WPCI 2B$J ZCourierCourierCourier BoldCourier Italic@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) ROOM 224HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\wfx6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X<R&HHH,D,H6X@`7h@<K,X6X@`7@<K,X6X@`7@<b-VVV,fZfV6X@`7@graph Numbers C @` 2Z2nG<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@?xxx,x `7X<R&HHH,D,H6X@`7h@<K,X6X@`7@<b-VVV,fZfV6X@`7@ ?xxx,Nx6Nhez7XH  ^   ^ $// (KABCTV Motion for Stay), MO&O, FCC 9490 //$ $/ 300.315(b) /$   $/ 1.102(b)(3), Eff. dates of actions by delegated authority /$  ^   ^ ///newjob/// $/// ^ FCC 9490,6/7/94,Record Only///$ ^  FCC 9490 DBefore the  ?H <0  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ă Washington, D.C. 20554  ?<In re Complaint ofhh,V) ` ` hh,V)  ?0< DIANNE FEINSTEIN,hh,V )  ?<JOHN SEYMOUR,  hh,V)  ?<and THOMAS HAYES V )  ?< ` ` hh,V)  ?P< Against Station KABCTV V)  ?<Los Angeles, California hh,V)  ?8< \ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  ?<  ?< Adopted: April 18, 1994V Released: June 7, 1 ^ 994  ? <By the Commission: Commissioner Quello dissenting and issuing a  ?<statement.   ?x<h( I. INTRODUCTION  ?@<    1. The Commission has before it a Motion for Stay of an  ? <Order by the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, released March 18, 1994 (DA 94247), filed by ABC Holding Co., Inc. ("ABC") licensee of KABCTV, Los Angeles, California. For the reasons which follow, we will deny the Motion.  ?$<- II. BACKGROUNDlU  ?H&< 2. The Order found that a prima facie case of a violation by KABCTV of the Commission's lowest unit charge requirements was made by Complainants Dianne Feinstein, John Seymour and Thomas Hayes with respect to advertising aired on their behalf during the 45 days before the June 5, 1990, California primary. "h)0*0*0*1" Other claims by Complainants were dismissed. The parties were"h)0*0*0*1" ordered to follow the timetable and procedures for discovery, postdiscovery, and election of a complaint resolution procedure"h)0*0*0*1"  ?h)<set forth therein. The first discovery deadline in the Order is"h)0*0*0*1" April 18, 1994. "h)0*0*0*1"Ԍ"h)0*0*0*1"Ԍ3. On March 30, 1994, ABC filed an Application for Review"h)0*0*0*1"  ?<of the Order. Also on March 30, ABC filed its Motion asking for  ?<a stay of the Bureau's Order, pending Commission action on the Application for Review thereof.     ?<h( III. THE MOTION  ?x< 4. The Motion summarizes ABC's view, as set forth in the Application for Review, which ABC attaches, that the Bureau's  ?<Order is wrong. Moreover, ABC argues that the Order imposes extensive discovery burdens that do not relate to the nature of the claim at issue and that those burdens would be extremely costly and time consuming. ABC states that its discovery obligations are not permitted by "the Commission's Section 315(b) procedures," and, therefore, adherence to them would cause KABC to irreparably lose its legal rights. 5. ABC also claims that the public interest in coverage of political campaigns militates strongly in favor of the relief requested, because the same personnel who would be involved in the discovery are currently devoting significant time to the sale of time to political candidates. Furthermore, ABC states that "a stay will serve the public interest in ensuring 'timely and fair' procedures in resolving Section 315(b) complaints." Finally, ABC indicates that a stay will not harm the complaining candidates, who waited until two years after the primary at issue to file their complaint.  ?< -IV. DISCUSSION  ?p< 6. Pursuant to Section 1.102(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. 102(b)(3), grant of the stay requested by ABC is discretionary. We find it helpful to rely on the guidelines  ?<set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958) to determine whether a stay is warranted in this case. Under those guidelines, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its pending appeal; (2) that without the relief sought, the petitioner will be irreparably injured; (3) that the issuance of the stay would not substantially harm other interested parties; and (4) that grant of the stay is in the public interest. 7. We will not prejudge the merits of the Application for Review filed by ABC, which is still pending before us. Even without addressing the requirement that ABC show its likelihood  ?(#<of prevailing, however, ABC has not met the other requirements for a stay. First, ABC has not shown that it will be irreparably  ?$<injured by the Bureau's Order. We recognize that the discovery obligations set forth therein may involve some time and cost, as is always true of discovery. Nevertheless, we do not consider the procedures overly burdensome, and ABC has not shown otherwise. "h)0*0*0*1"Ԍ  ?< V.ORDERING CLAUSES ă 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Motion for Stay filed March 30, 1994, by ABC Holding Co., Inc., licensee of KABCTV, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That ABC SHALL COMPLY with the procedures and timetable for discovery, postdiscovery, and election of a complaint resolution procedure established in  ?@<Order, DA 94247, released March 18, 1994. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary