Federal Communications Commission DA 17-777
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
NCE Reserved Allotment Group 14
Florida Community Radio, Inc.
and
Citrus County Association for Retarded Citizens, 
Inc.
Applications to Construct a New Noncommercial 
Educational FM Station at Otter Creek, Florida
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPED-20100226AGX
Facility ID No. 185126
File No. BNPED-20100226AGR
Facility ID No. 185070
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 16, 2017 Released: August 16, 2017
By the Chief, Media Bureau:
1. We have before us the “Petition for Reconsideration by the Full Commission En Banc of 
the Erroneous Dismissal of Petitioner’s April 13, 2017, Petition for Reconsideration by the Commission’s 
Delegated Authority,” (Second Petition) filed on May 15, 2017, by Florida Community Radio (FCR).  
The pleading seeks reconsideration of the April 18, 2017, Media Bureau (Bureau) order
1
dismissing as
untimely pursuant to Section 1.106(p) of the Commission’s Rules (Rules)
2
FCR’s Petition for 
Reconsideration (Petition) of the Commission’s Memorandum Opinion and Order affirming the Bureau’s 
determinations in noncommercial educational (NCE) Reserved Allotment Mutually Exclusive Group 14.
3
                                                          
1
NCE Reserved Allotment Group 14, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 3093 (MB  2017) (Bureau 
Order).
2
47 CFR § 1.106(p).
3
See NCE Reserved Allotment Group 14, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 2285 (2017) (AFR Order).  
The Commission initially determined that the applications of FCR (FCR Application) and Citrus County 
Association for Retarded Citizens (CCARC Application) for a construction permit for a new noncommercial 
educational station at Otter Creek, Florida, were mutually exclusive, and identified the FCR Application as the 
tentative selectee of NCE Reserved Allotment Group 14. See Comparative Consideration of 37 Groups of Mutually 
Exclusive Applications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7008, 7024, paras. 42-43 (2011). CCARC 
filed a Petition to Deny the FCR Application, and the Commission rescinded its tentative selection of that 
application and identified the CCARC Application as the new tentative selectee. Comparative Consideration of 
Seven Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5135, 5142-44, 
paras. 19-23 (2015). FCR twice challenged this action and additionally attempted to modify its proposed frequency 
from Channel 240 to Channel 216 to eliminate its mutual exclusivity with the CCARC Application. The Media 
Bureau denied both challenges, granted the CCARC Application, and dismissed the FCR Application and 
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-777
2
2. As an initial matter, the relief that FCR seeks is difficult to discern.  The Second Petition 
is styled as a “petition for reconsideration.” In this case, that would require the Bureau to act on the 
Second Petition.
4
However, FCR contradictorily seeks action by “the full Commission en banc.”  
Complicating matters further, the Second Petition raises arguments upon which the Bureau has not 
previously had the opportunity to pass.   Such a pleading would be subject to dismissal by the 
Commission.
5
Accordingly, to ensure full consideration of FCR’s arguments, we will treat the Second 
Petition as a petition for reconsideration of the Bureau Order.
6
3. In its Second Petition, FCR challenges the Bureau’s dismissal of its Petition, which it 
claims was based on the “wrongful assumption that it was one day late.”
7
FCR argues that “due process” 
and the Commission’s Rules required that the Commission furnish it a copy of the AFR Order, and FCR
alleges that it did not receive a copy of the AFR Order at the address listed in its pleadings.
8
  FCR asserts 
that this “constituted extenuating circumstances that [were] contrary to § 0.445(a), which states that 
adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission or staff on delegated authority must be sent to the 
parties by mail.”
9
  FCR requests that the Commission find that FCR’s Petition was timely, reverse the 
Bureau’s action and find that dismissing the Petition was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of 
discretion.
10
4. As the Bureau Order noted, the 30-day period for filing such a petition for 
reconsideration is statutory and generally may not be waived.
11
  Although the Commission’s failure to 
promptly serve a party with a copy of an order can be grounds for a waiver of this filing deadline if the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                                  
amendment. See NCE Reserved Allotment Group 14, Letter Order, Ref. 1800B3-ALV (MB Feb. 29, 2016)
(affirming the tentative selection of the CCARC Application and requesting verification of FAA approval); NCE 
Reserved Allotment Group 14, Letter Order, Ref. 1800B3-ATS (MB Oct. 26, 2016) (granting the CCARC 
Application). FCR sought Commission review of the Bureau's decision; the Commission upheld both Bureau 
actions in the AFR Order.
4
See 47 CFR § 1.106(a)(1) (petitions requesting reconsideration of final actions taken pursuant to delegated 
authority are acted on by the delegated authority). 
5
See 47 CFR § 1.115(c) (“No application for review will be granted if it relies on questions of fact or law upon 
which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.”)
6
47 CFR § 1.106(a)(1).
7
Second Petition at 1.
8
Second Petition at 2.  The Petition provides no explanation of how due process was violated here beyond its bare 
assertion.
9
Second Petition at 3 (citing 47 CFR § 0.445) (external quotations omitted).
10
Second Petition 2-4.
11
Bureau Order 32 FCC Rcd at 3094, para. 2, citing 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) and Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 
951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1986).  Given this posture, FCR’s arguments about agencies’ inherent authority to reconsider 
decisions absent express statutory authority are inapplicable here.  See Second Petition at 3 (citing Tokyo Kirai 
Seisakusho, LTD. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Tokyo Kirai Seisakusho, 529 
F.3d at 1360 (“An agency cannot, for example, exercise its inherent authority in a manner that is contrary to a 
statute” and “where a statute does expressly provide for reconsideration of decisions, the agency is obligated to 
follow the procedures for reconsideration set forth in the statute.”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-777
3
Commission’s failure made it impossible for the party to meet the deadline,
12
FCR has neither requested 
nor argued facts warranting such a waiver.  A party seeking waiver of the filing deadline has the burden to 
show: (1) when and how it received notice in fact; (2) that the time remaining was inadequate to allow it 
reasonably to timely file; and (3) that it acted promptly on receiving actual notice.
13
  Because “persons 
directly affected typically become aware of rulings and decisions, through items in the general or trade 
press, . . . it will be an extraordinary case . . . where a petitioner can meet this burden.”
14
  FCR fails to 
satisfy any part of this three-part test.
15
Accordingly, we find that the action was not arbitrary, capricious, 
or an abuse of discretion and affirm the Bureau’s dismissal of FCR’s Petition as untimely.
5. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, the Second Petition filed by Florida Community Radio, Inc. on 
May 14, 2017, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michelle M. Carey
Chief, Media Bureau
                                                          
12
See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 1091-92 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (Gardner).  
13
Gardner, 530 F.2d at 1092 n.24.
14
Id.
15
We note that the full text of the AFR Order was published on the Commission’s website on March 13, 2017, the 
day it was released.  FCC Daily Digest, vol. 36, No. 48 (Mar. 14, 2017) (listing texts released March 13, 2017).