðcompensation,€to€enforcement€proceedings€under€the€National€LaborÐ pÀ  ÐRelations€Act€or€the€Occupational€Health€and€Safety€Act,€to€complexÐ !l" Ðrate„setting€hearings€before€the€Federal€Energy€RegulatoryÐ È"$ ÐCommission.€€òòSeeóó€Manual€for€Administrative€Law€Judges€(ALJ€Manual),Ð t$Ä& Ð49„51.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThis€historical€flexibility€is€confirmed€by€a€modern„dayÐ Ì'#* Ðguide€to€the€conduct€of€on„the„record€hearings,€the€Manual€forÐ x)È$, ÐAdministrative€Law€Judges,€which€provides€a€thorough€overview€ofÐ $+t&. ÐÔ_ Ôthe€current€state€of€on„the„record€procedures.Ô_ Ô׃p×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ Ô€€Although€theÐ ° ÐManual€is€primarily€designed€as€a€practical€aid€for€Ô_ ÔALJsÔ_ Ô,€it€alsoÐ \¬ Ðoffers€an€analysis€of€the€fundamental€requirements€of€the€APA,Ð X Ðincluding€a€section€on€the€special€problems€presented€by€complexÐ ´  Ðhearings€at€both€the€agency€and€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€levels.€€òòSeeóó€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€at€49„Ð ` ° Ð70.€€Ultimately,€if€the€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€tells€us€anything€about€what€aÐ  \  Ðtypical€on„the„record€hearing€looks€like,€it€is€that€there€is€noÐ ¸  Ðtypical€hearing.Ð d´  Ðà ` àIn€its€section€on€complex€hearings,€the€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€beginsÐ `  Ðby€noting€that€the€term€"quasi„judicial"€is€most€often€used€toÐ ¼  Ðrefer€to€"relatively€simple€cases."€€òòId.óó€at€50.€€"Typically,€theseÐ h¸ Ðquasi„judicial€proceedings€are€nearly€identical€to€a€formalÐ d Ðadjudication€without€a€jury,"€with€the€full€panoply€of€pleadings,Ð À Ðpre„hearing€discovery,€and€witnesses€who€testify€orally€on€directÐ l¼ Ðand€cross„examination.€€òòId.óó€at€49.€€Complex€cases,€however,€areÐ h Ð"another€matter,"€bearing€less€resemblance€to€our€traditionalÐ ° Ðconcept€of€a€civil€trial.€€òòId.óó€at€51.€€The€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€cites€theÐ \¬ ÐNRC's€use€of€Ô_ ÔASLBsÔ_ Ô€as€an€"innovative€approach€to€complex€cases"Ð X Ðwith€highly€technical€subject€matter.€€òòId.óó€at€52.€€In€general,€theÐ ´  ÐÔ_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€emphasizes€the€use€of€written€submissions€of€direct€andÐ ` ° Ðrebuttal€evidence:€"Typically,€much€of€the€testimony€is€highlyÐ  \  Ðtechnical€and€lengthy,€and€is€submitted€in€written€form€prior€toÐ ¸  Ðthe€hearing."€€òòId.óó€at€51.€€"Preparation€and€exchange€of€direct€andÐ d´  Ðrebuttal€evidence€is€usually€beneficial€in€complex€cases."€€òòId.óó€atÐ `  Ð56.Ô_ Ô׃q×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ ÔÐ ¼  Ðà ` àLike€the€Attorney€General's€Manual,€the€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€ManualÐ h¸ Ðemphasizes€the€basic€importance€of€the€opportunity€to€cross„examineÐ d Ðin€on„the„record€hearings,€noting€that€"judges€should€be€extremelyÐ À Ðcautious€about€denying€parties€an€opportunity€to€cross„examineÐ l¼ Ðwitnesses."€€òòId.óó€at€55€n.149.€€In€the€end,€however,€and€again€likeÐ h Ðthe€Attorney€General's€Manual,€the€Ô_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€also€acknowledges€theÐ Ä Ðagencies'€need€to€adapt€hearing€procedures€to€suit€especiallyÐ pÀ  Ðcomplex€cases,€observing€that€"[Ô_ Ôu]nlessÔ_ Ô€witness€credibility€isÐ !l" Ðinvolved,€cross„examination€is€frequently€confined€to€clarifyingÐ È"$ Ðthe€exhibits,€determining€the€source€of€the€material,€and€testingÐ t$Ä& Ðthe€basis€for€the€witness's€conclusions."€€òòId.óó€at€83.€€In€fact,€theÐ  &p!( ÐÔ_ ÔALJÔ_ Ô€Manual€even€notes€a€proposal€by€one€legal€commentator€that€"theÐ ° Ðmajor€rebuttal€of€expert€opinion€testimony€should€take€place€not€byÐ \¬ Ðcross„examination€but€by€submission,€prior€to€the€hearing,€ofÐ X Ðrebuttal€testimony€prepared€by€the€opponent's€experts."€€òòId.óóÐ ´  Ðà ` àThese€sources,€both€contemporaneous€with€the€APA'sÐ ` ° Ðpassage€and€modern,€show€that€procedures€in€on„the„record€hearings,Ð  \  Ðdespite€sometimes€being€described€as€"trial„type"€procedures,€canÐ ¸  Ðin€fact€stray€considerably€from€the€procedures€found€in€civilÐ d´  Ðtrials€as€the€subjects€of€the€administrative€proceedings€becomeÐ `  Ðmore€complex€and€more€technical.€€This€flexibility€is€inherent€inÐ ¼  Ðthe€APA,€and€has€been€acknowledged€by€commentators€and€by€courts.€Ð h¸ ÐòòSeeóó€òòSeacoast€Anti„Pollution€Leagueóó€v.€òòÔ_ ÔCostleÔ_ Ôóó,€572€F.2d€872,€880Ð d Ð(1st€Cir.€1978)€(finding€no€basis€to€petitioners'€argument€that€theÐ À ÐAPA€required€presiding€officer€to€afford€opportunity€for€cross„Ð l¼ Ðexamination);€òòCellular€Mobile€Systems€of€Pa.,€Inc.óó€v.€òòFCCóó,€782€F.2dÐ h Ð182,€198€(D.C.€Cir.€1985)€("Cross-examination€is€therefore€not€anÐ Ä Ðautomatic€right€conferred€by€the€APA;€instead,€its€necessity€mustÐ pÀ  Ðbe€established€under€specific€circumstances€by€the€party€seekingÐ !l" Ðit.").׃r×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€With€these€abundant€sources€pointing€the€way,€the€NRC'sÐ È"$ Ðbelated€recognition€that€the€APA€could,€in€fact,€accommodate€itsÐ t$Ä& Ðprocedural€reforms€is€all€the€more€puzzling.Ð  &p!( ÐÓÓÓÓòòÓ  Óò òà @ àConclusionó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ‚Óà ` àFor€most€of€the€history€of€this€Ô_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô,€the€NRCÐ xÈ Ðargued€that€it€did€not€have€to€comply€with€the€APA's€on„the„recordÐ $t Ðrequirements€in€refashioning€its€procedures€for€reactor€licensingÐ Ð  Ðhearings.€€Belatedly,€and€then€only€sketchily,€the€NRC€advanced€theÐ | Ì Ðalternative€argument€that€its€proposed€procedures€complied€withÐ ( x  Ðthose€on„the„record€requirements.ò òó ó€€The€staying€power€of€oldÐ Ô$  Ðtheories€and€flawed€analogies€(the€repeated€references€to€trial„Ð €Ð  Ðtype€proceedings)€may€account€for€some€of€this€delay.€€Whatever€theÐ ,|  Ðreasons,€the€deleterious€effect€of€this€late€insight€on€theÐ Ø( ÐÔ_ ÔrulemakingÔ_ Ô€process€and€our€review€of€it€is€undeniable.€€CountlessÐ „Ô Ðhours€were€wasted€during€the€administrative€process€fighting€overÐ 0€ Ðthe€tired€issue€of€whether€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2239€requires€reactorÐ Ü, Ðlicensing€hearings€to€be€on€the€record.€€This€tired€issue€doggedÐ ˆØ Ðjudicial€review€as€well.€€Although€we€have€done€what€òòÔ_ ÔCheneryÔ_ ÔóóÐ 4„ Ðrequires€„„€affirming€on€a€basis€advanced€by€the€agency€itselfÐ à0 Ðduring€the€administrative€process€„„€we€got€there€with€too€littleÐ ŒÜ  Ðhelp€from€the€parties.€€There€is€a€victory€here€for€the€NRC,€but€itÐ 8!ˆ" Ðshould€be€a€cause€for€self„examination€rather€than€jubilation.