How does a regulatory agency or a reviewing court deal with the multiple “enacted purposes” that may exist in a regulatory statute? In this Article it is argued that the problem of multiple purposes can be optimally dealt with by looking at these purposes as forming an optimization problem—minimization or maximization. This novel approach requires identifying, if possible, one purpose as the primary objective and then treating the other clearly stated purposes as constraints. Depending on the issue at hand, not all constraints will be relevant. However, the primary objective will always need to be considered. Once the primary objective and applicable constraints are identified, then the result can be used to define ambiguous statutory terms such as “in the public interest.”<br><br>This optimization approach is utilized in evaluating the legal validity of the Surface Transportation Board’s new rule, Reciprocal Switching for Inadequate Service. The Board regulates the freight rail industry under the authority of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. Reciprocal switching “is an arrangement that permits an industry served by a single rail carrier to access additional rail services through a competing line haul carrier.” The validity of the new rule is currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.