Opinion ID: 2506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FCC's Analysis of the Section 534(h)(1)(C) Factors

Text: Cablevision claims that the FCC failed to adequately explain its finding that WRNN provided significant programming targeted to the Long Island communities. By insisting, however, that at a minimum, the FCC was required to explain why Cablevision's arguments and evidence to the contrary were unpersuasive, Cablevision Br. at 35, Cablevision overstates an agency's duty to account for its actions. An administrative agency has a duty to explain its ultimate action. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ([T]he agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.). However, it need not explain each and every step leading to this decision; it is enough if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. Id. 103 S.Ct. 2856 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the reason for the FCC's decision to affirm the Media Bureau's order is perfectly clear: it agreed with the reasoning of the Bureau in most respects and disagreed in certain others, but only in ways that strengthened the validity of the Bureau's decision. In such circumstances, we will not require the FCC to sift through each piece of evidence offered by a party and explain why it is more or less compelling than the counter-evidence put forth by an opponent. The fact that we review agency fact-finding for substantial evidence supports our conclusion that the FCC's explanation was adequate. To determine whether substantial evidence supports a finding, we need ask only whether a reasonable mind might accept [it] as adequate support. Cellular Phone Taskforce, 205 F.3d at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the agency found WRNN's evidence that it had significant Long Island-targeted programming to be more persuasive than Cablevision's evidence to the contrary. We need not know the agency's precise rationale in order to conclude that it was reasonable for the agency to so find. While such an explanation might have aided our reasonableness inquiry, it is not indispensable. Both sides offered evidence regarding WRNN's programming content. According to Cablevision, its evidence showed that WRNN broadcast less than an hour of programming covering Long Island issues in a representative week. Cablevision Br. at 33. WRNN pointed to evidence that it had aired over 4000 Long Island-related items between June and November 2005. It would be reasonable for the agency to resolve this conflicting evidence in favor of WRNN and to conclude (as it obviously did) that Cablevision failed to include some programming that should properly be considered as local to Long Island, or that its sample week was not actually representative. Thus, substantial evidence supports the FCC's finding on this factor. We note that the Bureau, on its initial consideration of this petition, made a contrary finding as to this factor. This fact, however, does not alter our assessment of the FCC's ultimate determination. An agency conclusion may be supported by substantial evidence even though a plausible alternative interpretation of the evidence would support a contrary view. Robinson v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 28 F.3d 210, 215 (D.C.Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). On questions of fact, our task on review is not to displace [the agency's final] choice between two fairly conflicting views. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).
After the Bureau issued its 2006 Order, but before the FCC affirmed it, Verizon began carrying WRNN on its FiOS system to areas of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 2007 FCC Order, 22 F.C.C.R. at 21056 ¶ 4 & n. 15. The FCC concluded that this overlapping carriage provides support for WRNN-DT with respect to the historic carriage factor. Id. at ¶ 4 n. 15. In a single paragraph in its brief, Cablevision argues that this analysis is contrary to clear statutory language because [c]arriage initiated in the past few months does not constitute historical carriage. Cablevision Br. at 36-37. Cablevision, however, fails to supply a contrary, correct definition of historically carried, and does not discuss whether we should defer to the Bureau's interpretation of the term, in accordance with Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), as we did with the must-carry statute generally in WLNY-TV, Inc. v. FCC, 163 F.3d at 142. Even if Cablevision could demonstrate error in the sense that the Verizon carriage was not historical, they have failed to show why such error would warrant vacatur given that (1) Cablevision does not contest the propriety of considering Verizon's carriage as an unenumerated, non-statutory factor, and (2) the Bureau decided to order carriage despite its belief that WRNN had not been historically carried in the relevant communities. Accordingly, we decline to vacate the FCC's order based on this asserted error in the FCC's analysis of the historical carriage factor.
In its 1997 FCC Order involving Cablevision and WRNN, the Commission stated that Grade B contour coverage, in the absence of other determinative market facts (i.e.[,] ... a terrain obstacle such as a mountain range or a significant body of water), is an efficient tool to adjust market boundaries. 1997 FCC Order, 12 F.C.C.R. at 12271 ¶ 17. Cablevision contends that the Hudson River, the Long Island Sound, and the skyline of New York City constitute such terrain obstacles, and it was therefore inconsistent with the 1997 FCC Order for the FCC and the Bureau to weigh Grade B contour in WRNN's favor here. Cablevision Br. at 38. The 1997 FCC Order itself forcefully rejects this reasoning, because it explicitly endorses the use of Grade B contour as proof of market in the New York City DMA the same context in which Cablevision now contends that relying on Grade B contour is inappropriate. Because the 1997 FCC Order establishes, rather than refutes, the relevance of Grade B contour in market modifications within the New York City DMA, the FCC's decision here is consistent with its precedent.
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.