report (“monitoring functions required of the EPA by section 6 [of the Senate Bill] are not likely to increase costs because they would most likely be carried out (as they would have been under current law) by registrants of organotin-containing substances ....”) (quoting letter from James Blum to Hon. Quentin N. Burdick, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (December 3, 1987)) S.Rep. No. 237, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. at 9 (1987). 15 . Chevron, U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782 n. 9, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 16 . Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 919 F.2d 158, 162-63 (D.C.Cir.1990). 17 . See Plaintiffs’ SJ at 16-17. 18 . 5 U.S.C. 551(4) (1988). 19 . See e.g., NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 294, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1771, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974) (<HOLDING>); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-03,
holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court holding that younger principles apply to an action for damages that relates to a pending state proceeding holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that the board was not precluded from announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding