Opinion ID: 368276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Arbitrary and Capricious Charge

Text: 48 The arbitrary and capricious standard requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency's judgment so long as it has a rational basis. 21 49 We have previously listed in part I.C. Supra, the grounds expressly relied upon by the ICC to justify its prospective general finding. The two grounds of apparently greatest importance are (1) the finding by the ICC staff that rate discrimination as practiced by dual operators is virtually non-existent within the industry and (2) the staff conclusion that Section 218 of the Act provides a more effective method to monitor rate practices and abuses in the industry. 50 Those findings were echoed in the majority of comments of the parties responding to the Commission's rule making proceedings and the rational nexus between those findings and the Commission's actions has not been undermined by the petitioners' charges. 51 Nor do we think that the final rule represents a radical departure from the Commission's prior interpretation of Section 210. As we have previously observed, the ICC precedent in this matter reflects a flexible approach responsive to the dynamic changes occurring in the transportation industry. The factual findings of those decisions reveal a growing realization of the difficulties related to the Commission's strict application of Section 210, which the final rule attempts to remedy.