Opinion ID: 1357742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Requests to Supplement the Record

Text: Judicial review generally focuses on the administrative record in existence at the time of the agency's decision. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (prescribing that a court's review pursuant to the APA is of the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party); Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973) ([T]he focal point for judicial review [under the APA] should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.). Forest Guardians wishes to supplement the record with a post-decisional scientific report in order to further support its BAS argument. Forest Guardians also requested permission to file a supplemental appendix containing portions of the administrative record as well as three additional non-record documents, also all in support of its BAS argument. We find nothing exceptionable in granting this request as to those documents that already were part of the administrative record. As for the non-record documents, we may consider extra-record evidence under very limited circumstances. Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 485 F.3d 1091, 1096 (10th Cir.2007). Because we are not reaching the merits of the BAS argument, however, none of those circumstances is present here; there is no reason to examine documents submitted as support for that argument.