context: Indeed, the fact that the Board's decision is almost entirely unexplained strongly suggests that the Board simply applied subsection (i)(B), which -- post-amendment--plainly forecloses UPMC's interest claim. Thus, the Court must vacate and remand.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A]n administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its action can be sustained."
citation_a.sentence: See PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 52 F.3d 363, 365 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“[W]hen a court reviewing agency action determines that an agency made an error of law, the court’s inquiry is at an end: the case must be remanded tq the agency for further action consistent with the corrected legal standards.”); cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) (“[A]n administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its action can be sustained.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 52 F.3d 363, 365
citation_b.parenthetical: "[W]hen a court reviewing agency action determines that an agency made an error of law, the court's inquiry is at an end: the case must be remanded tq the agency for further action consistent with the corrected legal standards."
citation_b.sentence: See PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 52 F.3d 363, 365 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“[W]hen a court reviewing agency action determines that an agency made an error of law, the court’s inquiry is at an end: the case must be remanded tq the agency for further action consistent with the corrected legal standards.”); cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95, 63 S.Ct. 454, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943) (“[A]n administrative order cannot be upheld unless the grounds upon which the agency acted in exercising its powers were those upon which its action can be sustained.”).