license for the Diablo Canyon plant." Id. at 4. 225 . Id. at 5. 226 . See Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b (1982). 227 . We thus do not decide whether the Commission’s deliberations in this proceeding are protected from disclosure by exemption 10 of the Sunshine Act, see id. § 552b(c)(10), nor do we consider the possible relevance, if any, of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 727 F.2d 1195 (D.C.Cir.1984), which is heavily relied on by petitioners. 228 . Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Environmental Protection Agency, 627 F.2d 1095, 1105 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert, denied, 446 U.S. 952, 100 S.Ct. 2917, 64 L.Ed.2d 808 (1980). 229 . See National Courier Ass’n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1229, 1241-42 (D.C.Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); Norris & Hirshberg, Inc. v. Securities &
recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address holding that internal agency memoranda are presumptively part of the record on review subject to any privilege the agency might claim one of which is of course that which protects internal memoranda embodying the deliberative processes of the agency and its staff holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review