determination on the existence of equitable considerations which could militate in Service Merchandise’s favor or which could bar Observer’s undercharge claims. During the months that followed, the parties filed various briefs and reply briefs on the issue of referral. Service Merchandise argued in its supporting briefs that the present case involves “negotiated rates” and should be referred to the ICC pursuant to National Industrial Transportation League — Petition to Institute Rulemaking on Negotiated Motor Common Carrier Rates: Ex Parte No. MC-177, 1986 Fed.Carr.Cas. (CCH) Para. 37,284 (1986) [hereinafter NITL — Petition to Institute Rulemaking ], and this Court’s prior decision in Motor Carrier Audit & Collection Co. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 670 F.Supp. 644 (W.D.N.C.1987) (<HOLDING>). Service Merchandise also offered an affidavit
holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure holding that judicial review of final agency action under the administrative procedure act  provides the proper procedure to challenge the sufficiency of an eis holding that equitable jurisdiction might be appropriate when a petitioners failure to properly seek legal relief resulted from errors of procedure and form or the governments own misconduct holding rules of civil procedure are appropriate in determining what constitutes proper service by certified mail holding referral to icc to be appropriate procedure