Did the Federal Circuit err in holding that the Secretary's 'final agency action' which determined that imports of steel 'threaten to impair the national security' is not subject to arbitrary and capricious review as prescribed by the APA?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correctly held that the Secretary of Commerce’s determination that steel imports threaten to impair national security under Section 232(b)(8)(A) of the Trade Expansion Act, was “final agency action” within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704, as it changed the legal landscape by providing the President with additional tariff authority usually held by Congress. However, the Panel erroneously ruled that the Secretary’s action was not subject to judicial review under the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard set out in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). This latter ruling conflicts with precedents of this Court and other federal Courts of Appeals. This petition presents two questions: 1. Did the Federal Circuit err in holding that the Secretary’s “final agency action” which determined that imports of steel “threaten to impair the national security” is not subject to arbitrary and capricious review as prescribed by the APA? 2. Did the Federal Circuit correctly interpret the explicit Congressional requirement of Section 232 that the Secretary must find that imports “threaten to impair” national security?