Laserfiche WebLink
2004); see also Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. Envtl. <br /> Protection Agency, 752 F.3d 999, 1011, 410 U.S. App. D.C. 50 (D.C. Cir. <br /> 2014) ("[An] agency is not free to ignore or violate its regulations while <br /> they remain in effect." (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is in fact <br /> "axiomatic that an agency must adhere to its own regulations." Brock v. <br /> Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Co., 796 F.2d 533, 536, 254 U.S. App. D.C. <br /> 242 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This ensures reliability and fairness. Sierra Club <br /> v.Flowers, 526 F.3d 1353, 1368(11th Cir. 2008) (Kravitch, J., concurring <br /> in part and dissenting in part). <br /> Indeed, requiring an agency to follow its own regulations comports with <br /> principles of due process; that is, the public is entitled to know the <br /> manner in which an agency will render a decision and the factors the <br /> agency will consider. See Lobato v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 105 P.3d <br /> 220, 228 (Colo. 2005) (due process principles require agencies to put <br /> individuals on notice of the agency's procedures); accord Montilla v. <br /> Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 926 F.2d 162, 164 (2d Cir. 1991) <br /> (the "notion of fair play" precludes an agency from having promulgated <br /> a regulation affecting individual interests and then ignoring or <br /> disregarding the regulation in its discretion). In light of these principles, <br /> "[t]he failure of an agency to comply with its own regulations constitutes <br /> arbitrary and capricious conduct." Simmons v. Block, 782 F.2d 1545, <br /> 1550 (11th Cir. 1986). An agency must scrupulously follow the <br /> regulations and procedures it promulgates and, if it does not, the court <br /> may strike the agency's action. See id.; see also United States ex rel. <br /> Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 266-67, 74 S. Ct. 499, 98 I.. Ed. <br /> 681 (1954); Exportal LTDA v. United States, 902 F.2d 45, 46, 284 U.S. <br /> App. D.C. 80 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (reversing agency action that was "flatly <br /> inconsistent with the plain terms" of the agency's regulations); Am. <br /> Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO, Local 3090 v. Fed. Labor Relations <br /> Auth., 777 F.2d 751, 758, 250 U.S. App. D.C. 92 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency <br /> action that is inconsistent with its existing regulations cannot be <br /> sustained by the court). <br /> Thus, as the decisionmaker in an adjudicatory hearing, it was the Board's job to <br /> ensure that DRMS rules were scrupulously followed. With regard to topsoil, the <br /> issue was incredibly straightforward. Division Staff advocated for a "wait and see" <br /> approach, arguing that any deficiencies in the revegetation plan could be remedied <br /> 4 <br />