PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT, Petitioner v. FEDERAL 
              COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
          Respondents. *Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Fox Television
              Stations, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., 
             Telemundo Communications Group, Inc. and Viacom, Inc., 
                                  Intervenors

                   * Pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 8/22/03

                                    No. 03-3388 

               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

                            2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18390

                           September 3, 2003, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:

   FCC No. 03-127.

OPINION:   SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

   ORDER

Per Curiam.

   Before the Court is Petitioner's motion to stay the effective date of
Respondent Federal Communication Commission's new ownership rules, 2002 Biennial
Regulatory Review, 68 Fed. Reg. 46,286 (Aug. 5, 2003), pending judicial review.
n1 Extensive oral argument was heard on September 3, 2003. n2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   n1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
designated this Court to hear this and related petitions for review.

   n2 Ordinarily, we would require strict adherence to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 18 that petitioner "move first before the agency for a stay of its
decision or order." Fed. R. App. P. 18(a)(1). Nonetheless, under the unique
circumstances of this case, it appears virtually certain that the Commission
would not grant a stay in this matter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   We consider four factors in determining whether to grant the motion to
stay: (1) the movant's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the
movant will suffer irreparable harm if the request is denied; (3) whether third
parties will be harmed by the stay; and (4) whether granting the stay will serve
the public interest. E.g., Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee, 96 F.3d 78, 80 (3d
Cir. 1996); In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 457 F.2d 381, 384-85 (3d Cir. 1972).

   At issue in this litigation are changes adopted by the FCC that would
significantly alter the agency's ownership rules for multiple media properties,
including national television networks, local broadcast affiliates, radio
stations, and newspapers. Petitioner has alleged harms from industry
consolidation contending they would be widespread and irreversible if they
occurred. The harm to petitioners absent a stay would be the likely loss of an
adequate remedy should the new ownership rules be declared invalid in whole or
in part. In contrast to this irreparable harm, there is little indication that a
stay pending appeal will result in substantial harm to the Commission or to
other interested parties. Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday 
Tours, Inc., 182 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Granting the stay pending judicial review would maintain the status quo in order
to permit appellate review after briefing on the merits. While it is difficult
to predict the likelihood of success on the merits at this stage of the
proceedings, n3 these harms could outweigh the effect of a stay on Respondent
and relevant third parties. Given the magnitude of this matter and the public's
interest in reaching the proper resolution, a stay is warranted pending thorough
and efficient judicial review.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   n3

     An order maintaining the status quo is appropriate when a serious
     legal question is presented, when little if any harm will befall other
     interested persons or the public and when denial of the order would
     inflict irreparable injury on the movant. There is substantial equity
     and need for judicial protection, whether or not movant has shown a
     mathematical probability of success.

Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d at 844.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   For the foregoing reasons, we will grant Petitioner's motion to stay the
effective date of the FCC's new ownership rules and order that the prior
ownership rules remain in effect pending resolution of these proceedings.

   Subject to the Court's decision on the motion to transfer venue, the Clerk
shall issue a briefing schedule.

DATED: SEP - 3 2003