470 U.S. at 744, 105 S.Ct. 1598). “ ‘[D]e novo review is appropriate only where there are inadequate factfinding procedures in an adjudicatory proceeding, or where judicial proceedings are brought to enforce certain administrative actions.’ ” Id. (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)). A court need not remand to an agency when: (1) although the agency failed to abide by the proper procedures of the APA, it arrived at its conclusion in another manner which was valid under the APA, NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969); or (2) even if the agency did not abide by the proper regulations, the agency took corrective action, making remand meaningless, A.L. Pharma, Inc. v. Shalala, 62 F.3d 1484 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); or (3) plaintiffs conceded the issue to be
holding that remand was meaningless on one issue but still remanding the case to the agency on another issue holding previous case when no one challenged the issue could not be precedent on the issue holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  