AP&AA v.

Boyd – the concise general statement of basis and purpose

should allow the court to “see what major issues of policy were
ventilated by the informal proceedings and why the agency reacted to
them as it did.” THE GOAL is to see whether the agency ‘legislated’ in a
manner calculated to negate the dangers of irrationality and
arbitrariness.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturer’s Assn v. State Farm

Facts: Reagan’s NHTSA found that, first, manufacturers would choose to

comply with the regulation by including seatbelts rather than airbags,
and, second, the regulation would not increase seatbelt use enough to
justify its costs

RULE: [A] reviewing court may not set aside an agency rule that is rational, based on
consideration of the relevant factors and within the scope of the authority delegated to the
agency by the statute ... The scope of review under the "arbitrary and capricious" standard
is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Nevertheless,
the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its
action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. In
reviewing that explanation, we must consider whether the decision was based on a
consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.

A Rule is A+C IF:

 the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,
 entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
 offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before
the agency,
 or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the
product of agency expertise

We may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has
not given. We will, however, uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the
agency's path may reasonably be discerned

Rule Application

Failure to consider alternatives: Rescission removed ALL passive

restraint requirements in response to anticipated failure ONE possible
passive restraint (detachable automatic belts) -> agency did not
consider modifying 208 to require only airbags and not belts.
Uncertainty about effectiveness of a regulation is sufficient to support
rescission without being A+C IF the agency explains the connection
between the facts found and its choice.

Here, the agency did NOT show direct evidence that the change
to detachable automatic belts would prevent an increase in
seatbelt use.