...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Id. Because the MA's decision appears arbitrary on the basis of the record before this court, this case...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual, 463 US 29, 43 (1983). The standard does not change...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or...it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or a product of agency expertise. "£/ The Court thus 6/ HRRep. No. 97-435, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 179-180...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency or...it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or a product of agency expertise. "8/ The Court thus 6/ HRRep. No. 97-435, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 179-180...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a...

...to^con«M«r en .imnartaot osoefit «<_the problem, offered an explanation for its decision tnafnns cuunier to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make. up for such deficiencies: We may not supply...

...«'_the problem, offered an explanation for its decision mat runs cuunier to the evidence before tht agency, or is so implausible that it could not be...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make. up for such deficiencies: We may not supply...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise." If such "hard look"135 review is appropriate for the NHTSA decision on passive restraints in vehicles,...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. * * * [Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., supra at 43.] Furthermore,...

...failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or...difference in view or the product of agency expertise. 185 The substantial evidence test is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act for court review...