Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
DA 10-1162
Released: June 25, 2010
Mr. George S. Sebastian, President
Global Educational Development, Inc.
10335 Dunbar Street NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114
 Re: Application of Global Educational Development 
Inc. for a Construction Permit for a New 
Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Station at 
Tulsa, Oklahoma,
File No. BPET-19960917KE
Dear Applicant: 
We have before us a petition for reconsideration filed on April 4, 2007 by Global Educational 
Development, Inc. (“GED”).  GED seeks reconsideration of the Video Division’s March 23, 2007 dismissal 
of its above-captioned application for a construction permit for a new noncommercial educational broadcast 
station at Tulsa, Oklahoma.1 For the reason stated below, we deny the petition for reconsideration.
GED was part of a larger group of applicants for a new noncommercial educational television station on 
channel *63, Tulsa, Oklahoma.  These applicants included Oral Roberts University (“ORU”), Broadcasting 
for the Challenged, Inc., Faith That Pleases God Church Corporation, Family Educational Broadcasting, 
Inc., and Community Television Educators, Inc (“CTE”).  With the impending digital transition, the 
applicants jointly requested, and the Video Division granted,2 the substitution of DTV channel *26 for TV 
channel *63 at Tulsa.  The Tulsa Channel Substitution Order required that “within 45 days of the effective 
date of this Order, the [a]pplicants shall submit to the Commission minor change applications for a 
construction permit (FCC Form 340) specifying DTV [c]hannel *26 in lieu of TV [c]hannel *63 at Tulsa.”3  
The effective date of the Tulsa Channel Substitution Order was January 14, 2005.4 Therefore, the deadline 
for the applicants to submit their minor change applications for a construction permit specifying DTV 
channel *26 in lieu of TV channel *63 at Tulsa was February 28, 2005.  
Only two applicants, ORU and CTE, timely submitted minor change applications.  GED untimely 
submitted its minor change application on March 29, 2005. Thereafter, on March 23, 2007, the Video 
Division dismissed GED’s Tulsa application, as well as the applications of all of the other applicants who 
failed to timely file their minor change applications.  Subsequently, on April 4, 2007, GED submitted a 
petition for reconsideration of the Video Division’s dismissal of its application.  In GED’s petition, it 
  
1 Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Associate Chief, Video Division, to GED, et al., March 23, 2007.
2 Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations; and Section 73.622(b), Table 
of Allotments Digital Broadcast Television Stations (Tulsa, Oklahoma), Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 71383 (2004) 
(“Tulsa Channel Substitution Order”).
3 Tulsa Channel Substitution Order at ¶6.
4 69 Fed. Reg. 71385 (Dec. 9, 2004).
2
claims that the premise on which the Video Division dismissed its application is incorrect.5 GED states that 
on March 29, 2005, it submitted to the Commission a minor change application specifying DTV channel 
*26 in lieu of TV channel *63.  
GED failed to timely submit to the Commission its minor change application for a construction permit 
specifying DTV channel *26 in lieu of TV channel *63 at Tulsa.  The Tulsa Channel Substitution Order
required that applicants file their minor change applications within 45 days of the effective date of that 
Order.6 The effective date of the Tulsa Channel Substitution Order was January 14, 2005, and therefore, 
February 28, 2005, was the applicants’ deadline to submit their the minor change applications to the 
Commission.7 It is uncontroverted that GED did not submit its minor change application to the 
Commission until March 29, 2005.  GED has proffered no further facts or arguments that the staff erred in 
dismissing its March 29th application.  The GED minor change application was untimely and, therefore, 
was not entitled to comparative consideration with the timely-filed minor change applications.  
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED That, the petition for reconsideration, filed by Global Educational 
Development, Inc., IS DENIED.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Kreisman
Chief, Video Division
Media Bureau
 
  
5 Petition at 1-2 (April 3, 2007).
6 Tulsa Channel Substitution Order at ¶6.
7 69 Fed. Reg. at 71385.