Michael Manin, an airline pilot, was twice convicted of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor. To renew his flight certification with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Manin filed an application that asked him about his criminal history. He did not disclose his two convictions. When these came to light more than ten years later, Manin argued that he had not known that he was required to report convictions for minor misdemeanors. The NTSB's policy was to consider an applicant's understanding of what information a question sought before determining whether an answer was false. But without explanation, the agency departed from this policy, refused to consider Manin's argument, and revoked his certification. Was this action arbitrary and capricious? The NTSB is an (executive/independent regulatory) administrative agency.

As an administrative agency, the NTSB exercises powers associated with the three branches of government: the legislative branch through (rulemaking/enforcement/adjudicatio n) ; the executive branch, through (rulemaking/enforcement/adjudicatio n); and the judicial branch, through (rulemaking/enforcement/adjudicatio n).

When making rules, 1. (Congress/The Independent Regulatory Agency Act/The Enabling Legislation Act) and the 2. (The Administrative Procedures Act/The Independent Regulatory Agency Act/The Enabling Legislation Act) governs an agency's rulemaking, enforcement and adjudication processes.

The Administrative Procedures Act provides that a court (should/may) set aside agency actions found to be 1. (arbitrary/improper/unconscionable) , 2. (capricious/improper/unconscionable ), 3. (an abuse of discretion/improper/unconscionable) .

The factors the court can consider in determining whether an agency's actions are arbitrary and capricious are:
1. Failed to provide a (rational/justification/inappropria te/relevant/contrary) explanation for its decision.

2. Changed its prior policy without (rational/justification/inappropria te/relevant/contrary).

3. Considered legally (rational/justification/inappropria te/relevant/contrary) factors.

4. Entirely failed to consider a (rational/justification/inappropria te/relevant/contrary) factor.

5. Rendered a decision plainly (rational/justification/inappropria te/relevant/contrary) to the evidence.

The NTSB in this case did which of the following: (failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision/considered legally inappropriate factors/entirely failed to consider a relevant factor/rendered a decision contrary to the evidence) and (changed its prior policy without justification/considered legally inappropriate factors/entirely failed to consider a relevant factor/rendered a decision contrary to the evidence).

Therefore, the NTSB's decision (was/was not) arbitrary and capricious.

WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT

The NTSB decided to change its policy before Manin renewed his flight certification to require pilots to disclose all criminal offenses, excluding moving traffic violations (e. g. traffic ticket for speeding), unless the pilot had received more than three in the last five years. The purpose of this policy change was due to the fact that the NTSB had started hear about more pilots being convicted of misdemeanor offenses that had not been a major issue in the past, so the NTSB had not requested the information on any new or renewal certifications. The primary goal of this change was to protect the public (e. g, the passengers). The NTSB met with the pilots union for input before making a final decision. Notification of this policy change was disseminated through the pilots union at its request, and was also included on the renewal certification application itself, and in the instructions. Manin failed to disclose his misdemeanor criminal offenses and the NTSB denied his renewal certification.

Given these facts, the NTSB's decision (would/would not) be arbitrary and capricious.