and capricious.” INGAA Segmentation Br. at 16 (quoting Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 824 F.2d 981, 1019 (D.C.Cir.1987) (“AGD”)). According to INGAA, the Commission’s vague observation that “some pipelines” do not permit segmentation where it is operationally feasible, Order No. 637 at 31,301, does not sufficiently illustrate the existence of an industry-wide anti-competitive practice that the Commission purports to seek to eliminate with its broad rule. INGAA Segmentation Br. at 16. INGAA somewhat misinterprets the law when it insists that a problem must necessarily be widespread to permit a generic solution. The very quotation from AGD on which INGAA relies shows that proportionality between the identified problem and the remedy is the key. See also AGD, 824 F.2d at 1019 (<HOLDING>). Here the Commission could reasonably consider
holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that it is not holding that the commission could not rely on generic analysis where it expressly found that only a limited segment of the industry was affected by the problem it sought to address while the remedy adopted would necessarily impact other segments holding that impoundment could not interrupt a bailees possession because under the 1909 act the remedy was expressly limited to infringers holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction