Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): it is clear that the 2001 Order constitutes a valid order for purposes of § 401(b). To begin with, the 2001 Order is entitled “Memorandum Opinion and Order,” and it notes that “Tribune’s acquisition of the Hartford Courant during the pendency of its earlier-filed request to acquire control of WTXX triggers immediate application of the television/newspaper cross-ownership rule to its proposed purchase. Tribune therefore requests a two-year period ... to achieve compliance with [that rule]” (emphasis added). As that sentence demonstrates, there appeared to be no dispute that Tribune’s acquisition of WTXX violated the cross-ownership rule, and that the FCC was requiring Tribune to come into compliance with that rule. See Mallenbaum v. Adelphia Commun. Corp., 74 F.3d 465, 467 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The 2001 Order further states in paragraph 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an agency regulation is not a privately enforceable 401b order unless it requires the defendant to take a particular action (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that a statutory time period is not mandatory unless it both expressly requires an agency or public official to act within a particular time period and specifies a consequence for failure to comply with the provisions (D) holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 (E) recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent
Output (English): recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent