Opinion ID: 446619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequacy of the Commission's Articulation of its Findings

Text: 43 Petitioners contend that the Commission's articulation of its findings and the bases thereof was inadequate under the APA, specifically 5 U.S.C. Sec. 557(c)(3)(A). We conclude that, except for its finding of public need, 8 the Commission adequately articulated its findings. 44 We may overturn as arbitrary and capricious a finding whose bases the Commission does not adequately explain, even though it may be supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 284, 95 S.Ct. 438, 441, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974); Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. v. I.C.C., 690 F.2d 537, 544 (6th Cir.1982). Our conclusion that the Commission's fitness finding is minimally supported by the evidence, therefore, does not make automatic the conclusion that the Commission adequately articulated this finding. See Central Transport, Inc. v. United States, 694 F.2d 968, 972-74 (4th Cir.1982). 45 In this instance, however, the Commission did adequately articulate its fitness finding. When the Commission acknowledged in its Order the existence of the civil action against Manlowe and explained why it could not credit its allegations as evidence, it minimally satisfied 9 both our previous mandate to weigh the competing fitness submissions, and the APA's requirement of reasoned elaboration. We will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. See Lodi Truck Service, Inc. v. United States, 706 F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Bowman Transportation, 419 U.S. at 286, 95 S.Ct. at 442). 46 The decision of the Commission is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.