a simpler model” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); WorldCom, 238 F.3d at 459 (the agency’s “decision to make ease of administration and enforceability a consideration” was not arbitrary and capricious); Pub. Serv. Co. of New Mexico v. FERC, 653 F.2d 681, 690 (D.C.Cir.1981) (“Administrative feasibility is a factor that may be considered in determining whether agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”). Importantly, the Bank’s decision to adopt a practical and time-sensitive approach also is consistent with the Bank Act — which requires the Bank to align its decision-making process within the time-frames of a commercial transaction while carrying out its mission to support U.S. exports, see, e.g., 12 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1)(B); S.Rep. No. 99-274, at 8 (1986) (<HOLDING>) — while Plaintiffs’ alternative methodology,
recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief holding no judicial remedy available to fostvedt for irs failure to timely respond to his request for technical advice holding that requests for admissions seeking purely legal conclusions are inappropriate and the failure to respond to such a request may not be the basis for a summaiy judgment recognizing the need for the bank to respond to exporters requests for support in a timely  fashion recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies