in H.R.Rep.No.93-1381, supra note 13, at 10. The accompanying Committee Report contains no comment upon this section. But its inclusion might reflect a congressional understanding that judicial review was to extend only to the failure to hold the hearing mandated by the capital incentive provision. In that circumstance only could a rate be suspended for unlawfulness notwithstanding the expiration of the approval period. On the other hand, the section may have signified nothing more than a congressional intent to assure in this context the reviewability of Commission decisions not to investigate a proposed rate, a matter that as a general proposition has only very recently been resolved. See Southern Ry. Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.,-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 2388, 60 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Asphalt Roofíng Mfg. Ass’n v. ICC, 186
holding that the duty to investigate applied to a specific murder suspect holding that an agencys decision to reach a settlement is nonreviewable holding counsel ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence holding that the faas decision not to renew an aircraft examiners authority is nonreviewable holding icc decision not to investigate nonreviewable