WPC; 28BH ZRoman3|P (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (TT)b7PC2XO(XP\  P6QXP.c7UC2XHXU4  pQX dy.K8?X3K\  P@QPeW!0(Xh0\  P6QhPfy.C8*XC\  P6QPgI(!X,(\  P6Q,P+X\  P6QP`WWWWWWWWWW,,iqiOvW`\`\Wdi0A`Omd````WSiWiW\W===`W,W\S\S9S`00\0`W\WJJA`OiWSO=#=i,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,SWW\0\`WWWWWWW0qWW,SA,,WWWWWWOWWWWWWW\\\\\0000`d`````W`iiii\\`WWWWWWSSSSS0000W`WWWWWOW````S\Xerox DocuTech 135 PCL5ePT1XEDO13PC.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,"n|XP2  jt33|j I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)d8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)n Italic2 9=XX1K| Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Roman)PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)b7PC2XO(XP\  P6QXP.c7UC2XHXU4  pQX dy.K8?X3K\  P@QPW!0(Xh0\  P6QhP\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2%K KDKK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72KWvpk"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""1!1"4#46Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#toc 1toc 1!` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 2toc 2"` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3#` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2T?$8%:&<'v>toc 4toc 4$` hp x (#4 <4 <` hp x (#toc 5toc 5%` hp x (#4<4<` hp x (#toc 6toc 6&` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 7toc 7' 2G(?)A*C+Etoc 8toc 8(` hp x (#44` hp x (#toc 9toc 9)` hp x (#44` hp x (#index 1index 1*` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#index 2index 2+` hp x (#4 4 ` hp x (#2L,0H-NJ.K/Ktoatoa,` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption-;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption.11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#endnote referenceendnote reference/44#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2N0L1JM2}M3FNfootnote referencefootnote reference04#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #1'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf2$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf3/` ` ` 2Q4O5O61P7Pa3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf4:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf5E` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf6P  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf7[   2W8Q9RKISKUa7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf8f  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf9q "i~'^2/""""7+((+%"+++%5++"+("%++8++%/+   +++++5'(%%%%++++++++++++++++"+++((( (+&%%%%++++ ++ +*" +%%%%%+#++++5+((("""" %%%++++++8++ %%%+%+"%+& W************************************************xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$$:.....<$<;%.<<$$$22""<2<"((((..7<<.<$# ";$$<"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddddPn<dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddoW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XX    2g7a wd"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCdddddd00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-2"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222%!""""+2{q)Xu\[x"5^2/ """"7+((+%!+++%5++!+(!%++9++%/+  +++++5((%%%%++++++++++++++++!+++((%%%++++++5+!N--..-<;<<N!!"#"#2/ """"7+((+%!+++%5++!+(!%++9++%/+  *<ddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[qC`qSS`*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJSSC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSb7PC2XO(XP\  P6QXP.c7UC2XHXU4  pQX dy.K8?X3K\  P@QP eW!0(Xh0\  P6QhPfy.C8*XC\  P6QPgI(!X,(\  P6Q,Ph+X\  P6QPi{,C8*X9C*f9 xQXj5PC2X96hXP*f9 xQXX I-!&X3,-\  P@Q,P2{ ) i^"5^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CCCCPCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdYddNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYdSC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5^&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!940400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-442-707-7-94944444$44N$2+00020000-00000000N0>+0-000-&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-22(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^"$%%"%"'!"$!""/" "+!""""!!!""NN%"$%%"%"'!"$!""/" "%!""""+!#---++++++5(%%%%+++++++"++++++!(!b7PC2XO(XP\  P6QXP.c7UC2XHXU4  pQX dy.K8?X3K\  P@QP eW!0(Xh0\  P6QhPfy.C8*XC\  P6QPgI(!X,(\  P6Q,Ph+X\  P6QPi{,C8*X9C*f9 xQXj5PC2X96hXP*f9 xQXX kI-!&X3,-\  P@Q,P  +X3ѥ\  P@QPYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,OhCddddCoCCCddFdCNC2Cdddd,dCreaches through its own overtheair transmission. The cable operators also argue that the  xfinancial impact on WEYS should not be the controlling consideration in this matter as Congress did not include the issue of financial impact in the market modification test.  Xv- ` $x8.` ` In reply, WEYS states that the cable operators fail to recognize the significant  xcompetitive factors unique to the Miami ADI. WEYS argues that the loss of cable carriage in  xzBroward and Dade Counties would result in the destruction of the station; it asserts that no  xcommercial television station in this ADI could be successful without access to these two  xcounties. Moreover, WEYS is licensed to a community that can only be located in the Miami  xADI; because Key West is not on the distant border of other ADIs, it has no prospect of  xmodifying its market to include additional communities. WEYS argues that financial  xconsiderations may be considered by the Commission in market modification proceedings because  xCongress did not intend the four statutory factors to be exclusive in the analysis. WEYS  xreiterates that it would be arbitrary and capricious to allow Miami stations access to the Florida  xyKeys via translators but not allow WEYS access to the two counties at issue through the same  xtechnology. Finally, WEYS argues that the Commission should dismiss the cable operators'  x<audience showing because some of the information, submitted by a private marketing consultant, is not verifiable.  X-*0 Discussion ă  X- ` x9.` ` The petition for reconsideration will be denied. Section 614(h) provides that the Commission shall consider market modification requests and in doing so:  3Xxshall afford particular attention to the value of localism by taking into account such factors as   ` 7XxX` ` (I) whether the station, or other stations located in the same area,  ` have been historically carried on the cable system or systems within such community;x`  ` pXxX` ` (II) whether the television station provides coverage or other local service to such community; `  ` p&XxX` ` (III) whether any other television station that is eligible to be carried by  ` pa cable system in such community in fulfillment of the requirements of  ` psthis section provides news coverage of issues of concern to such""  ,-(-(ZZ!"  ` pcommunity or provides carriage or coverage of sporting and other events of interest to the community; and `  ` 6XxX` ` (IV) evidence of viewing patterns in cable and noncable households  ` within the areas served by the cable system or systems in such community.x`  X_- ` x 10.` ` The Commission provided the following guidance in its Report and Order  XJ-implementing Section 614 to aid decision making in market modification matters:  X - $XxTo show that the station provides coverage or other local service to the cable  ocommunity (factor 2), parties may demonstrate that the station places at least a  $Grade B coverage contour over the cable community or is located close to the  Rcommunity in terms of mileage. Coverage of news or other programming of  4interest to the community could be demonstrated by program logs or other  descriptions of local program offerings. The final factor concerns viewing patterns  X- in the cable community in cable and noncable homes. Audience data clearly  aprovide appropriate evidence about this factor. In this regard, we note that  surveys such as those used to demonstrate significantly viewed status could be  XO-useful. O {O-#C\  P6QP##X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues, 8 FCC Rcd 2965, 2977 (1993).   X!- ` }x 11. ` ` We find that the Bureau has properly taken into account the statutory factors and  xthe above guidance in making its decision. The approaches taken by the Bureau with regard to  xhistoric carriage (factor I) and coverage of the communities by other stations (factor III), are well  xreasoned and sufficiently articulated. As such, these factors do not warrant further re X- xexamination and the Bureau's decisions pertaining to those issues are therefore affirmed. Z yO- x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#We note that the underlying decision carefully considered each statutory factor and the Bureau was under no  {O- xobligation to give particular weight to any of them. See Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 151, 175  {Ob- x(D.C. Cir. 1995); accord Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 633634 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (When Congress directs  xian agency to consider certain factors, the agency simply "must reach an express and considered conclusion about the bearing of a factor, but is not required to give any specific weight to it.") As  xfor audience share (factor IV), we find no serious dispute that WEYS has no reportable share in  xBroward and Dade Counties in the SunSat. 7:00A1:00A ratings block, the principal block for  X- xdetermining a station's audience. X yO?"- xx#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#According to Nielsen, WEYS, including its translators' audience, has a 1 share during the Mon.Sun. Prime and  xthe Mon.Fri. 11:30P1:00A/10:30P12:00M ratings blocks in Dade County. WEYS has no reported share in any time period for Broward County. Moreover, WEYS has not presented any audience evidence  xyof its own demonstrating that it does have viewers in the relevant cable communities. Because  xwe find the Nielsen data to reflect actual viewing patterns, we need not reach WEYS's argument regarding the audience data submitted by the cable operator.";. ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx 12.` ` With regard to whether a station provides coverage or other local service to the  xcommunity (factor II), we find that the Bureau's reliance on Grade B contour coverage and  xjdistance to the community, in terms of both geography and mileage, are fully supported by the  xSection 614(h), its legislative history, and Commission precedent. As the Bureau recognized, the  X- xCommission, in its Broadcast Signal Carriage Report and Order, stated that "to show that the  xstation provides coverage or other local service to the cable communities, parties may  xidemonstrate that the station places at least a Grade B coverage contour over the cable community  Xa- xyor is located close to the community in terms of mileage." a yO-#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#8 FCC Rcd at 29762977. Noting these directives, and taking  xinto account the size and structure of the Miami ADI, and the cable operators persuasive  xxshowings with respect to the other factors, the Bureau correctly considered geography and signal  X - xcoverage in the market modification equation. X yO% - x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#The Commission uses Grade B contours, in other contexts, to determine the scope of a station's market and reach:  {O - x(1) In choosing between mutually exclusive applications for new television service (See Hearing Designation Order,  {O- xWashington Children's Television Outreach, Inc., BC Docket No. 81528, 46 FR 43737 (August 31, 1981)); (2) In  xapplying the television duopoly rules, which prevents any party from owning two broadcast stations whose Grade  {OI- xB contours overlap (See 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(b)); and (3) In the cablebroadcast ownership rules which prevents a  xcable system from carrying any television broadcasts stations if the operator owns a television station whose Grade  {O- xB contour overlaps the area served by the system (See 47 C.F.R.  76.501(a)). See also Amendment of Section 76.51  {O- x+ (OrlandoDaytona Beach, Melbourne, and Cocoa, Florida), 102 FCC 2d at 1070 ("We believe that television stations actually do or logically can rely on the area within their Grade B contours for economic support."). The communities at issue are geographically  xdistant from Key West, which is 126 miles from the Hialeah headend, 153 miles from Pompano  xBeach headend, and 150 miles from the Ft. Lauderdale headend. The legislative history  xZspecifically notes that when making its market determinations, the Commission may conclude that  x=a community within a station's ADI may be "so far removed" from the station that it cannot be  X - xdeemed to be part of the station's market.c 2  yO- x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#H.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess.at 9798. ("Subsection (h)(3)((B) establishes certain criteria which the  xYCommission shall consider in acting on requests to modify the geographic area in which stations have signal carriage  xrights. These factors are not intended to be exclusive, but may be used to demonstrate that a community is part of  xa particular station's market. . . .The provisions of subsection (h)(3)(B) [also] reflect a recognition that the  x,Commission may conclude that a community within a station's ADI may be so far removed from the station that it cannot be deemed part of the station's market.")c Relying on this language, the Bureau properly  xKconsidered the stations' distance to the cable community as measured by mileage and geographic  xfeatures separating the communities. With regard to WEYS's programming offerings, we find  xythat the introduction of a new service, CBS Telenoticias, does not bolster the station's localism  xzshowing, and its presence is not decisionally significant in this case. Finally, while WEYS's  xgeneration of advertising revenue from the areas at issue is probative evidence that it has some  xlocal presence, the evidence presented here does not outweigh the cable operators' showing under the four statutory factors. x  X- ` x 13.` ` We affirm the Bureau's holding that translator coverage, particularly in highly  xdense population areas such as Miami, does not lessen the relevance of the parent's failure to",-(-(ZZS"  x\directly serve the subject cable communities. Commercial translators are secondary service  xstations that are explicitly not entitled to carriage in their own right and the service provided by  xWEYS's translators here are of limited significance in the market modification analysis. On  xbalance, the translators here appear not to be a reflection of the underlying market area of  xWEYS, filing in gaps in the station's service area, but an extension of it. Finally, we dismiss,  xas premature, WEYS's arguments about Miamiarea stations using translators to reach Key West  xbecause those stations are not subject to deletion requests by cable operators in Key West in this  xKparticular case; such arguments would only be considered, if and when, these cable operators file market modification petitions with the Commission.  X - ` x 14.` ` We find WEYS's financial injury argument also to be unpersuasive. WEYS's  xfinancial claims are unsupported and, therefore, cannot be considered in the market modification equation.  X -x` ` Z  EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ă  X-0 Arguments ă  Xb- ` x15.` ` As noted above at paragraph 2, WEYS asked us to order that it has a right to  xcarriage while we consider the petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's market redefinition  xdecision. That request is now moot in light of the D.C. Circuit's stay of the Bureau's decision  x(in which the Commission acquiesced), but we take this opportunity to provide an interpretation  xof Section 614(h)(1)(C)(iii). That provision, which we have not previously had occasion to  xinterpret, states that "[a] cable operator shall not delete from carriage the signal of a commercial  xtelevision station during the pendency of any proceeding pursuant to this subparagraph." The  xquestion before us is when the statutory prohibition on deleting a station ends after the  xBureau's ruling, after the completion of all administrative proceedings, or after the completion of the judicial process.  Xe- ` x16.` ` WEYS states that it is Congress' directive not to allow a cable operator to delete  xthe signal of a commercial television station during the pendency of a market modification  xproceeding. The station defines the term "pending" in this instance by reference to Section 1.65(a) of the Commission's rules, which states in part: x  5XxFor the purposes of this section, an application is "pending" before the  aCommission from the time it is accepted for filing by the Commission until a  ECommission grant or denial of the application is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or to any review by any court.  x  xjWEYS asserts that a matter is pending if an application for review, petition for reconsideration,  xor Commission reconsideration on its own motion is still under consideration by either the  xBureau or the full Commission. WEYS argues that Section 1.65(a) is controlling because the  xnote attached to Section 76.7, discussing petitions for special relief in the market modification  xcontext, states that "the provisions of Section 1.65(a) of this chapter are wholly applicable to"#',-(-(ZZ%"  xpleadings involving Section 76.7." Since the cable operators filed petitions for special relief, the  X-station summarily states that Section 1.65(a) is applicable here.X yOb- x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#The station adds that it is entitled to have the Commission review the Bureau's market modification decision, as  xwell as act on the protective order, because the issues in the underlying case are novel and decided without the guidance of Commission precedent.  X- ` qx17.` ` In opposition, the cable operators argue that there is no provision in the  xCommission's rules which automatically stays the effective date of the Bureau's August 20, 1996,  xmarket modification order. The cable operators state that, to the contrary, Section 1.102(b)  xindicates that an order is effective on the date of release and that a stay is otherwise at the  xdiscretion of either the Commission, if an application for review is filed, or the Bureau, if a petition for reconsideration is filed.  X - ` x18.` ` The cable operators claim that WEYS is required to file a separate motion to  xZsatisfy the criteria for a stay. The cable operators argue that the station cannot satisfy the criteria  X - xnecessary to justify a stay under the Holiday Tours/Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'nr  {O- x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#Washington Metro. Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Virginia  {OO-Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958).r test set  X - xforth by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.X D yO- x#C\  P6QP##X\  P6G;P#э#C\  P6QP#Under this test, a stay is warranted if the movant can demonstrate that: (1) it is likely to prevail on the merits;  x(2) it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) interested parties will not be harmed if the stay is granted; and (4) the public interest would favor a grant of the stay. The cable operators claim that  xthere is no harm to WEYS because the station has failed to establish viewership in the cable  xcommunities at issue. The station is not likely to succeed on the merits and prevail on appeal  x<because this case presents no novel issues and the Bureau's decision is supported by precedent.  xThe cable operators also claim they would be harmed by a stay because continued carriage of  x[WEYS precludes receiving revenue that they could otherwise obtain from carrying other, more desirable, programming.  X- ` }x19.` ` In reply, the station asserts that the cable operators completely ignore the original  xargument concerning the definition of the term, "pending", and instead rely on Section 1.102(b)  xof the Commission's rules. WEYS takes the position that this generic rule controls orders issued  xby all of the bureaus under delegated authority unless there is a rule to the contrary. The station  xargues that the issue in this case is not whether the order is effective, but rather whether, under  xzthe statute and the Commission's rules, the matter is still pending. WEYS also argues that a discretionary stay is not necessary because the effective date of the order is not at issue.  Xg-x*0 Discussion ă  X9- ` x20.` ` We hold that a commercial television station may not be deleted from a cable  xsystem until the Commission has completed all administrative proceedings pertaining to a"" d ,-(-(ZZz"  xparticular market redefinition. The statute straightforwardly forbids such deletion "during the  X- xpendency of any proceeding pursuant to this subparagraph" (i.e., the market redefinition section).  xWe conclude that the congressional prohibition plainly means that a cable operator may not  xdelete a station while any administrative proceeding regarding the particular market redefinition  xis pending, before either the Bureau or the Commission. There can be no question that  x=Commission reconsideration or review of a Bureau market redefinition ruling is a "proceeding"  xpursuant to the market redefinition section. Thus, by specifying that stations may not be dropped  Xa- xLwhile "any proceeding" involving market redefinition is pending, Congress clearly intended to  xinclude Commissionlevel proceedings. In doing so, Congress has overridden the Commission's  xusual practice, relied on by the cable operators, that "actions taken pursuant to delegated authority  xshall . . . be effective upon release of the document containing the full text of such action." 47 C.F.R.  1.102(b).  X - ` Px21.` ` At the same time, we reject the suggestion that the statute accords a station must  xcarry rights through the completion of judicial review. We do not believe that proceedings in  X - xya court of appeals can fairly be said to be what Congress meant by a proceeding "pursuant to"  xthe market redefinition section. That section places on the Commission the responsibility for  xdefining a station's market, and when the Commission has rendered a final, appealable decision,  xLthe statutory market redefinition proceeding terminates. In other words, Congress intended to  xdefine the Commission's functions, not those of the courts of appeals. Accordingly, judicial  xreview is properly considered to be a proceeding of another sort, taken pursuant to Section 402 of the Communications Act, and not one undertaken "pursuant to" Section 614(h)(1)(C).  X- ` Cx22.` ` We also reject the argument that because Section 614(h)(1)(C)(iii) prohibits  xldropping a station while a proceeding is "pending" and Section 1.65 of our rules defines  x-"pending" to include "for purposes of th[at] section" appellate review, Congress intended to  xKguarantee carriage through the completion of judicial proceedings. The agency regulation, which  x<sets forth an applicant's duty to update a pending application and has been incorporated into the  x=cable context by the note to Section 76.7 of our rules, has no bearing on what Congress meant  xin the very different context of the must carry statute at issue here. In that regard, we have held  xin the past that when an application is "pending" for purposes of Section 1.65, it is not  X=- x-necessarily "pending" for other purposes.= {O-#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#Pinelands, Inc, 7 FCC Rcd 6058, 6061 n.10 (1992).  Indeed, the specification of such a broad definition  xKof "pending" in Section 1.65 suggests that the ordinary meaning of the word in the administrative  X- xcontext does not include judicial review.eZ {O"- x#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#See International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 429 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) ("pending" may have varying interpretations in different contexts).e Moreover, as noted above, we believe that Congress  xintended to regulate proceedings before the Commission and not before the courts. Thus, a  xCommission proceeding is not pending within the meaning of Section 614(h)(1)(C)(iii) while it is before the court of appeals. "! ,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ X- ` x23.` ` As noted above, the Court of Appeals stayed the Bureau's order pending  xCommission review, which effectively prohibited deletion of WEYS. At that time, the Court also  xordered that its stay would last 15 days beyond the issuance of our interpretation of Section  x614(h)(1)(C)(iii). Although the Court's stay ends 15 days after this Order is released, we find,  xfor this case and others that may arise in the future, that the statute guarantees carriage for 30  xdays after the release of Commissionlevel market redefinition orders. We consider a case to  Xv- x<remain "pending" for those 30 days because during that time we may reconsider our decision sua  Xa- xsponte or at the request of a party.a {O-#C\  P6QP##X\  P6G;P#э#C\  P6QP#See 47 C.F.R.  1.108, 1.106. Market redefinition proceedings will also be considered to  x[be pending after a Bureau order during the 40day period in which the Commission may review  X5-the Bureau order on its own motion.5Z {O@ -#X\  P6G;P##C\  P6QP#э#C\  P6QP#See 47 C.F.R.  1.117.  X -x` `   ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X - ` Bx24. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , that the petition for reconsideration filed by  X -WEYS Television Corp. on September 19, 1996 IS DENIED .  X -  X- ` #x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Protective Order  X}- IS DISMISSED as moot in light of the above discussion. x  XO- ` Ax26.` ` This action is taken pursuant to statutory authority found in Sections 1, 4(i), 5(c),  x0405, and 614(h)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151,  X!-154(i), 155(c), 405, 534(h)(1)(C).hh x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` x x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  X-x` `  hhActing Secretary 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)