Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 58855 

EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Action/SIP element 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

New York 

submittal date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.Statewide ........ 04/04/13 08/26/16, [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

This action addresses the following CAA 

element: 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) prong 4. 

■ 3. Section 52.1683 is amended by 

adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(o) The portion of the SIP submitted 

on April 4, 2013 addressing Clean Air 

Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS is disapproved. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20411 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0233; FRL–9951–41– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Control of Emissions of Volatile 

Organic Compounds From the 

Reynolds Consumer Products LLC— 

Bellwood Printing Plant 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) 

state implementation plan (SIP). The 

revision would remove a consent 

agreement and order (consent order) 

previously included in the Virginia SIP 

to address reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) requirements for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

control at the Reynolds Consumer 

Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and 

include a state operating permit in the 

SIP to continue to address RACT 

requirements for the Reynolds plant. 

EPA is approving these revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

25, 2016 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0233 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 26, 2015, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia through the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision 

to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal 

seeks to include state operating permit 

conditions and terms for the control of 

emissions of VOCs from Reynolds’ plant 

located in Chesterfield, Virginia, in the 

Richmond Area, in order to address 

VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds. 

Previously, VOC RACT requirements for 

Reynolds were addressed via inclusion 

in the Virginia SIP of a Consent Order 

between VADEQ and Reynolds. This 

SIP revision submittal seeks to remove 

the prior Reynolds’ consent order 

included in the SIP and replace it with 

nearly identical VOC RACT 

requirements now contained for the 

Reynolds’ plant in a state operating 

permit. The SIP revision submittal also 

contains minor administrative and 

technical changes related to VOCs 

compared to the Reynolds’ consent 

order; however, the substantive 

provision of VOC RACT remains the 

same for the Reynolds’ plant, thus the 

minor administrative and technical 

changes have no effect on facility 

operation, VOC emissions, or air 

quality. 

The Virginia SIP provides that the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s State Air 

Pollution Control Board must, on caseby-case basis, determine RACT for VOCs 

from major sources for which EPA has 

not issued a control technology 

guideline (CTG). EPA defines RACT as 

‘‘the lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). The 

Richmond Area was originally 

designated as a ‘‘moderate’’ ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS), and thereby had to 

meet the non-CTGs RACT requirements 

under section 182 of the CAA (56 FR 

56694, November 6, 1991). Reynolds’ 

printing plant was identified as being 

subject to non-CTG RACT. The facility 

underwent a RACT analysis, and a 

federally-enforceable consent order was 

issued to the facility on October 30, 

1986. The order was then submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision, and approved 

into the Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 

1996 (61 FR 29963). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision removes the prior 

Reynolds’ consent order included in the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
58856 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

SIP and replaces it with nearly identical 

VOC RACT requirements now contained 

for the Reynolds’ plant in a state 

operating permit. Including the permit 

in the SIP will continue to implement 

RACT requirements for the plant, a 

major source of VOCs, as required by 

sections 172 and 182(b) of the CAA. The 

permit established control technology 

and other requirements for the control 

of VOC emissions from the Reynolds’ 

plant in the Richmond Area. The permit 

incorporates only the conditions of the 

consent order, along with general permit 

conditions relating to testing, right of 

entry, and change of ownership. All 

operational requirements are limited in 

scope to those required by the consent 

order approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996 

(61 FR 29963). This includes process 

requirements to control VOC emissions, 

process emission limits, and on-site 

records. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP 

revision also corrects two typographical 

errors in the formula used to calculate 

the estimated percent reduction in VOC 

emissions at Reynolds’ plant for X14 

(total actual solvent usage for time 

period) and X15 (total estimated 

solvents the plant is capable of using if 

water based materials were not used). 

The formula with the typographical 

errors was approved into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP on June 6, 1996 

(61 FR 29963). The revised formula for 

the state operating permit merely 

corrects a typographical mistake made 

within the consent order but does not 

alter how VOCs are or were calculated 

nor affect VOC emissions from the 

plant. A more detailed description of 

the state submittal and EPA’s evaluation 

is included in a technical support 

document (TSD) prepared in support of 

this rulemaking action. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the October 26, 

2015 submittal for the purpose of 

removing a consent order previously 

included in the Virginia SIP to address 

RACT requirements for VOC control at 

the Reynolds’ plant and including 

Reynolds’ state operating permit in the 

SIP to continue to address RACT 

requirements for Reynolds. EPA also 

approves the minor administrative and 

technical changes in the formula used to 

calculate the estimated percent 

reduction in VOC emissions. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment. 

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

October 25, 2016 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives 

adverse comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. EPA will 

address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IV. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information ‘‘required 

by law,’’ including documents and 

information ‘‘required by federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval,’’ since 

Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their federal counterparts. . . .’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of a revision removing the 

prior Reynolds’ consent order included 

in the SIP and replacing it with nearly 

identical VOC RACT requirements now 

contained for the Reynolds’ plant in a 

state operating permit. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by EPA 

for inclusion in the SIP, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 58857 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update of the SIP compilation.1

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region III Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area 

where EPA or an Indian tribe has 

demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 25, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. 

This action removing a consent order 

previously included in the Virginia SIP 

to address RACT requirements for VOCs 

control at Reynolds plant and including 

Reynolds’ state operating permit in the 

SIP to continue to address RACT 

requirements for Reynolds; as well as, 

making minor administrative and 

technical changes in the formula used to 

calculate the estimated percent 

reduction in VOC emissions, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 12, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by revising the entry for 

Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
58858 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1An 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. 

2PMCM 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. PMCM even sought to bid in the auction 

for channel 5. 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. 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name 

Permit/order or 

registration 

No. 

State effective 

date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 citation 

*******

Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood ........................................... 50260 10/20/2015 8/26/2016 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

52.2465(c)(110) 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–20299 Filed 8–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 09–230; FCC 16–105] 

Television Broadcasting Services; 

Seaford, Delaware 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; application for 

review. 

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion 

and Order, the Commission denies the 

application for review of the Media 

Bureau’s dismissal of a petition for 

reconsideration of decisions that 

allotted VHF television channel 5 to 

Seaford, Delaware. The Media Bureau 

had dismissed the petition for 

reconsideration challenging the Seaford 

allotment because it was untimely filed 

and the Commission concludes that 

there is no basis to waive the statutory 

deadline for the filing of petitions for 

reconsideration. 

DATES: August 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeremy Miller, Media Bureau, (202) 418– 

1507, or by email at Jeremy.Miller@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to sections 331(a) and 307(b) of the 

Communications Act, this is a synopsis 

of the Commission’s Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, MB Docket No. 09– 

230, adopted August 3, 2016, and 

released August 4, 2016. The full text of 

this document is available for public 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC’s Reference 

Information Center at Portals II, CY– 

A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. This document will also be 

available via ECFS (http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and 

Order 

The Commission has before it for 

consideration an Application for Review 

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) the Seaford MO&O on 

Reconsideration rejecting a petition for 

reconsideration of the Seaford Report 

and Order and (3) the Seaford MO&O on 

Further Reconsideration dismissing 

PMCM’s petition for reconsideration of 

the prior Seaford decisions as untimely. 

For the reasons set forth below, we deny 

the AFR and affirm the Division’s 

dismissal of the PMCM Petition.1

In ordering the Seaford allotment, the 

Commission concluded that the 

outcome of PMCM’s Reallocation 

Request was not relevant. 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.2 In short, it 

appears that PMCM simply changed its 

strategy as developments unfolded. 

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.’’ 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. 

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. 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. The deadline for 

filing the Petition therefore was 30 days 

after public notice of the Seaford Report 

and Order, not 30 days after public 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES