Opinion ID: 2506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Local Service Factor

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).