Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
January 9, 2009
In Reply Refer to:
Released: January 9, 2009
Mr. William Crozier
Union City, Oklahoma 73090
Cary S. Tepper, Esq.
Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C.
7900 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 304
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3628
KMSI(FM), Moore, OK
Facility ID No. 14436
File No. BRED-20050124AER
Application for Renewal of License
Petition for ReconsiderationGentlemen:
We have before us the petition for reconsideration ("Petition")1 filed on August 21, 2007, by
William Crozier ("Crozier") directed to the action of the Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, denying
his informal objection and granting the above-referenced application ("Application") filed on January 24,
2005, by Creative Educational Media Corporation, Inc. ("Creative") for renewal of the license of
noncommercial educational "(NCE") Station KMSI(FM), Moore, Oklahoma (the "Station").2 For the
reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for reconsideration.
Background. Creative filed an application to renew the KMSI(FM) license on January 24, 2005.
On April 29, 2005, Crozier filed an informal objection3 alleging that Creative lacked local programming
and challenging its non-profit status. Creative filed its opposition on May 12, 2005, and on July 13, 2007,
the staff released the Staff Decision which both denied Crozier's Objection and granted the Application.
1 Creative filed an Opposition on September 5, 2007.
2 See Letter to Creative Educational Media Corporation, Inc. et al., 22 FCC Rcd 12947 (MB 2007) ("Staff
3Crozier filed a letter titled "Informal Objection for License Renewal of KMSI-FM - Moore, Oklahoma" (the
"Objection"). While his Objection was filed within the requisite time period for petitions to deny the Application,
Crozier states that his filing "is an Informal Objection" and it was considered as such.
In rejecting Crozier's programming arguments, the staff stated, inter alia, that ". . . ultimately,
Crozier's objections amount to little more than a difference of opinion with Creative over what types of
programming best serve the needs of the community of Moore, Oklahoma," and that there was no
substantial and material question of fact that grant of the Application would be prima facie inconsistent
with the Act.4 It also found that the Commission has traditionally declined to consider issues of a
licensee's compliance with the requirements of state corporate law where no challenge has been made in
state court and the determination is one that is more appropriately a matter of state resolution.
In support of his Petition, Crozier states, in essence, that he could have filed a reply to the
Opposition and "better address" his "misstatements and misunderstandings" of the Commission's rules
and policies if Creative had responded to his request for information from KMSI(AM)'s public inspection
file. Crozier asserts that Creative's alleged non-responsiveness, for two years, should be sufficient to
establish the requisite substantial and material question of fact in this case, and requests the Commission
to compel Creative to now provide the information.5
Discussion. Crozier's Petition was late-filed and we will dismiss it on that basis. 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."6 The Staff Decision was released on July
13, 2007. A petition for reconsideration was due 30 days later, on August 13, 2007. 7 Thus, the Petition,
filed eight days thereafter, was untimely. The Commission will only accept late-filed petitions for
reconsideration if the petitioner shows that extraordinary circumstances warrant overriding the statutory
filing deadline. 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."8 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.9 No such circumstances
are present here.
4 Staff Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 12949.
5 We note that Creative did apparently attempt to comply with Crozier's request Petition, but delivery could not be
completed because of an address discrepancy. See letter dated August 2, 2005, attached to the Petition.
6 47 U.S.C. 405(a).
7 See 47 U.S.C. 405; 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f); see also Frederick Gauthier De Castro, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 5401
8 Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. v. FCC, 989 F.2d 1231, 1237 (D.C. Cir. 1993), citing Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781
F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1986). See 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 199-200 (D.C.
9 See Emmis Radio License Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 14733 n.4 (2002) and Adelphia
Communications Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10759, 10760 n.9 (1997) (both 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).
Conclusion. Accordingly, the William Crozier petition for reconsideration IS HEREBY
DISMISSED as late filed.
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
cc: Creative Educational Media Corporation, Inc.
Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.