When plaintiff claims extrinsic evidence was the basis for agency action, it is still inappropriate to include extrinsic evidence in the record for review, as the degree of support for the agency decision should be apparent from the record as it stands.
Agency did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in supplementing the administrative record following notice and comment beyond the initial published decision calculus and not subsequently reopening the comment process. Comment periods, by their nature, bring new concerns and raise new points.
Physical access to the relevant documents during the comment period sufficed; plaintiff had no right to receive them in response to a subsequent request.
Agency was justified in using tentative scientific conclusions in the absence of proof to the contrary; causation need not be absolute -- a reasonable possibility of harm is sufficient.
Absent specific proof to the contrary, deference to agency methodology and data selection.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2280P-01A.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.