Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 24, 2009
DA 09-434
 In Reply Refer To: 
 1800B3-RBG
Released: February 24, 2009
Mr. Stephen Diliberto    
48750 East 110 Road    
Miami, Oklahoma 74354-6001
In re:  KRPS(FM), Pittsburg, Kansas 
Pittsburg State University  
Facility ID No. 52740
File No. BRED-20050201AZE  
 
 Petition for Reconsideration of Grant 
of License Renewal Application 
Dear Mr. Diliberto:  
Before us is a letter from you dated October 3, 2007, and received by the Commission on October 11, 
2007.  This letter, addressed to the staff, objects to the July 13, 2007, grant of the Pittsburg State 
University application for renewal of license (the “Application”) for noncommercial educational Station 
KRPS(FM), Pittsburg, Kansas.1 We treat your letter as a petition for reconsideration of the staff’s grant 
of the Application and dismiss it as untimely.
Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934,2 as amended, states that any party aggrieved by an 
order, decision, report, or action of the Commission, or of any designated authority within the 
Commission, may file a petition for reconsideration within thirty days from the date upon which public 
notice of the order, decision, report, or action is given.  This thirty-day period is statutory and cannot be 
waived or extended by the Commission, except for an “extraordinary case,” such as where the late-filing 
is due to the Commission’s failure to give a party timely notice of the action for which reconsideration is 
sought.3  
The Renewal Decision was released on July 13, 2007.  The day after the release date, namely, July 14, 
2007, marked the beginning of the thirty day period for filing a petition for reconsideration.4  
  
1  See Letter to  Stephen Diliberto, from Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, 22 FCC Rcd 12983 (MB 2007) (the
“Renewal Decision”).  The Renewal Decision also denied your Informal Objection to the grant of the Application.
 
2 47 U.S.C. § 405(a).   
3  See, e.g., Stephen E. Powell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11925 (1996).  
4  See 47 C.F.R. § l.4(b).  
Accordingly, such a petition was due no later than August 13, 2007.5 Your letter was filed nearly two 
months later.  We are not persuaded that we should accept your late filing due to your involvement in 
agriculture.  This is not the sort of “extraordinary case” that would justify a waiver or extension of the 
thirty-day statutory filing period.6 Therefore, your Petition for Reconsideration must be dismissed as 
untimely.  
Accordingly, your letter dated October 3, 2007, letter, treated as a petition for reconsideration IS 
DISMISSED as untimely.   
Sincerely, 
Peter H. Doyle, Chief
Audio Division 
Media Bureau   
cc:  Pittsburg State University  
    
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.4(e) and (j).  
6 See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976).