supported activities conform to “an implementation plan after it has been approved or promulgated under section 7410 of this title.” 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c)(1). • EDF did not present this argument during the rulemaking proceedings. The provision at issue, however, was not included in the proposed rule, so EDF would have had to present its argument, if at all, in a petition for reconsideration. Because the Clean Air Act, unlike some others, does not require exhaustion of all available remedies, compare, e.g., National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) with Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), EDF’s failure to bring a petition for reconsideration does not preclude our hearing its argument. Cf. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 152-54, 113 S.Ct. 2539, 2548, 125 L.Ed.2d 113 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. EPA 46 F.3d 1208, 1210 n.
holding under similar circumstances that the california court of appeals finding of no pretext was unreasonable holding  10c of apa similar in substance to clean air act precludes court from requiring litigants to exhaust optional appeals holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance