see 7 U .S.C. § 6998(b), who, under the relevant regulations, may subsequently be petitioned to reconsider his or her decision, see 7 C.F.R. § 11.11. Finally, Congress provided for judicial review under standards established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), see 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, including reversal of the final agency decision if it is “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B). II. We believe, as the Court held in Chilicky, that the exhaustive scheme of remedies summarized above, supplemented by judicial review of constitutional violations, precludes the Carpenters’ Bivens action. Cf. Maxey v. Kadrovach, 890 F.2d 73, 75-76 (8th Cir.1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 933, 110 S.Ct. 2176, 109 L.Ed.2d 505 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The Carpenters contend, as the Chilicky
holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review holding that the apa does not afford an implied grant of subjectmatter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record