The next step in NAB v. FCC is for the...

Aug. 2 (CD July 11 p14), a law firm said. That response will come in the FCC’s opposition to the emergency motion for stay pending the D.C. Circuit’s review of the rules approved 2-1 by commissioners in April, said Fletcher Heald’s blog (http://xrl.us/bngiqx). “Stays are notoriously difficult to obtain, either from the FCC or from the courts,” said the firm, which has TV and radio station clients. “A party seeking a stay must normally demonstrate, among other things, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. That’s a rough showing to make. We suspect that that issue will be a focal point of back-and-forth arguments in the coming weeks.” Shortly after NAB’s petition was made, a coalition of seven groups that backed the public-file order filed an opposition at the agency to the association’s separate stay request to the FCC (http://xrl.us/bngitf). The Public Interest Public Airwaves Coalition wants the D.C. Circuit to deny the stay request. “NAB has failed to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits in its Petition for Review” of April’s order and “failed to show that its members will suffer harm absent a stay,” said the coalition. Members are the Benton Foundation, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Free Press, the New America Foundation and United Church of Christ. “To minimize any potential burdens on broadcasters, the Commission agreed to host the online files, declined to impose any new recordkeeping requirements, and, with respect to the political files, required online posting only prospectively and deferred the effective date for all stations outside of the fifty largest markets and all stations within the top fifty that are not affiliated with one of the top four networks,” they said in the opposition pleading. “The standard of review applicable to NAB’s claims is extremely narrow and deferential to the agency."