norml02 - Page 33

 l
 I C. TEE ADMINISTRATOR PROPERLY APPLIED THE STATUTE TO THE
 EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE°
 Petitioners also argue that the Administrator has not made a
 I 'Flair and thorough I' evaluation of the record in this case. The
 Administrator's factual findings, "if supported by substantial
 evidence, [are] conclusive°" 21 U.S_Co 877 (!988)o With respect
 to the Administrator's application of the statute to the
 I evidence, this court must _'set aside agency action [and] findings
 i [that are] arbitrary t capricious, [or] an abuse of discretions"
 5 U.S.Co 706 (1988} (originally enacted as the Administrative
 Procedure Actf _ 10(e), 60 Stato 237, 243 (1946))o This court
 has suggested that the difference between these two standards is
 _'largely semantic°" Ass_n of Data Process__o_q Service
 Or_anizations_Inc_ v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
 S y_stem, 745 F°2d 677, 684 (D.C. Ciro 1984) o Applying the
 I arbitrary or capricious standard, a court looks for _'a rational
 connection between the facts found and the choice made," Motor
 Vehicle Manufacturers As, On v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
 Insurance COos 463 UoS° 29 (1983), adopts a _'narrow standard of
 review '_ and does not _substitute its jud_Tment for that of the
 agency, '_ see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park_ Inc. v° Volp_e,
 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
 Io TEE ADMINISTRATOR'S EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE WAS
 FAIR AND UNBIASED_
 I Petitioners contend that the Administrator unfairly evaluated
 the evidence presented to the AIM by Hexperts_ physicians, and
 lay witnesses, and failed to give proper deference to the ALJ's