Opinion ID: 399121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Findings and Reasons

Text: 54 We agree with appellants that, in order to pass muster under the arbitrary and capricious standard, an administrative agency must provide an adequate explanation of the basis for the actions which they take. Pitre Bros. Transfer, Inc. v. United States, 580 F.2d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1978), quoting from Humboldt Express, Inc. v. ICC, 567 F.2d 1134, 1137 (D.C.Cir.1977). See 5 U.S.C. § 557(c) (1977). The Commission ... is required to give reasons for its actions if the protestants raise a material disputed issue or if the existence of a material issue is apparent from the proceedings. Humboldt Express, Inc. v. ICC, supra, 567 F.2d at 1139. Of course, numerous material issues are disputed by appellants here. But we find that although the Commission's explication of this case is far from crystalline, it is sufficient to enable the parties and this Court to understand the decision granting the applications. The ALJ thoroughly abstracted and discussed the evidence, explained the applicable legal standards under the new law, and analyzed the evidence in light of those standards. The Commission corrected several errors in the ALJ's opinion and then adopted its conclusions. This reasoning process was not so clouded as to prevent meaningful judicial review. It also answered appellants' arguments concerning the hearing procedure, the applicability of various legal criteria, and the competitive effects of the applicants' proposed services. In short, we can discern in the Commission's opinion a rational basis for its treatment of the evidence, and the 'arbitrary and capricious' test does not require more. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 290, 95 S.Ct. 438, 444, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974).