the parties, made a decision beyond the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling decisions or data, or [indicates that] a controlling or significant change in the law has occurred.” Singh, 383 F.Supp.2d at 101. Defendant fails to explain, for example, how the Court erred by requiring NIH to search a facility it owns, for records it requires to be maintained and to which it has access, relating to the care of animals that it owns. Although the Court acknowledges that NIH’s contractor CRL may possess the documents on a day-to-day basis, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that records need not be generated by an agency, or in the actual possession of an agency, for the records to be considered “owned or obtained” by an agency. See Burka, 87 F.3d at 515 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Defendant offers no basis for
holding that various data tapes were owned or obtained by the agency even though they were neither created by agency employees nor  currently located on agency property because the firm that created the tapes acted on behalf of the agency in creating the tapes holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power holding that tapes made by fbi informant were admissible under  25112ed holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding deference is owed to the decisionmaker authorized to speak on behalf of the agency not to each individual agency employee