Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Section 73.622(i),
Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, 
Television Broadcast Stations
(Seaford, Delaware)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 09-230
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 3, 2016 Released:  August 4, 2016
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Commission has before it for consideration an Application for Review
1
filed by 
PMCM TV, LLC (“PMCM”), seeking review of three decisions by the Video Division of the Media 
Bureau (the “Division”): (1) the Seaford Report and Order that allotted very high frequency (“VHF”) 
television channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware;
2
(2) the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration rejecting a 
petition for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order
3
and (3) the Seaford MO&O on Further 
Reconsideration dismissing PMCM’s petition for reconsideration of the prior Seaford decisions as 
untimely.
4
  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the AFR.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On June 15, 2009, PMCM TV, LLC (“PMCM”), the licensee of KJWY(TV), channel 2, 
Jackson, Wyoming, notified the Commission, pursuant to section 331(a) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (the “Act”),
5
that it sought reallocation of channel 2 from Jackson, Wyoming to 
Wilmington, Delaware.
6
  In pertinent part, section 331(a) provides that it shall be Commission policy “to 
allocate channels for [VHF] commercial television broadcasting in a manner which ensures that not less 
than one such channel shall be allocated to each State, if technically feasible.  In any case in which [a] 
licensee of a very high frequency commercial television broadcast station notifies the Commission to the 
                                                     
1
PMCM TV, LLC Application for Review (filed Jun. 2, 2014) (the “AFR”).
2
Seaford, Delaware, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4466, MB Docket No. 09-230 (Vid. Div. 2010) (“Seaford 
Report and Order”). 
3
Seaford, Delaware, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 1167, MB Docket 
No. 09-230 (Vid. Div. 2013) (“Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration”).
4
Seaford, Delaware, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Further Reconsideration, 29 FCC Rcd 4769, MB Docket 
No. 09-230 (Vid. Div. 2014) (“Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration”).
5
47 U.S.C. § 331(a).
6
Letter from Donald J. Evans and Harry F. Cole, Counsel for PMCM TV, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, Regarding Relocation of Station KJWY(TV), Jackson, Wyoming (Jun. 15, 2009) (“Reallocation Request”). 
PMCM concurrently notified the Commission of its intention to reallocate its Nevada channel 3 Station KVNV(TV) 
to Middletown Township, New Jersey pursuant to Section 331.
  
Letter from Donald J. Evans and Harry F. Cole, 
Counsel for PMCM TV, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Regarding Relocation of Station KVNV(TV), 
Ely, Nevada (Jun. 15, 2009).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
2
effect that such licensee will agree to the reallocation of its channel to a community within a State in 
which there is allocated no very high frequency commercial television broadcast channel at the time [of] 
such notification, the Commission shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, order such 
reallocation and issue a license to such licensee for that purpose pursuant to such notification.”  The 
Media Bureau (the “Bureau”) denied PMCM’s Reallocation Request
7
and the Commission affirmed the 
Bureau decision.
8
3. PMCM appealed the Commission Decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (the “Court”), which subsequently reversed the Commission’s denial and remanded 
to the Commission to approve PMCM’s Reallocation Request.
9
  On March 18, 2013, the Bureau 
consequently approved the reallocation of channel 2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware in 
accordance with the Court’s instructions.
10
  
4. Seaford Report and Order.  On December 18, 2009, concurrently with the Bureau’s 
denial of PMCM’s Reallocation Request, the Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing 
to allot channel 5 to Seaford pursuant to sections 331(a) and 307(b).
11
  PMCM, which participated in the 
proceeding, did not object to the channel 5 allotment.  To the contrary, it stated that it “strongly wants to 
go on the record as supportive” of an allotment in Delaware, but urged that any allotment not cause 
impermissible interference to the channels for which it sought reallocation in its June 15, 2009, 
notifications.
12
  It also asserted that its reallocation requests were first-in-time and thus must still be given 
effect under section 331(a) regardless of whether the Commission allotted channel 5 to Seaford.
13
  The 
Division subsequently adopted its Seaford proposal in 2010 in the Seaford Report and Order, finding that 
the allotment of a new channel in Southern Delaware would result in an equitable distribution of channels 
pursuant to section 307(b).
14
The Division concluded that, “[b]ecause our proposal to allot channel 5 to 
Seaford is not mutually-exclusive with an allotment of channel 2 to Wilmington, Delaware, the outcome 
of PMCM’s appeal [seeking reallocation of channel 2 to Wilmington] is not pertinent to the instant 
proceeding.”
15
5. Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration.  The Broadcast Maximization Committee (“BMC”) 
filed a timely petition for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order.  BMC argued that the Seaford 
                                                     
7
PMCM TV, LLC c/o Harry Cole, Esq., Letter Order, 24 FCC Rcd 14588 (MB 2009) (“Notification Denial Letter 
Order”).
8
Reallocation of Channel 2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware and Reallocation of Channel 3 from 
Ely, Nevada to Middletown Township, New Jersey, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13696 (2011) 
(“Commission Decision”).
9
PMCM LLC, TV v. FCC, 701 F.3d 380(D.C. Cir. Dec. 14, 2012) (“PMCM TV”) (directing Commission to 
reallocate PMCM’s channel 2 from Wyoming to Wilmington, Delaware and Channel 3 from Nevada to Middletown 
Township, New Jersey).
10
Reallocation of Channel 2 from Jackson, Wyoming to Wilmington, Amendment of Section 73.622(i), 
Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2828 (MB 
2013) (“Reallocation Order”). By concurrently released Order, the Bureau also approved the reallocation of channel
3 from Ely, Nevada to Middletown Township, New Jersey. Reallocation of Channel 3 from Ely, Nevada, to 
Middletown Township, New Jersey, Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, 
Television Broadcast Stations, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2825 (MB 2013).
11
Seaford, Delaware, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 14596 (Vid. Div. 2009).
12
Comments of PMCM TV, LLC, at 2.
13
Id.
14
Seaford Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 4471.
15
Id. at 4468 n.13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
3
Report and Order erred when it refused to consider channels 2 or 3 as alternatives to channel 5.
16
  PMCM 
filed a “Qualified Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration,” asserting that BMC’s counterproposal to 
place the new allotment at channel 2 or 3 could not be considered prior to Commission action on its 
reallocation requests.
17
  The Division dismissed BMC’s argument as moot, noting that “[t]he Court’s 
order in PMCM TV directed the Commission to grant PMCM a license for channel 2 in Wilmington, 
Delaware.”
18
  Thus, while upholding the allotment at Seaford, the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration
was consistent with PMCM’s reallocation request.
6. Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration.  On May 1, 2014, the Division dismissed 
PMCM’s March 15, 2013 petition for reconsideration (the “Petition”) of both the Seaford Report and 
Order as well as the subsequent Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration.  PMCM had sought reconsideration 
of those decisions based on the Court’s issuance of PMCM TV, claiming that the decision invalidated the 
Seaford allocation.  PMCM asserted that the Commission “improperly applied the mandate of [s]ection 
331(a) in acting on its motion to fill a purported ‘void’ of VHF service to that community; [when] in fact, 
VHF service in Delaware had already been properly proposed in accordance with [s]ection 331(a) by 
PMCM [with the filing of its Reallocation Request].”
19
  The Petition asserted that the release of PMCM 
TV constituted “changed circumstances” pursuant to section 1.429(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules, and 
that the arguments that it belatedly raised could not have been presented previously.
20
7. In the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration, the Division dismissed PMCM’s 
request for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order as untimely under section 1.429(d) of the 
Commission’s rules, which requires petitioners to seek reconsideration no later than 30 days after public 
notice of Commission action.  It noted that the Seaford Report and Order was published in the Federal 
Register on May 7, 2010, well before PMCM’s March 2013 Petition for Reconsideration.
21
  Additionally, 
the Division concluded that PMCM’s reliance on section 1.429(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules was 
misplaced because PMCM knew that reversal of the Bureau’s Notification Denial Letter Order was 
possible and “[t]he fact that the Bureau’s rejection of PMCM’s reallocation notifications was not yet final 
and unappealable did not excuse PMCM’s failure to raise objections that were based on a foreseeable 
outcome . . . .”
22
  The Division noted that PMCM apparently contemplated ultimate reversal of the 
Bureau’s Notification Denial Letter Order when it filed its “Qualified Opposition” to BMC’s Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order.
23
8. The Division further concluded that PMCM’s Petition was an untimely collateral 
challenge of the Seaford Report and Order that should have been presented in a timely petition for 
                                                     
16
See Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration at 1168 (citing BMC Petition for Reconsideration at 2) (citations 
omitted).  BMC also maintained that the Bureau’s proposed allotment of channel 5 at Seaford, where no party 
expressed an interest in this proposal, was unusual and unprecedented.  Id.  Unlike PMCM, however, BMC did not 
argue that this invalidated the Seaford allotment.  The Division stated, among other things, that BMC did not 
identify any impropriety with or legal barrier to the Division’s allocation method.  Seaford MO&O on 
Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd at 1129.
17
PMCM TV, LLC Qualified Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration at 1 (“Qualified Opposition”).
18
Id. at 1169.
19
Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration, 29 FCC Rcd at 4771 (citing PMCM Petition for Reconsideration at 
2).
20
Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b)(1)); Petition at 2.
21
Id. (citing 75 FR 25119 (May 7, 2010)).
22
Id. at 4772 (explaining that PMCM had already sought review of the Bureau’s rejection of PMCM’s re-allocation 
notifications, and had already petitioned for mandamus in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to compel re-allocation).
23
Id. n.27.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
4
reconsideration in 2010.
24
  The Division determined that PMCM’s request was outside the scope of the 
subsequent Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration, which “addresses not whether a channel should be 
allotted to Seaford as PMCM contests in its petition for reconsideration, but rather which channel should 
be allotted to Seaford, Delaware.  In fact, the Bureau granted PMCM’s request in its Qualified Opposition 
by denying BMC’s petition for reconsideration and allotting channel 5 to Seaford, rather than channel 2 
or 3, as proposed by BMC.”
25
9. In the AFR, PMCM contends that the Division improperly dismissed its Petition by 
failing to take into account the significant changed circumstance of the issuance of PMCM TV.
26
  
Specifically, PMCM argues that the Division committed prejudicial error by creating a new, unsound 
“foreseeability” test and selectively applying it to PMCM.
27
  PMCM contends that its obligation is to raise 
the changed circumstance at the first opportunity to do so, and that it could not have raised the D.C. 
Circuit’s reversal back in 2010, which was the last opportunity to present argument to the Division about 
Seaford.
28
  According to PMCM, a reconsideration petition in 2010 premised on a prediction of future 
success at the appellate level would have been summarily dismissed by the Commission as improperly 
speculative.
29
  PMCM further contends that it “supported the Seaford allotment under the premise that 
underserved areas of the state would receive local service, not under the present circumstances where a 
Dover allocation has supplanted the Seaford allotment.”
30
10. WPB filed an opposition to the AFR (“Opposition”).  WPB contends that PMCM’s 
interpretation of section 1.429(b)(1) would lead to uncertainty, permitting an aggrieved party to file an 
untimely petition for reconsideration so long as the petitioner lacks 100% certainty of a particular court 
outcome, because any petitioner could invoke such an exception merely by filing a court appeal.
31
  WPB 
argues that PMCM proceeded at its own risk when it elected not to request reconsideration or even a stay 
of the Seaford Report and Order while it pursued the Wilmington channel 2 matter in court, and the fact 
that PMCM made the wrong choice is PMCM’s doing, and the Bureau gave full consideration to 
PMCM’s arguments in the decisions.
32
11. In its Reply to the Opposition, PMCM asserts that WPB fundamentally misapprehends 
the facts and issues presented.  For example, PMCM argues that the relevant test should not be whether 
the Bureau’s allegedly “hasty and ill-considered”
33
2010 Seaford allotment had any bearing on the 
Reallocation Request, but whether the Court’s reinstatement ab initio of the PMCM Notification has a 
bearing on the Seaford allotment.  PMCM also contends that WPB cannot now argue that section 331(a) 
                                                     
24
Id. at 4672 (citations omitted).
25
Id. at 4672.  On the same day that the Division released the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration, it 
released a Report and Order that granted a rulemaking petition filed by Western Pacific Broadcast, LLC (“WPB”), 
the permittee of unbuilt station WMDE(TV), channel 5, Seaford, Delaware to request a change in its community of 
license to Dover, Delaware.  Western Pacific Broadcast, LLC, Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Digital Television 
Table of Allotments (Seaford, Delaware and Dover, Delaware), 29 FCC Rcd 4773 (MB Vid. Div. 2014).  PMCM 
filed a petition for reconsideration of that order, which remains pending. See Petition for Reconsideration of PMCM, 
LLC, MB Docket No. 13-40 (filed Jun. 13, 2014).
26
AFR at 1.
27
Id. at 4.
28
Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106, 1.429).
29
Id. at 5.
30
Id. at 2 n.4.
31
Opposition at 4.
32
Id. at 5.
33
Reply at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
5
somehow authorizes the allotment of additional VHF channels, because the initial Seaford allotment was 
entirely based upon the so-called “VHF void.”
34
12. On December 12, 2014, WPB filed a Motion to Dismiss the AFR on the basis that the 
termination of the Commission’s docket for Auction 90, in which WPB successfully bid on channel 5 at 
its original community of license, Seaford, Delaware, has mooted the AFR.
35
  WPB argues that the results 
of Auction 90 and the Auction 90 Termination Order are final and cannot be reversed, and therefore 
PMCM procedurally cannot seek to challenge the Commission’s underlying allotment of channel 5.
36
  
PMCM opposed the WPB Motion on the basis that it is fundamental precept “that a successful legal 
challenge to an initial FCC order nullifies that order and subsequent FCC actions taken with respect 
thereto.”
37
  PMCM also cites to the Public Notice for Auction 90, which it argues put WPB on explicit 
notice that if it bought rights to the Seaford allotment, it did so subject to legal risk.
38
  In its Reply, among 
other responses, WPB asserts that there was no legal risk for WPB to assume in light of the procedural 
history here, because PMCM did not seek reconsideration of the channel 5 allotment before or during 
Auction 90 or close to the deadlines for petitions for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order.
39
  
III. DISCUSSION
13. Upon consideration of the AFR and the entire record, we affirm the Division’s dismissal 
of the PMCM Petition.
40
  In ordering the Seaford allotment, the Commission concluded that the outcome 
of PMCM’s Reallocation Request was not relevant.
41
  PMCM did not seek reconsideration of that finding 
until nearly three years later when, for the first time, it opposed the new Seaford allotment that it had 
previously “strongly” supported.  In hindsight, PMCM now argues that the Commission should have 
postponed allocating a new channel to Delaware while its efforts to reallocate channel 2 played out at the 
Commission and in court, even though the pendency of that litigation did not prevent PMCM from raising 
other concerns premised on a favorable outcome regarding its Reallocation Request, and the Seaford 
allotment is consistent with that request.
42
  In short, it appears that PMCM simply changed its strategy as 
developments unfolded.
                                                     
34
Reply at 3-4.
35
  WPB Motion to Dismiss, MB Docket No. 09-230 (filed Dec. 12, 2014) (“WPB Motion”) at 1 (citing Termination 
of Certain Proceedings as Dormant, Order, CG Docket No. 14-97, 29 FCC Rcd 11,017, 11,093 (CGB 2014) 
(“Auction 90 Termination Order”)).
36
WPB Motion at 3.
37
PMCM Opposition at 2 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(a) (reviewing courts “shall” set aside unlawful agency actions)).
38
PMCM Opposition at 2-3 (citing Auction of VHF Commercial Television Station Construction Scheduled for 
February 15, 2011, Notice and Filing Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other 
Procedures for Auction 90, Public Notice, AU Docket No. 10-47, 25 FCC Rcd 14880, 14891 (2010)).
39
WPB Reply at 4.  On February 4, 2015, PMCM filed Comments in Response to the Reply, disputing a contention 
put forth by WPB that PMCM has acknowledged that the outcome of the Wilmington channel 2 matter had no 
bearing on the allotment of channel 5 to Seaford.
40
An Application for Review must establish that the actions of the delegated authority: (i) conflicted with statute, 
regulation, case precedent or Commission policy; (ii) involved a question of law or policy not previously resolved 
by the Commission; (iii) involved precedent or policy that should be overturned or revised; (iv) made an erroneous 
finding as to an important fact; or (v) made a prejudicial procedural error.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2).
41
Seaford Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 4468 n.13.
42
PMCM now attempts to excuse its failure to object to the Seaford allotment earlier on the grounds that it had no 
reason to object to the proposal to place the allotment in Seaford, in Southern Delaware, which lacked robust 
broadcast service, but its interests changed when Western Pacific applied to change the community of license to 
Dover. See AFR at 2 n.4.  PMCM even sought to bid in the auction for channel 5.  See Auction of VHF Commercial 
Television Station Construction Permits; Three Bidders Qualified to Participate in Auction 90, Public Notice, 26 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
6
14. The staff was correct in determining that PMCM’s Petition for Reconsideration of the 
Seaford Report and Order was untimely.  Section 405 of the Act provides that “petitions for 
reconsideration must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the 
action . . . complained of.”
43
  Public notice of the Seaford Report and Order was given on May 7, 2010.  
The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on March 15, 2013, on the basis that allotment of a new 
channel to Seaford was improper.
44
PMCM’s claim that its Petition was timely because it was filed 
within 30 days after issuance of the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration is entirely without 
merit.
45
  PMCM’s Petition challenged the allocation adopted in the Seaford Report and Order, not the 
Commission’s rejection of BMC’s argument that the Commission should have placed the new allocation 
at channel 2 or 3.  As to its request for reconsideration of the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration, the 
Petition therefore was an impermissible collateral challenge to the Seaford Report and Order.
46
  The 
deadline for filing the Petition therefore was 30 days after public notice of the Seaford Report and Order, 
not 30 days after public notice of the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration.  Accordingly, PMCM filed its 
Petition for Reconsideration approximately three years late.
15. The Commission can only accept late-filed petitions for reconsideration if the petitioner 
shows that extraordinary circumstances warrant overriding the statutory filing deadline.
47
As the D.C. 
Circuit has explained, “[a]lthough section 405 does not absolutely prohibit FCC consideration of untimely 
petitions for reconsideration, we have discouraged the Commission from accepting such petitions in the 
absence of extremely unusual circumstances.”
48
  Consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s decisions, the 
Commission in applying that standard has focused on whether the Commission has failed to adhere to its 
procedural rules for providing notice of its decisions.
49
  PMCM has not even attempted to show that it has 
met this standard, much less demonstrated that the extraordinary circumstances required under this 
precedent are present here.
50
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
FCC Rcd 881, 894 (2011) (finding PMCM and other prospective bidders unqualified to bid in the auction).  As to its 
objection to an allotment in Dover, WMDE’s application for a change in community of license is the proper 
proceeding for the airing of this grievance, and in fact, PMCM has sought reconsideration of the Bureau’s decision 
in that proceeding.  See Petition for Reconsideration of PMCM, LLC, MB Docket No. 13-40 (filed Jun. 13, 2014);
Western Pacific Broadcast, LLC, Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Digital Television Table of Allotments (Seaford, 
Delaware and Dover, Delaware), Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4773 (Vid. Div. 2014).
43
47 U.S.C. § 405(a).
44
PMCM Petition for Reconsideration, at 2. 
45
See id.
46
See Motions for Declaratory Rulings Regarding Commission Rules and Policies for Frequency Coordination in 
the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12752, 12757 (1999); MCI 
Telecommunications Corp. v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 
216, n. 38 (1990) recon denied, 5 FCC Rcd 3463 (1990), appeal dismissed sub nom. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. 
Co. v. FCC, 951 F. 2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
47
Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
48
Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231, 1237 (D.C. Cir. 1993), citing Reuters, 781 F.2d at 951-52. 
See 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 199-200 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
49
See Satellite Signals of New England, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 515, 518 (2010); 
Emmis Radio License Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14733 n.4 (2002) (citing Gardner v. 
FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1976) and dismissing petitions for reconsideration where in each case the 
petitioner did not allege that there was defective notice that made it impossible to meet the filing deadline for 
requesting reconsideration); Adelphia Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 
10759, 10760 n.9 (1997) (same).
50
See BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Commission does not abuse its discretion 
when it ‘decline[s] to entertain a late-filed petition in the absence of extenuating circumstances prohibiting a timely 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
7
16. The assertion that the Court’s decision in PMCM TV constituted “changed 
circumstances” warranting an extension of the deadline for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and 
Order is also without merit.  This contention presumes incorrectly that a showing of “changed 
circumstances” under section 1.429(b) warrants an extension of the statutory deadline for the filing of 
petitions for reconsideration.  Thus, PMCM claims that “[i]t is hornbook law that ‘changed 
circumstances’ provide an adequate legal basis for reconsideration” and that the “relevant test is whether 
the petitioner has raised the changed circumstance at the first opportunity to do so.”
51
  Rather than 
supporting its theory that changed circumstances can support a request for reconsideration filed after the 
applicable statutory deadline, the single case PMCM cites, a 1979 Commission order, relates not to the 
filing of petitions for reconsideration after the statutory deadline but instead to the circumstances under 
which parties may seek reconsideration of a Commission order denying an application for review.
52
  
Section 1.429(b)(1) sets forth the limited circumstances in which new matter raised in a timely petition 
for reconsideration will be considered.
53
  It does not and cannot supersede the statutorily established 
deadline for the filing of petitions for reconsideration, which is set forth in Section 405 of the Act and 
reflected in Section 1.429(d) of the Commission’s rules.
54
17. For the foregoing reasons, PMCM’s argument that the Petition was timely filed because 
of its submission within 30 days of the release of the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration
55
is 
without merit.  We therefore affirm the Bureau’s dismissal of the Petition and deny the AFR.  In light of 
our denial of the AFR, the Motion to Dismiss and associated pleadings are moot.  We therefore dismiss 
these filings.
18. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED That, pursuant to section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and section 1.115(g) of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g), the Application for Review IS DENIED.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
filing.’ 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In fact, we have gone so far 
as to discourage the Commission from entertaining late-filed pleadings ‘in the absence of extremely unusual 
circumstances.’ Id.”).  See also Communications Vending Corp. of Arizona, Inc. v. FCC, 365 F.3d 1064, 1075 (D.C. 
Cir. 2004) (“[E]quitable tolling is unwarranted where a litigant has ‘failed to exercise due diligence in preserving his 
legal rights.’”).
51
AFR at 4.
52
Id. at n.6 (citing “Practice and Procedure,” 46 RR 2d 524 (1979)). 
53
47 C.F.R. §1.429(b)(1) (“A petition for reconsideration which relies on facts or arguments which have not 
previously been presented to the Commission will be granted only under the following circumstances: (1) The facts 
or arguments relied on relate to events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last 
opportunity to present such matters to the Commission.”).
54
47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(d).  There is no exception in section 1.429(d) for late-filed petitions based on 
new information nor any other exception.
55
AFR at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-105
8
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That, pursuant to section 4(i)-(j) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §154(i)-(j), and section 1.41 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. 
§ 1.41, the Motion to Dismiss, Request for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss, and Reply to Opposition to 
Motion to Dismiss of Western Pacific Broadcast, LLC, and the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 
Comments in Response to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and Request for Leave to File 
Comments in Response to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of PMCM TV, LLC, ARE 
DISMISSED as moot.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary