Pertinent FACTUAL SCENARIO to my question

1.Purpose: The purpose of this Act is to restore and maintain the impeccable reputation of the American amateur athlete so that that athlete's success reflects only the athlete's skill, hard work and training.

2.Establishment of Federal Amateur Sports Board (FASB): To effectuate this purpose, there is hereby established a new federal agency which shall be called the "Federal Amateur Sports Board" or "FASB."

7.Prohibition:Athletes in amateur sporting competitions are hereby prohibited from using artificial means to enhance their performance.

8.Rulemaking: After a hearing at which oral statements shall be allowed, the FASB, in its discretion, shall promulgate any rule it deems appropriate to effectuate 7.

9. Enforcement: The Chief of Enforcement in FASB may file an administrative complaint against any person alleged to have violated 7.

Pursuant to its authority under Section 8 of the Federal Amateur Sports Act (FASA), the FASB published a notice in the Federal Register proposing that sports organizations be subject to a "No doping / No Exceptions" requirement going forward.In its proposal, the FASB stated that such a requirement is necessary to carry out the prohibition found in Section 7 of the FASA.Under FASB's "No doping / No Exceptions" requirement, any sports organization sponsoring a competition must ensure that there is absolutely no doping by any athlete.

The agency solicited only written comments on its proposed rule during a 60 day comment period.Although several commenters requested an in-person or an online hearing where they could submit their comments orally, the agency refused, saying they had insufficient staffing levels to accommodate this request.

One evening, shortly after the close of the comment period, but before the agency promulgated its final rule, one of the FASB Board members happened to run into the Executive Director of the National Amateur Basketball Association, an old college friend.This friend handed the FASB Administrator a copy of a report detailing the large monetary settlements entered into between athletes and sporting organizations who quarantined athletes prior to an athletic event.The athletes receiving the settlements had sued the basketball association for false imprisonment. The FASB Board member read the report and told his fellow Board members about it, but did not place it in the official record of the athletic competition rulemaking.

Not long after this incident, the FASB published its final rule.In the rule, FASB announced that it had decided to eliminate the "No doping / No Exceptions" requirement for sports organizations running amateur athletic competitions. The agency stated that, although drug use in amateur sporting events continues to be a problem, the potential liability costs associated with quarantining athletes before a race convinced it to drop the requirement altogether.The agency did not discuss any of the other options that it had previously mentioned as meeting the anti-doping policy, such as administering mandatory drug testing. FASB's final rule instituted some minor recordkeeping requirements, but, to the great disappointment of some and the elation of others, did not require sports organizations to abide by a "No doping / No Exceptions" requirement when administering an amateur athletic competition.

My Question is this:

The FASB did not follow the required notice-and-comment procedures under APA 706 (2)(D) and their failure to follow the rulemaking procedure set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553 therefore constitutes agency action taken without observance of procedure required by law in violation of 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(D). If the agency failed to provide an adequate record, the court is to remand the matter back to the agency.

Did the FASB violate any other provisions of APA 706? and what arguments would the FASB argue in order to defend themselves?