Opinion ID: 2506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Other Stations and Viewing Patterns Factors

Text: Cablevision also alleges error in the FCC's treatment of the two remaining statutory factors. In the instant order, the FCC stated that Congress did not intend the `coverage by other qualified stations' factor to bar a request for extending a station's market when other stations could be shown to serve the communities at issue. 2007 FCC Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 21055-56 ¶ 4. In essence, then, the FCC decided to give the factor significant weight when a lack of coverage by other stations favored including a community in a station's market, but to discount its importance when the existence of coverage arguably cut against inclusion. Cablevision argues that this decision is directly contrary to ... the statutory text. Cablevision Br. at 40. This argument is unavailing. The text of the statute directs the agency to consider a number of factors, and it is clear from the opinion that both the FCC and the Bureau did consider this factor. Upon doing so, the FCC saw no reason to depart from its normal policy, which is to discount the other stations' coverage factor when it tends to cut against inclusion. Unsurprisingly, Cablevision cites no decision of this court vacating a decision because we disagree with an agency's weighing of a statutory factor. The law is to the contrary. In interpreting another provision of the 1992 Cable Act that directs the FCC to undertake a factoral analysis, the D.C. Circuit concluded that giving little or no weight to a statutory factor, as long as the factor is expressly considered, does not violate the statute: [T]he statute by its terms merely requires the Commission to consider the... factors.... That means only that it must reach an express and considered conclusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any specific weight to it. Therefore, when the Commission, after expressly considering the potential role of the ... factor, ultimately concluded that it should not be given any weight, it did not violate the statute. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151, 175 (D.C.Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This sound reasoning is equally applicable here. Cablevision also argues that the FCC improperly weighed the evidence with respect to the viewership patterns factor. This argument fails for the same reasons.