period for review has expired.” Kennecott, 88 F.3d at 1214. “To the contrary, we expressly stated in [Public Citizen ] that the appropriate way in which to challenge a longstanding regulation on the ground that it is ‘violative of statute’ is ordinarily ‘by filing a petition for amendment or rescission of the agency’s regulations, and challenging the denial of that petition.’ ” Id. (quoting Public Citizen, 901 F.2d at 152). Indeed, it is “absurd to suppose that every time an agency requests parties to compare the regulatory status quo with specific proposed alternatives, all facets of the status quo become fair game for new challenges.” Safe Food and Fertilizer v. EPA, 350 F.3d 1263, 1267 (D.C.Cir.2003); see Cellular Telecomms. & Internet Ass’n v. FCC, 330 F.3d 502, 508 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if our review were not barred
holding that the 60day window barred the petitioners from challenging the statutory authority underlying the fccs 1996 decision to impose wireless number portability in a 2001 forbearance petition holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum holding that a habeas petition in the court of appeals is the exclusive remedy for challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel holding that the 1996 personal restraint petition of an individual committed in 1980 pursuant to an insanity plea was procedurally barred because it was filed after the oneyear time bar set forth in rcw 1073090 and because the grounds for relief did not fall within the exceptions to the limitation period