A court reviews a agency regulation adopted pursuant to quasi-legislative authority delegated by Congress under an arbitrary and capricious standard, requiring the regulation to be reasonable and reasonably explained.  5 USC 706(2)(A).  However, judicial review is deferential.   A court simply ensures that the agency has acted within a zone of reasonableness and, in particular, has reasonably considered the relevant issues and reasonably explained the decision.  Here, the FCC’s regulation withdrawing a prior restriction on TV station ownership adequately explained why the FCC felt the regulation was not needed to promote minority and women-owned stations, based on its fragmentary data on the impact of a prior loosening of the same regulation.  In doing so, the FCC did not err.  It did not have perfect empirical or statistical data and was not required to conduct its own empirical or statistical study before adopting its regulation.  It had requested data in its notice of proposed rulemaking, but received none.  In the absence of additional data from commenters, the FCC made a reasonable predictive judgment based on the evidence it had.