the plaintiffs complain. As a result, ODOT alone bore the risk that the EA and the “preferred alternative” it suggested would be rejected by the federal agency. Thus, there is nothing to rebut the presumption of regularity and no reason to presume that the federal decision-maker was influenced by the state’s expenditure. See North Carolina v. City of Virginia Beach, 951 F.2d 596, 602-03 (4th Cir.1991); Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415, 91 S.Ct. 814 (finding that an agency’s decision “is entitled to a presumption of regularity”). Furthermore, upon review of the record, it is clear to this Court that any actual conflict of interest was trivial, and sufficiently circumscribed by the federal agency’s oversight. See Associations Working for Aurora’s Residential Environment, 153 F.3d at 1129 (<HOLDING>). Finally, as no federal funds or obligations
recognizing conflict holding that a court may consider the facts surrounding a purported conflict of interest and determine whether agency oversight cures the purported conflict recognizing the conflict holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed