Federal Communications Commission                        DA 11-1127
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
 )      File Nos. BP-20111, as modified by
Royce International Broadcasting Company )      BMAP-20001020AAT  
)     
Request for Additional Time to Construct New )
Unbuilt Station KIEV(AM), Culver City, California )       Facility ID No. 57893
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted:  June 27, 2011                                 Released:  June 28, 2011
By the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau:     
 
1.  We have before us: (a) a July 7, 2008, Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”) of the 
Commission’s Decision1 filed by Royce International Broadcasting Company (“Royce”), the former 
permittee of unbuilt Station KIEV(AM), Culver City, California (“Station”); (b) Oppositions to that 
Petition filed by Levine/Schwab Partnership (“LSP”) and Ontario Broadcasting, LLC (“Ontario”); and 
(c) a Reply to the Opposition pleadings filed by Royce.  The Commission’s Decision affirmed the 
decision of the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) denying Royce’s request for additional time to construct the 
Station and dismissed Royce’s untimely Application for Review of that decision.  For the reasons 
discussed below, we dismiss the Petition pursuant to Sections 1.106(b)(3) and 1.106(p) of the 
Commission’s rules (the “Rules”).2
2.  Sections 1.106(b)(3) and 1.106(p) of the Rules provide that the Bureau may dismiss a 
petition for reconsideration of a Commission decision affirming a prior Bureau decision in the case if 
the petition fails to rely on new facts or changed circumstances.  Royce’s Petition reiterates arguments 
already considered and rejected in the Commission’s Decision.3 To the extent the Petition presents 
any new arguments, those arguments could have been raised previously in the proceeding because 
they involve matters that occurred in 2001 and 2004.4 Our Rules and precedent clearly provide that 
we will not consider petitions for reconsideration which rely on facts or theories that could have been
presented earlier in the proceeding.5
  
1 Royce International Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 9010 (2008) 
(“Decision”).  
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(b)(3) and 1.106(p).  See Barry Wood, Esq., Letter, 24 FCC Rcd 13666 (MB 2009) (Bureau 
dismisses petition for reconsideration as repetitious under Section 1.106(b)(3)) (“Wood”).
3 The Petition seeks to reargue whether LSP and Ontario would be prejudiced by a waiver of the filing deadline 
for Royce’s untimely Application for Review.  See Petition at 2-7 (rearguing the Decision’s conclusion in ¶ 13 
that those parties could be prejudiced).  Longstanding Commission policy holds that petitions for reconsideration 
may not be used to reargue points previously rejected.  See Wood, 24 FCC Rcd at 13667 and n. 3.
4 Petition at 3-4 and 9-13 (presenting arguments about the prospects for applications filed by LSP and Ontario in 
2004 to ripen into grants and about the significance of a condition placed on a construction permit modification 
application filed by Royce and granted by the Bureau in 2001).
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2), as modified in Amendment of Part 1 Rules and Part 0 Rules, Report and Order, 26 
FCC Rcd 1594 (2011); Minority Television Project, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16923 
(2005); Carolyn S. Hagedorn, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1695, 1696 (1996). 
Federal Communications Commission               DA 11-1127
2
3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Royce 
International Broadcasting Company on July 7, 2008, IS DISMISSED.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau