Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): set forth in the Clean Air Act for designation of “attainment” and “nonattainment” areas did not, without more, justify departure from ordinary APA procedures, because “under the facts of this case, the Administrator could have reconciled the commands of the two acts by publishing the designations ... as proposed rules.” Id. at 1047. Similarly, in Air Transport Ass’n of Am. v. Department of Transportation, 900 F.2d 369 (D.C.Cir.1990), vacated for mootness, 933 F.2d 1043 (D.C.Cir.1991), we characterized New Jersey as holding that a “statutory deadline did not constitute good cause to forgo notice and comment absent ‘any express indication’ by Congress to this effect.” Id. at 378-79 (quoting New Jersey, 626 F.2d at 1043). Cf. Petry v. Block, 737 F.2d 1193, 1200-02 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). However, none of those decisions involved 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule (B) holding that extraordinary factors justified invocation of the good cause exception under  553 (C) recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception (D) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (E) recognizing exception
Output (English): recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception