could apply to a challenge that an agency acted outside of its statutory authority, given that 'it is central to the real meaning of the rule of law ... that a federal agency does not have the power to act unless Congress, by statute, has empowered it to do so.’ ” Pis.' Reply Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 11 n.7 (quoting Transohio Sav. Bank v. Dir., Office of Thrift Supervision, 967 F.2d 598, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). In essence, the plaintiffs suggest that a § 706(2)(C) argument — as contrasted with a § 706(2)(A) arbitrary and capricious argument — can never be waived. The. plaintiffs cite no caselaw establishing that a § 706(2)(C) argument cannot be waived. Indeed, at least one' case holds the opposite. See Alliance for Natural Health U.S. v. Sebelius, 775 F.Supp.2d 114, 126 (D.D.C. 2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S.
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that the plaintiffs  7062c argument that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority was administratively waived since the argument had not been raised during notice and comment rulemaking holding that the appellees argument was waived because they had expressly abandoned the argument before the administrative agency holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived