Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WILLIAM L. ZAWILA
Permittee of FM Station KNGS,
Coaling, California
AVENAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Permittee of FM Station KAAX,
Avenal, California
CENTRAL VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 
SERVICES, INC.
Permittee of FM Station KYAF,
Firebaugh, California
H.L. CHARLES D.B.A FORD CITY
BROADCASTING
Permittee of FM Station KZPE,
Ford City, California
LINDA WARE D/B/A LINDSAY
BROADCASTING
Licensee of FM Station KZPO,
Lindsay, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 03-152
Facility ID No. 72672
Facility ID No. 3365
Facility ID No. 9993
Facility ID No. 22030
Facility ID No. 37725
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  January 31, 2017 Released:  February 1, 2017
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this memorandum opinion and order, we dismiss and deny the Appeal of Order (FCC 
16M-23) to the Full Commission, filed by William L. Zawila (Zawila) on behalf of Avenal Educational 
Services (Avenal) and Central Valley Educational Services (Central Valley) on August 2, 2016.
1
  This 
                                                     
1
William Zawila, Appeal of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full Commission, EB Docket No. 03-152 (filed Aug. 2, 
2016); William Zawila, Amended Appeal of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full Commission, EB Docket No. 03-152 
(filed Aug. 8, 2016) (Amended Appeal).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
2
pleading seeks review of a memorandum opinion and order by Chief Administrative Law Judge Richard 
L. Sippel (ALJ) dismissing Avenal and Central Valley as parties in the proceeding and finding that they 
were ineligible to hold their FM noncommercial educational (NCE) construction permits.
2
  We dismiss 
Zawila’s appeal as untimely.  As separate and independent grounds, we conclude that Zawila’s appeal 
fails to raise any substantial arguments that would justify disturbing the ALJ’s ruling.  We, therefore, 
deny Zawila’s appeal.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In 1999, a third party filed an informal objection against Zawila’s application for KNGS 
(FM), contending that Zawila had made material misrepresentations to the Commission regarding the 
construction and operation of the station.
3
  This led the Enforcement Bureau to investigate five other 
facilities with which Zawila was involved as a principal, officer, or counsel, including the stations for 
which Avenal and Central Valley hold construction permits.
4
  The investigation raised questions as to 
whether Zawila, either individually or on behalf of Avenal and Central Valley, made misrepresentations 
to the Commission regarding their facilities and whether they engaged in assorted technical and other rule 
violations.
5
  These issues were designated for hearing in 2003,
6
but in 2004 the proceeding was placed in 
indefinite stay.
7
  The ALJ lifted the stay in June 2015.
8
3. In preparation for resumption of the proceeding, the ALJ had directed submission of 
information to update the ownership and representation of the parties.
9
  Two groups, one represented by 
Zawila, and the other
10
by attorney Michael Couzens, submitted conflicting information regarding the 
ownership and control of Avenal and Central Valley.
11
  The ALJ found that the information submitted 
was insufficient to resolve the conflicting claims of the Zawila group and the Couzens group to control of 
Avenal and Central Valley.
12
  The ALJ, therefore, added to the hearing the issue of what party properly 
owned and controlled Avenal and Central Valley.
13
4. The ALJ also determined that the information submitted raised questions as to whether 
Avenal and/or Central Valley were eligible to hold permits for NCE stations at the time they submitted 
                                                     
2
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 16M-23 (rel. July 25, 
2016) (July 25 Order).  This order is based in part on factual findings made in an earlier order.  See William L. 
Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 16M-01 (Jan. 12, 2016) (January 12 
Order).  
3
A thorough recitation of the facts and allegations underlying this proceeding can be found in William L. Zawila et 
al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Hearing Designation 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14938 (July 16, 2003).
4
Id. at 14939, para. 4.
5
Id. at 14944-50, paras. 23-48.
6
See id.
7
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order, FCC 04M-09 (rel. Mar. 5, 2004).
8
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order, FCC 15M-21 (rel. June 4, 2015).
9
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order, FCC 14M-33 (rel. Oct. 16, 2014).
10
The leader of this group is an individual named Verne J. White.
11
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order, FCC 15M-11 (rel. Mar. 19, 2015).
12
January 12 Order at 3, para. 6.
13
Id. at 4, para. 9; William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Order, FCC 16M-02, at 2, paras. 1-4 (Feb. 2, 
2016) (Amended Hearing Designation Order).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
3
their applications for stations KAAX(FM) and KYAF(FM).
14
  Under section 73.503 of the Commission’s 
rules, an NCE license may only be granted to a nonprofit educational organization.
15
  Prior Commission 
decisions have interpreted the term “nonprofit educational organization” to mean that the applicant “must 
be a public agency or non-profit private foundation, corporation, or association that is recognized by the 
laws of the state in which it proposes to operate at the time it submits its application.”
16
  
5. The record showed that while Avenal filed its application in 1989, it was not incorporated 
in California until 10 years later, on March 5, 1999.
17
  Similarly, Central Valley filed its application in 
1988, but it was not incorporated in California until, at the earliest, January 26, 2001.
18
  Given this gap 
between the filing of their applications and their earliest corporate existence, the ALJ added to the hearing 
the issue of whether Avenal and Central Valley were properly organized when they filed their 
applications and therefore eligible to hold the permits in question under section 73.503.
19
  Subsequently, 
the ALJ found that “Avenal and Central Valley were not . . . organized entities recognized by state or 
federal law – at the time of their respective applications.”
20
  The ALJ ruled that “Avenal and Central 
Valley’s license applications are invalid, and should have been denied ab initio.”
21
  As the ALJ concluded 
that Avenal and Central Valley were ineligible to have received authorizations for KAAX(FM) or 
KYAF(FM), he dismissed them as parties from the remainder of the proceeding.
6. Now before the Commission is Zawila’s interlocutory appeal as of right filed on behalf of 
Avenal and Central Valley.
22
  Zawila challenges the ALJ’s ineligibility determination and the dismissal of 
Avenal and Central Valley from the proceeding on two grounds. First, he contends that the ALJ failed to
consider evidence showing that Avenal and Central Valley were, in fact, properly incorporated at the time 
of their applications.
23
  Zawila asserts that Avenal and Central Valley “were in full compliance with FCC 
requirements when they filed their initial applications.”
24
  In this regard, Zawila also contends that the 
evidence submitted by the parties to demonstrate who owned Avenal and Central Valley should not have 
                                                     
14
William L. Zawila et al., EB Docket No. 03-152, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 15M-01 (rel. Jan. 12, 
2015).
15
47 C.F.R. § 73.503(a).
16
Hope Radio of Rolla, Inc., File No. BNPL-20010122AKZ, 28 FCC Rcd 7754, 7754 (May 14, 2013) (emphasis 
added); see also Applications for Review of Decisions Regarding Six Applications for New Low Power FM Stations, 
File No. BNPL-20000608AEN et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 13390, 13393-94, para. 10 
(Aug. 23, 2013).
17
January 12 Order at 3, para. 6.
18
Id. at 4, para. 7.
19
Id. at 4, para. 9; Amended Hearing Designation Order at 2-3, paras. 5(d) & 5(g).
20
July 25 Order at 7-8, para. 16.
21
Id.
22
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.301(a)(1) (appeal as of right where ruling denies or terminates a party’s right to participate in 
the proceeding).  Although Zawila purports to appeal on behalf of Avenal and Central Valley, the Couzens group 
filed an “informal objection” asserting that Zawila has no authority to represent Avenal and Central Valley.  See 
Michael Couzens’s Informal Objection to “Appeal of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full Commission,” EB Docket 
No. 03-152 (filed Aug. 18, 2016).  We need not reach the question of whether Zawila may properly represent 
Avenal and Central Valley inasmuch as we dismiss and deny his appeal on other grounds, as discussed below.  
23
Amended Appeal at 3-4.
24
Id. at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
4
been used by the ALJ to make an entirely different determination, namely as to the eligibility of Avenal 
and Central Valley to hold NCE authorizations.
25
  
7. Second, Zawila argues that the ALJ’s ineligibility determination is untimely.  According 
to Zawila, the Commission’s Character Policy Statement
26
prohibits the ALJ from examining, more than 
ten years after the fact, whether or not Avenal and Central Valley were properly incorporated at the time 
of their applications.
27
  Zawila claims that the Character Policy Statement bars consideration of any 
conduct bearing on an applicant’s qualifications that happened more than ten years earlier.  The 
applications for KAAX(FM) and KYAF(FM) were filed in 1988-89, well over ten years ago.
8. The Enforcement Bureau opposes Zawila’s appeal.
28
  The Bureau argues that Zawila 
presents no supporting evidence for his contention that Avenal and Central Valley were properly 
incorporated at the time the applications were filed.
29
  The Bureau also asserts that the ALJ’s decision 
does not involve any determination of character qualifications, and hence Zawila’s reliance on the 
Character Policy Statement is misplaced.
30
  The Bureau further states that even if the Character Policy 
Statement did apply to the determination of ineligibility, it “suggests only that, as a general matter, the 
Commission should impose a 10-year limitation when considering past conduct”; it does not, as Zawila 
suggests, impose a firm ban.
31
III. DISCUSSION
9. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss Zawila’s appeal as late filed and, as separate 
and independent grounds, deny Zawila’s appeal on its merits.
10. As one separate and independent basis for rejecting Zawila’s appeal, we find that 
Zawila’s appeal should be dismissed as late filed.  Under the Commission’s rules, interlocutory appeals 
must be filed with the Commission’s Secretary within five days after the ALJ’s order is released.
32
  Items 
are considered as filed upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission.
33
  The ALJ’s 
order at issue was released on July 25, 2016.  The deadline for receipt of an appeal was therefore, August 
1, 2016.
34
  As indicated by the date stamp on the filing, Zawila’s appeal was not received by the 
Commission’s mail room until August 2, 2016.  Zawila’s appeal was, therefore, filed one day late.  While 
dismissal of an appeal when a deadline is missed by a brief time may seem harsh, both judicial and 
                                                     
25
Id. at 3.  Further, Zawila argues that the ALJ erred by not making a formal determination as to what party properly 
represents Avenal and Central Valley.  Amended Appeal at 3.  The ALJ determined that the question of ownership 
(and representation) was mooted by the determination that Avenal and Central Valley were ineligible to hold the 
licenses in question.  July 25 Order at 2, para. 2 n.2.  We similarly find that the issues raised in the Amended Appeal
can be adjudicated without reaching the question of who owns, controls, or represents Avenal and Central Valley.
26
Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 
1179, 1229 (1986) (Character Policy Statement).  
27
Amended Appeal at 4-5.
28
Enforcement Bureau’s Opposition to Appeal of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full Commission, EB Docket No. 03-
152 (filed Aug. 9, 2016).
29
Id. at 3.
30
Id. at 5.
31
Id. (emphasis original).
32
47 C.F.R. § 1.301(c)(2), (c)(4).
33
47 C.F.R. § 1.7.
34
Five days after July 25, 2016, is July 30, 2016.  However, because the filing period is less than seven days, the 
intermediate Saturday and Sunday (July 30-31) are not counted in the filing period.  47 C.F.R. § 1.4(g).  Therefore, 
the due date falls on Monday, August 1, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
5
Commission precedent emphasize the need to strictly enforce deadlines,
35
and the Commission has 
dismissed appeals in other contexts for failing to meet the filing deadline by even a single day.
36
  
Furthermore, Zawila gives no explanation for the late filing, and we find no public interest to be served by 
relaxing the deadline.  Therefore, Zawila’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.
11. Even if we did not dismiss Zawila’s appeal as untimely, we would, as a separate and 
independent matter, deny the appeal on its merits.  We find that Zawila has failed to present any 
convincing arguments or evidence that Avenal and Central Valley were, in fact, incorporated at the time 
of their applications.  We also conclude that the Character Policy Statement is inapplicable to this case.  
12. While Zawila states that Avenal and Central Valley “were in full compliance with FCC 
requirements when they filed their initial applications,”
37
he cites no evidence or detailed explanation to 
support this conclusory assertion.  As the ALJ noted, the earliest evidence of the parties’ corporate 
existence consists of articles of incorporation dated, respectively January 22, 1999 (for Avenal) and 
January 26, 2001 (for Central Valley).
38
  Similarly, the earliest corporate registration appearing in the 
online California Business Portal is March 5, 1999 (for Avenal) and January 29, 2001 (for Central 
Valley).
39
  This is long after the parties filed their applications on March 20, 1989 (Avenal) and October 
17, 1988 (Central Valley).
40
  Moreover, a sworn statement by Verne J. White, the head of the Couzens 
group, affirms the 1999 incorporation of Avenal and the 2001 incorporation of Central Valley.
41
  Zawila 
presents no evidence of the parties’ earlier corporate existence or an explanation for the multi-year gap 
between the filing of the applications and the earliest corporate documents.  
13. Zawila instead argues that the ALJ should not have relied on this evidence.  First, he 
contends that the articles of incorporation were submitted solely for the purpose of settling the question of 
ownership of Avenal and Central Valley.
42
  Instead, the ALJ “used the evidence submitted . . . for a totally 
improper purpose, to wit, to challenge the right of [Avenal] and [Central Valley] to file their initial 
applications.”
43
  We reject this argument.  We are aware of no legal principle, and Zawila has offered no 
such precedent, that stands for the proposition that a piece of evidence can only be relied on for the 
specific purpose for which it was submitted.  To the extent Zawila suggests that he did not have notice 
that he would have to prove the parties’ corporate existence at the time of the applications, he gives no 
indication that he could make such a showing, and the Amended Hearing Designation Order clearly gives 
notice that the matter of Avenal and Central Valley’s eligibility was at issue in the hearing.
44
                                                     
35
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 101 (1985) (“Filing deadlines, like statutes of limitations, necessarily operate 
harshly and arbitrarily with respect to individuals who fall just on the other side of them, but if the concept of a 
filing deadline is to have any content, the deadline must be enforced . . . .  A filing deadline cannot be complied 
with, substantially or otherwise, by filing late – even by one day.”)
36
See Michael C. Olson, 13 FCC Rcd 20593, 20593, para. 1 (1998) (dismissing an application for review of a fee 
waiver determination on a Freedom of Information Act request that was filed one day late).
37
Amended Appeal at 4.
38
January 12 Order at 3-4, paras. 6-7.
39
Business Search, California Secretary of State, http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ (last visited Sept. 15, 2016).
40
January 12 Order at 3-4, paras. 6-7.  
41
Id.  Couzens argued before the ALJ that Avenal and Central Valley should be recognized as having been 
legitimate unincorporated associations under California law at the time the applications were filed.  The ALJ, 
however, found that Couzens had not demonstrated entitlement to this status.  July 25 Order at 7, para. 14. 
42
Amended Appeal at 3.
43
Id.
44
Amended Hearing Designation Order at 3, paras. 5(d) & 5(g) (adding issues to the hearing “[t]o determine 
whether Avenal Educational Services, Inc. was a qualified applicant pursuant to Section 73.503(a)” and “[t]o 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
6
14. Second, Zawila argues that the ALJ “erroneously treated the subject evidence as though it 
represented a complete 30 year history of [Avenal] and [Central Valley] from the time when their initial 
applications were filed through the current date.”
45
  Zawila claims that “the evidence was only an excerpt 
from the 30 year history of [Avenal] and [Central Valley] and was narrowly tailored to deal only with the 
specific narrow points” related to the ownership of Avenal and Central Valley.  Zawila goes on to state, 
“Mr. Zawila and his clients say this [incorporation] requirement was met by [Avenal] and [Central 
Valley]” and the ALJ “completely ignores the position put forth by Mr. Zawila.”
46
  We are unpersuaded 
by Zawila’s claim.  The articles of incorporation in the record show that Avenal and Central Valley were 
incorporated many years after they filed their applications.  If there is other evidence showing 
incorporation of Avenal and Central Valley on an earlier date, Zawila has not presented it or indicated 
that it exists.  We have no reason to believe that the ALJ ignored or mischaracterized the evidence.  
Absent evidence of earlier incorporation, we have no basis to find that Avenal and Central Valley 
qualified as nonprofit educational organizations, as required by section 73.503, at the time they filed their 
applications.
15. Zawila also argues that the ALJ contravened the Commission’s Character Policy 
Statement by finding more than ten years after the fact that Avenal and Central Valley were not eligible to 
apply for NCE authorizations.
47
  Zawila claims that the ALJ violated the Character Policy Statement by 
basing the July 25 Order “on alleged misrepresentations by [Avenal] and [Central Valley] regarding their 
legal status in the State of California almost 30 years ago when they initially applied for their respective 
stations.”
48
  Zawila asserts that “[t]he FCC’s said Character Policy Statement bars inquiry into character 
violation allegations regarding matters that occurred more than 10 years ago.”
49
  However, the Character 
Policy Statement is inapplicable here.  The determination that Avenal and Central Valley were not 
qualified to apply for NCE facilities stems from their failure to comply with the requirements of section 
73.503 of the Commission’s rules that they be nonprofit educational organizations at the time of their 
applications.  The July 25 Order made no determinations regarding whether Avenal or Central Valley had 
made any misrepresentations or otherwise violated the Commission’s character requirements.  Indeed, in 
the July 25 Order, the ALJ explicitly states that he is forgoing making a determination on any character 
issues because the costs of such a proceeding “offset any public interest to be gained . . . from litigating 
the added character issues.”
50
  We, therefore, reject Zawila’s argument that the July 25 Order violates the 
Commission’s Character Policy Statement.
51
IV. ORDERING CLAUSE
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Appeal of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full 
Commission, filed August 2, 2016, as amended, IS DISMISSED as untimely.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
determine whether Central Valley Educational Services, Inc. was a qualified applicant pursuant to Section 
73.503(a)”).
45
Id.
46
Id. at 4.
47
Id. at 4-5.
48
Id. at 5.
49
Id.
50
July 25 Order at 9, para. 20.  
51
As we determine that the Character Policy Statement is inapplicable, we do not reach the question of whether the 
Character Policy Statement imposes a firm ban on considering conduct that occurred more than a decade earlier.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-6
7
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as separate and independent grounds, that the Appeal 
of Order (FCC 16M-23) to the Full Commission, filed August 2, 2016, as amended, IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary