Opinion ID: 1256088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance With The Transportation Regulation

Text: After holding that the Transportation Regulation was the governing project-specific regulation, the ALJ held that the regulation's criteria were met. As already noted, the Panel affirmed without analysis. The criteria of the Small Islands Regulation are much more stringent than those of the Transportation Regulation. In fact, Respondents have not disputed the meeting of the Transportation Regulation's criteria. Rather, as already discussed, Respondents have argued only that the Small Islands Regulation controls and that its more stringent criteria are not met. Because of our resolution of the first issue, however, we address only the unchallenged ruling that the permit's issuance complied with the criteria of the Transportation Regulation. A ruling not challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the ruling. S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. S.E.C.U.R.E. Underwriters Risk Retention Group, 353 S.C. 249, 251, 578 S.E.2d 8, 9 n. 1 (2003). The law of this case is that the grant of the permit complied with the Transportation Regulation. Moreover, notwithstanding the law of the case, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that the grant of the permit complied with the Transportation Regulation. A reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)(e) (Supp.2003). Substantial evidence is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached. Southeast Res. Recover, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 358 S.C. 402, 407, 595 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2004) (quoting Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981)). [T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984). There is conflicting evidence in the record regarding the permit issuance's compliance with the Transportation Regulation. The evidence that the issuance did comply constitutes substantial evidence.