review in multiple courts.” See id.; see also Bowen, 476 U.S. at 643 n.30, 106 S.Ct. 2101 (concluding that a single agency’s rulemaking did not command deference where twenty-seven agencies of varying fields of expertise separately “promulgated regulations forbidding discrimination on the basis of’ disability in federal programs because the basis of expertise on which Chevron deference is predicated was absent). The specter of diminished agency expertise and potentially discordant rules does not loom in this case because the statutory mandate at issue does not encourage differing interpretations by various agencies. Rather, the statute provides that “the Federal b 42 (D.C. Cir. 2002); see also New Life Evangelistic Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, 753 F.Supp.2d 103, 122-23 (D.D.C. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Because this case concerns a single, unified
holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that even in considering a purely legal issue a court should grant great deference to reasonable interpretation of statutes by agencies charged with administering those statutes holding that where multiple agencies are charged with administering a statute a single agencys interpretation is generally not entitled to chevron deference but concluding that there would be no comparable concern if all three agencies charged with administering the statute in question pressed the same interpretation before this court recognizing that where an agency is charged with the execution of a statute the agencys interpretation should not be overruled without cogent reason holding that when a court is asked to construe an ambiguous statute it must defer to the interpretation set out in a regulation promulgated by the agency charged with administering the statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable