106 (1973). Thus, the AR may be “supplemented, if necessary, by affidavits, depositions, or other proof of an explanatory nature.” Arkla Exploration Co. v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp., 734 F.2d 347, 357 (8th Cir.1984). “The new material, however, should be explanatory of the decisionmakers’ action at the time it occurred. No new rationalizations for the agency’s decision should be included.” Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 772-73 (1st Cir.1992). When adverse impacts are set forth in great detail in extra-record written submissions, “the court properly can consider this record in determining whether there exists a rational basis for the [agency] decision.” Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Energy Admin., 398 F.Supp. 865, 874 (D.D.C. 1975). But cf. Smith v. FTC, 403 F.Supp. 1000, 1008 (D.C.Del.1975) (<HOLDING>). A court may also elect to allow extra-record
holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding specifications of error in appeal from administrative agency decision must be reasonably specific and calculated to identify the matters truly at issue sufficient to fairly apprise the agency other parties and the court of the particular issues claimed holding that because the scope of review of agency matters is confined to the administrative record discovery in the form of depositions from agency officials was improper and irrelevant