Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

This suggests that McLeodUSA likewise no longer should be considered a significant competitor in the Omaha marketplace. We also note record evidence that Integra, which had been contemplating entry into the Omaha market, abandoned its plans to do so after the Commission issued the Qwest Omaha Forbearance Order. 25 FCC Rcd. at 8640-41, 34 (footnotes omitted). The Commission acknowledged that "multiple factors" could explain this decline and that it was "beyond the scope of this proceeding to estimate the extent of competition in Omaha today." Id. at 8640 n. 105, 8641, 34. However, the Commission was entitled to consider this new data as probative of the soundness (or lack thereof) of its prior conclusions. See George E. Warren Corp. v. U.S. EPA, 159 F.3d 616, 626-27 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), amended on other grounds by 164 F.3d 676
Holding statements: (A) holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability (B) holding that it was not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to change course when one of its basic assumptions in earlier rulemaking was contradicted by new data (C) holding that any alteration to agency action can be held arbitrary and capricious if the agency does not satisfactorily explain its reason for the alteration (D) holding that the circuit court was not authorized to overturn state agencys decision where the sanction was lawful authorized and within the discretion of the agency and it was not shown to be arbitrary or capricious (E) holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute
(B)