If a rule is internally inconsistent with other agency actions or statutory objectives, how is it viewed in review?

If a rule is internally inconsistent with other agency actions or statutory objectives, how is it viewed in review?

• A. It is likely reasonable.
• B. It undermines reasonableness and may be invalid.
• C. It is automatically binding.
• D. It is outside the agency's jurisdiction.

Answer: (B)

Consistency with the agency’s statutory objectives and with the agency’s own other actions is essential for a rule to be reasonable. When a rule cannot be reconciled with what the agency has previously done or with the statute’s goals, it signals irrationality or policy incoherence. In reasonableness review, such internal inconsistency undermines the rule’s rational connection to the mandate and may lead to invalidation or remand for reconsideration. It’s not automatically binding simply because it exists, and it’s not about jurisdiction alone—the key issue is that the rule clashes with other agency actions or statutory aims, making it unreasonable.

Consistency with the agency’s statutory objectives and with the agency’s own other actions is essential for a rule to be reasonable. When a rule cannot be reconciled with what the agency has previously done or with the statute’s goals, it signals irrationality or policy incoherence. In reasonableness review, such internal inconsistency undermines the rule’s rational connection to the mandate and may lead to invalidation or remand for reconsideration. It’s not automatically binding simply because it exists, and it’s not about jurisdiction alone—the key issue is that the rule clashes with other agency actions or statutory aims, making it unreasonable.