752
O'Connor, J., concurring
§ 706(2)(A), that the Secretary acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the new regulations. Under our decision in Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 42 (1983), an agency that departs from its previous rules will be found to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously if it fails "to supply a reasoned analysis for the change . . . ." Although petitioners pressed precisely such an "arbitrary and capricious" challenge before the District Court, for whatever reason, they chose not to raise it before this Court. Regardless of whether the "arbitrary and capricious" claim remains open to these permit holders, the Court's decision does not fore-close such an APA challenge generally by permit holders affected by the 1995 regulations.
With these understandings, I join the Court's opinion.
Page: Index Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25Last modified: October 4, 2007