De novo review is not a scope of review standard used by courts to review administrative agency decisions. De novo review is a type of judicial review in which the court reviews the evidence and makes its own independent decision on the merits of the case, without giving deference to the agency's decision.

Under the rational basis standard of review, a court will uphold an administrative agency's decision if the decision is supported by a rational explanation. This means that the agency's decision must be based on facts and evidence that are relevant to the issue being decided, and that the agency must have articulated a rational connection between the facts and evidence and its decision.

Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, a court will uphold an administrative agency's decision if the decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. This means that the agency's decision must be based on a consideration of the relevant facts and evidence, and that the agency must have explained its decision in a way that allows the court to understand the basis for the decision.

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, a court will uphold an administrative agency's decision if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. This means that the agency's decision must be supported by evidence that is relevant, material, and probative, and that the evidence must be sufficient to support a reasonable person's conclusion that the agency's decision is correct.

Whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence is not a factor that a court will consider when reviewing an administrative agency's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The substantial evidence standard of review is a more stringent standard of review than the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, and it requires the court to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by evidence that is relevant, material, and probative, and that the evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable person's conclusion that the agency's decision is correct.

Whether the agency's decision is rational is not a factor that a court will consider when reviewing an administrative agency's decision under the substantial evidence standard of review. The rational basis standard of review is a less stringent standard of review than the substantial evidence standard of review, and it requires the court to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by a rational explanation.

Whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence is not a question that a court will consider when reviewing an administrative agency's rule under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The substantial evidence standard of review is a more stringent standard of review than the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, and it requires the court to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by evidence that is relevant, material, and probative, and that the evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable person's conclusion that the agency's decision is correct.

Whether the agency's decision is rational is not a question that a court will consider when reviewing an administrative agency's rule under the substantial evidence standard of review. The rational basis standard of review is a less stringent standard of review than the substantial evidence standard of review, and it requires the court to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by a rational explanation.

In FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, the Supreme Court of the United States applied the substantial evidence standard of review, not the rational basis standard of review.

In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States applied the rational basis standard of review, not the arbitrary and capricious standard of review.

In FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States applied the rational basis standard of review, not the substantial evidence standard of review.

A court will apply the rational basis standard of review to an administrative agency's decision if the decision is based on a rational explanation. This means that the agency's decision must be based on facts and evidence that are relevant to the issue being decided, and that the agency must have articulated a rational connection between the facts and evidence and its decision.

A court will apply the arbitrary and capricious standard of review to an administrative agency's decision if the decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. This means that the agency's decision must be based on a consideration of the relevant facts and evidence, and that the agency must have explained its decision in a way that allows the court to understand the basis for the decision.

A court will apply the substantial evidence standard of review to an administrative agency's decision if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. This means that the agency's decision must be supported by evidence that is relevant, material, and probative, and that the evidence must be sufficient to support a reasonable person's conclusion that the agency's decision is correct.

The de novo standard of review is not a deferential standard of review. Under the de novo standard of review, the court reviews the evidence and makes its own independent decision on the merits of the case, without giving deference to the agency's decision.