at 7-13. “ Whether an administrative agency’s order or regulation is severable ... depends on the issuing agency’s intent.’ ” Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. v. EPA 108 F.3d 1454, 1459 (D.C.Cir.1997), quoting North Carolina v. FERC, 730 F.2d 790, 795-96 (D.C.Cir.1984). In analyzing whether an agency action is severable, courts consider whether the parts of the order are “intertwined” or whether “they operate entirely independently of one another.” Id. In doing so, they examine the purpose of the agency’s action and whether the action “sensibly serve[s] the goals for which it was designed” without the severed portion. MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass’n v. FCC, 253 F.3d 732, 734 (D.C.Cir.2001); see also Assoc. of Private Colleges & Universities v. Duncan, 870 F.Supp.2d 133, 155-57 (D.D.C.2012) (<HOLDING>). According to the D.C. Circuit, reviewing
holding that assault and kidnapping charges do not merge as they are not the same act for purposes of blockburger  and as each required proof of an element the other did not recognizing that the application of fourth amendment rights are personal in nature and are invariably intertwined with the concept of standing holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived recognizing that determinations of whether there are grounds for equitable tolling are highly fact dependent