Opinion ID: 799202
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Board's Decision is Arbitrary or Capricious

Text: PRTC's final argument is that the Board's state-law contractual determination was arbitrary or capricious and must be reversed. This claim fails. We review the Board's findings of facts and applications of the law in resolving disputes over the terms of an agreement under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Centennial P.R. License Corp. v. Telecomms. Regulatory Bd. of P.R., 634 F.3d 17, 26 (1st Cir.2011). Under this standard, `an agency's decision will be upheld unless the agency lacks a rational basis for making the determination or if the decision was not based on consideration of the relevant factors.' P.R. Tel. Co. v. Telecomms. Regulatory Bd. of P.R., 665 F.3d 309, 319 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Centennial P.R. License, 634 F.3d at 37) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Review under this standard is narrow, and if the agency's decision is supported by a rational basis, we will affirm. Id. (quoting River St. Donuts, LLC v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 111, 114 (1st Cir.2009)). The Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, but is entirely rational based on the evidence before it, including PRTC's volte face on what the ICA meant. The Board has considerable expertise in the field of interpreting and assessing ICAs, and considered the relevant billing records, correspondence between the parties, two expert reports, and deposition testimony. PRTC's argument that the Board's decision was arbitrary or capricious largely relies on PRTC's claim that the Board's interpretation would result in a violation of federal law under the filed rate doctrine, an argument which we have rejected. The remaining portion of PRTC's argument is that the contract is ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of PRTC. The Board's rejection of the argument is neither arbitrary nor capricious.