agencies and the [SEC] shall jointly prescribe regulations.” 15 U.S.C. § 78o-11(b)(1) (emphasis added). Nothing in the Administrative Record suggests that the agencies did not fulfill the congressional mandate to jointly adopt uniform rules. See A.R. at JA2167 (79 Fed. Reg. at 77602) (“The OCC, Board, FDIC, [SEC], FHFA, and HUD ... are adopting [this] joint final rule ....”). Because this case presents a situation in which six agencies with overlapping expertise were explicitly tasked by Congress to jointly draft and adopt regulations as part of a coordinated endeavor, this Court declines to conclude that Chevron is not applicable simply because more than one agency was involved in the rulemaking. See Individual Reference Servs. Grp., Inc. v. FTC, 145 F.Supp.2d 6, 24 (D.D.C. 2001) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Trans Union LLC v. FTC, 295
holding that where the subject matter of the statute falls squarely within the agencies areas of expertise and the regulations were issued as a result of a statutorilycoordinated effort among the agencies chevron is the governing standard holding that the mustbill policy is a reasonable implementation of the reimbursement system and consistent with the governing statute and regulations holding regulations entitled to chevron deference holding that because the fcc is authorized to promulgate binding legal rules and it issued the order under review in the exercise of that authority its interpretation of the communications act was entitled to chevron deference holding that where the basis of state claims for medical malpractice relates to the administration of plan benefits those claims fall squarely within the scope of erisa