934 F.Supp.2d at 13-15. Plaintiffs assert that because the Court found the first part of the agency’s order to be invalid, the Court must declare the entire order invalid: according to plaintiffs, the Court “is not permitted to deconstruct a challenged agency action and uphold only those portions of the agency’s actions which the Court finds to be lawful.” Pis.’ Opp. & Cross-Mot. at 8-9, citing Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 579 F.3d 1, 10 (D.C.Cir.2009) (Randolph, J., concurring). But the APA specifically provides that a reviewing court may hold unlawful an “agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and the definition of agency action “includes the whole or a part of” an agency order. 5 U.S.C. § 551(13) (emphasis added); see also Catholic Soc. Serv. v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 1123, 1128 (D.C.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). So the Court rejects plaintiffs’ contention
holding that a statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived of to justify it holding that a forum selection clause should control absent a strong showing that it be set aside as unreasonable unjust or invalid holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances holding that courts may reject only part of a rule found to be invalid because it would  exceed the statutory scope of review for a court to set aside an entire rule where only a part is invalid and where the remaining portion may sensibly be given independent life