Federal Communications Commission DA 16-620
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Aerco Broadcasting Corporation 
Licensee of Station WSJU-TV
San Juan, Puerto Rico
)
)
)
)
)
Facility ID No. 4077
NAL/Acct. No.:  201441420003
FRN No.:  0003759560
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  June 7, 2016 Released:  June 7, 2016
By the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau:
1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we dismiss the January 9, 2015 Petition for 
Reconsideration (Petition) filed by Aerco Broadcasting Corporation (Aerco),
1
the licensee of station 
WSJU-TV, San Juan, Puerto Rico (Station), pursuant to our delegated authority under Section 1.106(b)(3) 
of the Commission’s rules (Rules).
2
  Aerco seeks reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order
3
(MO&O) issued by the Commission denying in part and dismissing in part Aerco’s Application 
for Review (AFR).
4
  
2. The MO&O affirmed the Division’s finding that Aerco was liable in the amount of 
$20,000 for its apparent willful and repeated violations at the Station of Sections 73.3526(e)(11)(i) & (iii) 
of the Rules for failing to timely electronically file quarterly TV issues/programs lists and quarterly 
Children’s Television Programming Reports, and Section 73.3514(a) of the Rules for failing to report the 
aforementioned violations in the Station’s license renewal application.
5
  In its AFR, the Licensee argued
that the forfeiture should be reduced or cancelled based on:  (1) the Station’s history of providing locally 
produced public affairs programming;
6
(2) the fact that certain late-filed Children’s Television 
Programming Reports were filed soon after the deadline and that no members of the public complained of 
the violations;
7
(3) Aerco’s claimed inability to pay;
8
and (4) the fact that Aerco did not intend to deceive
the Commission by failing to disclose its violations in its license renewal application.
9
  Aerco’s Petition is 
essentially a word-for-word copy of its AFR and again raises each of these arguments.
10
  Aerco does not 
dispute that it committed the violations at issue. 
                                                     
1
Petition for Reconsideration of Aerco Broadcasting Corp. (filed Jan. 9, 2015) (Petition). 
2
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3).
3
Aerco Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15086 (2014) (Aerco).
4
Application for Review of Aerco Broadcasting Corp. (Sept. 12, 2014) (AFR).
5
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3526(e)(11)(i), (iii) and 73.3514(a), respectively.  See File No. BRCDT-20120928ACZ.
6
AFR at paras. 5-11; Petition at paras. 3-5.
7
AFR at paras. 12-17; Petition at paras. 6-9
8
AFR at paras. 21-35; Petition at paras. 14-25.
9
AFR at paras. 18-20; Petition at paras. 10-13. The Commission dismissed this argument pursuant to Section 
1.115(c) of the Rules as the delegated authority had not been presented, nor had an opportunity, to pass on this 
argument. 
10
Compare AFR to Petition.  Supra notes 6-9.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-620
2
3. Commission rules specify limited circumstances under which a party may seek 
reconsideration of a Commission denial of an application for review.  Under Section 1.106(b)(2) of the 
Rules, a petition for reconsideration seeking review of a denial of an AFR will be entertained only if the 
petition (i) “relies on facts or arguments which relate to events which have occurred or circumstances 
which have changed since the last opportunity to present such matters to the Commission,” and/or (ii) 
“relies on facts or arguments unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the 
Commission, and he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence have learned of the facts or 
arguments in question prior to such opportunity.”
11
  A petition that fails to introduce relevant new facts or 
changed circumstances may be dismissed by staff as repetitious.
12
  Aerco’s arguments have all been
previously raised and either dismissed or denied by the Commission, as well as by the Division.  Aerco 
has not presented any new facts or arguments that warrant reconsideration under Section 1.106(b)(2).
13
  
4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405(a), and Section 1.106(b)(3) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3), the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Aerco 
Broadcasting Corporation IS DISMISSED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Barbara A. Kreisman
Chief, Video Division
Media Bureau
                                                     
11
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2). 
12
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(3).
13
Aerco also argues that under Section 1.106(c)(2) the Commission is permitted “to consider facts or arguments, not 
previously presented, if reliance thereon is required in the public interest.”    While in limited circumstances Section 
1.106(c) permits the Commission or delegated authority to consider new facts and arguments as part of a petition for 
reconsideration, what the Commission had before it was an application for review.  Section 1.115(c) of the Rules 
specifically states that: “no application for review will be granted if it relies on question of fact or law upon which 
the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.”  47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c).