Opinion ID: 1264720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Control and Manipulation of the Administrative Record

Text: Finally, we address Goodrich's allegation that the EPA controls and manipulates the record of decision that supports the issuance of a UAO, thus preventing meaningful judicial review of the validity of the order. Goodrich correctly observes that, at least before the EPA issues an order, there is only a limited opportunity for a PRP to provide input into the administrative record, which the agency maintains. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(k). Goodrich also correctly observes that judicial review generally is limited to the administrative record. Id. § 9613(j)(1); but see id. (allowing a court to consider supplemental materials in some circumstances). Putting those observations together, Goodrich complains that the evidentiary basis for judicial review of the validity of a UAO is overly restricted. [11] But a challenge to those statutory requirements is a facial challenge to the statute itself, not a pattern and practice claim. As noted above, the district court rejected, on the merits, Goodrich's facial challenge to the statute. Because Goodrich did not appeal that order, we do not reach Goodrich's facial challenge. In conclusion, we hold that the district court correctly held that it lacks jurisdiction over this allegation and over Goodrich's entire pattern and practice claim.