Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-111
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Edward A. Schober
New FM Translator Station
Denton, Maryland
New FM Translator Station
Denton, Maryland
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPFT-20130325ABA
Facility ID No.  141493
File No.  BNPFT-2013-325ABK
Facility ID No. 141483
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 1, 2014 Released: August 5, 2014
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it two nearly identical Applications for Review
1
(collectively, 
“AFRs”) filed by Edward A. Schober (“Schober”) on September 16, 2013.  Schober seeks review of the 
Media Bureau’s (“Bureau”) August 19, 2013, decision
2
denying Schober’s May 1, 2013, Petitions for 
Reconsideration and Leave to Amend (collectively, the “Petitions”) and upholding the April 9, 2013, 
dismissal of the captioned applications for construction permits for new FM translator stations at Denton, 
Maryland (collectively, the “Denton Applications”).  For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss in part
and deny in part the Applications for Review.  
2. The Denton Applications each proposed new translator facilities located within the “buffer 
zone”
3
of the Salisbury-Ocean City, Maryland “spectrum-available”
4
market and were required to include 
                                                     
1
On November 25, 2013, Schober filed Supplements to the AFRs (collectively, “Supplements”) containing 
engineering information purportedly showing “that there are no LPFM applications which could be [affected] . . .” 
by grant of the Denton Applications.  Supplements at 1.  Section 1.115(d) of the Commission’s rules requires that an 
“application for review and any supplemental thereto” must be filed within 30 days of public notice of the 
Commission action. 47 C.F.R. §1.115(d). The Commission has long held that “enforcement of the procedural rules, 
including the proscription against the filing of untimely supplements, is necessary to manage the decision-making 
process in an efficient manner.” Gresham Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC 
Rcd11895, 11898 (2011) (dismissing supplemental filings submitted on review); see also e.g., BDPCS, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17590, 17596-97 (2000).  We, therefore, will dismiss the 
unauthorized Supplements.    
2
Edward A. Schober, Letter, 28 FCC Rcd 12304 (MB 2013) (“Staff Decision”).
3
Applications proposing FM translator sites within 39 kilometers of any defined “Market Grid" are located in the 
market’s buffer zone.  See Media Bureau Announces FM Translator Auction 83 Filing Window and Filing 
Procedures, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 1500, 1501 (MB 2013) (“Singleton Filing Window PN”). The Denton 
Applications are 32 kilometers from the nearest grid point of the Salisbury-Ocean City market. 
4
Spectrum-available markets are defined as “those markets in which the number of LPFM channels within the 
applicable grid meets or exceeds the market's channel floor.”  See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service ;
Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Fourth Report and Order and 
Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 3364, 3383 (2012) (“Fourth Report and Order”).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-111
2
Preclusion Showings
5
for the market, but did not.
6
  On April 9, 2013, the staff dismissed the Denton 
Applications. 
7
The Staff Decision subsequently denied Schober’s petitions for reconsideration.       
3. On review,
8
Schober reiterates arguments previously made on reconsideration.  He contends 
that he should be excused from the requirement to have submitted timely Preclusion Showings because 
the Denton Applications could not have a preclusive effect in the Salisbury-Ocean City market, 
9
he 
misinterpreted the Preclusion Showing requirement because the public notice announcing it “qualified 
that requirement with a very confusing paragraph of exceptions”;
10
and that grant of the Denton 
Applications serves the public interest because they would improve service to a rural area.
11
       
4. Upon review of the AFRs and the entire record, we conclude that the Staff Decision properly 
decided the matters considered therein, and we uphold the Bureau’s decision for the stated reasons. The 
Staff Decision did not specifically consider Schober’s argument that he should be excused for his failure 
to timely file Preclusion Showings because, in fact, the Denton Applications did not preclude any LPFM 
licensing opportunities and he could have timely filed acceptable Preclusion Showings.  However, we 
find that this omission constitutes harmless error.  Schober provides no support for this waiver theory 
which, in any event, conflicts with long-standing application processing policies enforcing filing 
deadlines.
12
  Moreover, in the instant case, such a processing policy would have undermined the 
Commission’s stated goals of expeditiously processing six thousand FM translator applications and 
                                                     
5
Preclusion Showings must demonstrate that the application would not preclude any protected LPFM licensing 
opportunities.  See Id. at 3385-86.  
6
In the Singleton Filing Window PN the Bureau stated that any Form 349 proposal which differed from the original 
tech box proposal, as is the case here, and proposed a transmitter site at a location within the 39-kilometer “buffer”
of any defined “Market Grid,” as is the case here, would be required to file a Preclusion Showing.  Singleton Filing 
Window PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 1501.  The deadline for submitting Preclusion Showings for singleton applications was 
March 28, 2013, over a month after that PN was released.  Id.  The Bureau further stated, in bold print, that a 
Preclusion Showing  “may not be submitted, amended, corrected, completed or resubmitted for further consideration 
. . .” after that date.  Id. at 1502.  On March 18, 2013, the Bureau released a further public notice, again reminding 
applicants, including those which, like Schober, filed a technical amendment proposing a facility within 39 km of a 
defined Spectrum Available Market Grid, that they had to submit a Preclusion Showing by the filing deadline. The 
Notice cautioned, “Failure to file a required Preclusion Showing…by the relevant filing deadline will result in the 
dismissal of these Form 349 Tech Box and/or ‘long form’ applications.”   See Media Bureau Provides Additional 
Guidance on Preclusion Showing Filing Requirements for Auction 83 FM Translator Applicants, Public Notice, 28 
FCC Rcd 2840 (MB 2013). On April 3, 2013, Schober untimely amended the Denton Applications with the required 
Preclusion Showings.      
7
See Broadcast Actions, Public Notice, Report No. 47966 (rel. Apr. 12, 2013).
8
Also in the AFRs, Schober improperly argues for the first time on review that the Denton Applications were 
erroneously dismissed due to Commission staff enforcing “hard look” processing policies on Auction 83 applicants.    
Although the AFRs extensively address this issue, we will not consider it because Schober did not afford the Bureau 
an opportunity to address this argument.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c) (“No application for review will be granted if it 
relies on questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.”); 
see also Spectrum IVDS, L.L.C., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 10457, 10463 (2010).  Therefore, 
we dismiss the AFRs to the extent they make this contention.  
9
AFRs at 2.
10
Id.
11
Id. at 3.
12
See, e.g., Canyon Area Residents for the Environment, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8152, 8154 
(1999) (“We cannot allow a party to sit back and hope that a decision will be in its favor and, when it isn’t, to parry 
with an offer of more evidence.  No judging process in any branch of government could operate efficiently or 
accurately if such a procedure were allowed.”) (quoting Colorado Radio Corp. v. FCC, 118 F.2d 24, 26 (D.C. Cir. 
1941)).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-111
3
promptly opening an LPFM window in October 2013, which was the purpose of the March 28 filing 
deadline for Preclusion Showings.  We conclude that the Bureau properly rejected Schober’s tardily 
submitted Preclusion Showings. 
5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
13
and Sections 1.115(c) and (g) of the Commission’s rules,
14
the Applications for Review ARE DISMISSED for the reasons stated herein and ARE otherwise 
DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
13
47 U.S.C. §155(c)(5).
14
47 C.F.R. §§1.115(c) and (g).