Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): At 667. Wearly in fact supports the data owners here. Although the Third Circuit there found a pre-enforcement proceeding premature, it noted: In acting on [a] petition [by an agency for an order enforcing a subpoena] the district court’s role is not that of a mere rubber stamp, but of an independent reviewing authority called upon to insure the integrity of the proceeding. “The system of judicial enforcement is designed to provide a meaningful day in court for one resisting an administrative subpoena.” In the discharge of that duty, the court has the power to condition enforcement upon observance of safeguards to the respondent’s valid interests. Id. at 665 (citation omitted; footnote omitted). Cf. FTC v. Johns-Manville Corp., 1979-2 Trade Cas. ¶ 62,830 at 78,792-93 (D.Colo.1979) (<HOLDING>). The FTC has itself provided the “10 day 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that ojrdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance with the apa the regulation is invalid however when equity demands the regulation can be left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures citation omitted (B) holding that schreiber was not controlling in an ftc subpoena enforcement action because in schreiber the fcc acted pursuant to a validly promulgated regulation while the ftc had not adopted such a rule regarding the confidentiality of subpoenaed material (C) holding that the claim must be based upon the implementation or execution of a policy statement ordinance regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that bodys officers (D) holding that taxpayer who is the target but not the recipient of an administrative subpoena pursuant to 26 usc  7602 may challenge the subpoena (E) holding that procedures that are implicit and incidental to procedures otherwise explicitly provided for in a properly adopted rule or regulation do not require further codification by a further adopted rule or regulation and to hold otherwise belies statutory intent   and that such an argument based on the lack of a rule or regulation to cover every step of the testing procedures  is not only speculative and theoretical but also hypertechnical
Output (English): holding that procedures that are implicit and incidental to procedures otherwise explicitly provided for in a properly adopted rule or regulation do not require further codification by a further adopted rule or regulation and to hold otherwise belies statutory intent   and that such an argument based on the lack of a rule or regulation to cover every step of the testing procedures  is not only speculative and theoretical but also hypertechnical