Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-50
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Edward A. Schober
Application for Construction Permit for
New FM Translator Station W250BA, at
Manahawkin, New Jersey
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNPFT-20030825AIW
Facility ID No. 142127
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  April 26, 2016 Released: April 27, 2016
By the Commission:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant in part the Application for Review 
filed by Edward A. Schober (Schober) on May 6, 2013 (Application for Review).  Schober seeks review 
of an April 25, 2013, decision by the Audio Division, Media Bureau (Bureau) that: (1) granted a Petition 
for Reconsideration filed by Jersey Shore Broadcasting Corporation (Jersey Shore) on January 11, 2005 
(Petition for Reconsideration); (2) rescinded the grant of Schober’s above-captioned application 
(Application) for a new FM translator station at Manahawkin, New Jersey (Station); and (3) dismissed the 
Application.
1
  On May 20, 2013, Jersey Shore filed an Opposition to the Application for Review 
(Opposition) and on June 4, 2013, Schober filed a Reply to the Opposition (Reply).
I. BACKGROUND
2. On March 11, 2003, Schober filed a Form 175 short-form application proposing a new 
FM translator station at Manahawkin, New Jersey, during the filing window for FM Translator Auction 
83.
2
  Schober’s proposal was not mutually exclusive with any other Auction 83 application; accordingly, 
after the Bureau directed him to do so,
3
on August 25, 2003, Schober filed the above-captioned Form 349 
long-form Application.  On January 30, 2004, Jersey Shore filed a Petition to Deny the Application, 
claiming that it owned and operated the tower site specified in the Application and had not authorized 
Schober to use the site.  On August 3, 2004, Schober amended the Application to specify a new site.  On 
August 5, 2004, Schober filed an Opposition to the Petition to Deny, acknowledging that he had not 
contacted Jersey Shore regarding the use of its tower, but claiming that, when he filed the Application, he 
had the requisite reasonable assurance of site availability because there was space available on the Jersey 
Shore tower, as well as at other nearby sites.  
3. On December 10, 2004, the Bureau granted the Application and issued a construction 
permit, concluding that “Schober has amended its application to specify a different tower site.  Thus, 
                                                     
1
Edward A. Schober, Letter Order, Ref. No. 1800B3-ATS (MB Apr. 25, 2013) (Reconsideration Decision).  In the 
Reconsideration Decision, the Bureau also dismissed as moot a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Press 
Communications, LLC on January 14, 2005. 
2
See BNPFT-20030311AAD; FM Translator Auction Filing Window and Application Freeze, Public Notice, 18 
FCC Rcd 1565 (MB/WTB 2003).
3
See FM Translator Auction No. 83 Non-Mutually Exclusive Applications, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 12702 (MB 
2003).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-50
2
availability of Jersey Shore’s tower site is no longer an issue.”
4
  On January 11, 2005, Jersey Shore filed 
the Petition for Reconsideration, arguing again that a lack of reasonable assurance of site availability is a 
fatal deficiency that cannot be cured by amendment.
5
  On reconsideration, the Bureau rescinded its grant 
of the Application, agreeing with Jersey Shore that an applicant “may not cure its lack of site assurance 
by amending its application to specify a different transmitter site.”
6
4. On review, Schober contends that in the 1998 Auction Order, the Commission eliminated 
the reasonable assurance of site availability requirement for auction participants.
7
  Schober further 
submits that the instructions to the FCC Forms 301 and 349 are incorrect and misleading and should be 
amended to remove “any mention of requirements for assurance of site availability [for auction 
applicants].”
8
  Schober also argues that even if the requirement still applies, the Auction Order established 
a liberal amendment policy that allows auction applicants to amend their applications to cure defects, 
including site availability defects.
9
  
5. In its Opposition, Jersey Shore argues that the Application for Review is procedurally 
unacceptable because it relies upon questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has had 
no opportunity to pass, namely, that the site availability requirement was “no longer in force” for auction 
applicants.
10
  Substantively, Jersey Shore contends that the Auction Order did not eliminate the 
underlying site availability requirement and that an initial site availability defect is fatal and may not be 
amended, citing to a 2008 decision also involving Schober.
11
6. In his Reply, Schober argues that the Application for Review should be considered by the 
Commission because conflicting decisions at the Bureau level indicate the need for Commission-level 
resolution of the matter.
12
  Schober also urges procedural leniency because he is represented pro se and 
has “been waiting for over ten years for a final decision on this application.”
13
  
II. DISCUSSION
7. Procedural issues.  No application for review will be granted if it relies upon questions of 
fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.
14
  Here, the 
Bureau was not presented with the argument that the Auction Order eliminated the site availability 
requirement for auction applicants.  Therefore, we dismiss the Application for Review to the extent that it 
relies upon this argument.  However, the Bureau did have the opportunity to pass upon the dispositive 
issue of whether an auction applicant may amend to cure a site availability defect.  In the Reconsideration 
Decision, the Bureau directly stated that “an applicant may not cure its lack of site assurance by amending 
                                                     
4
Edward A. Schober, Letter Order, Ref. No. 1800B3-TB (MB Dec. 10, 2004) at 2.
5
Petition for Reconsideration at 3. Schober did not file a response to the Petition.
6
Reconsideration Decision at 3.
7
Application for Review at 1; Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding 
for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Services Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC 
Rcd 15920 (1998) (Auction Order).
8
Application for Review at 3-4.
9
Id. at 2, 4-6.
10
Opposition at 1-2.
11
Opposition at 3-5 (citing Edward A. Schober, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 14263 (2008))
(2008 Schober Decision).
12
Reply at 1-2.
13
Id. at 2.
14
47 CFR § 1.115(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-50
3
its application to specify a different transmitter site.”
15
  Therefore, we find that the site amendment issue 
is now properly before the Commission on review. 
8. Substantive issue.  In Christopher Falletti,
16
issued after Schober filed his Application for 
Review, we considered the issue of whether an FM auction applicant may amend to specify a new 
transmitter site where it lacked reasonable assurance of the availability of its originally-specified 
transmitter site.  Therein, we noted that, in the 1998 Auction Order, the Commission adopted a liberal 
amendment policy for auction applicants, under which “[l]ong-form applications for new facilities and for 
major changes in existing facilities in all broadcast services will no longer be immediately returned for 
defects pertaining to completeness or technical or legal acceptance criteria, without ample opportunity to 
correct the deficiency . . . the new processing standards for broadcast long-form applications will enable 
applicants for new facilities and for major changes to avoid dismissal and to liberally correct heretofore 
fatal defects in application information.”
17
  This liberal amendment policy was codified at Section 
73.3522(a)(2) of the Rules, which states that amendments to any long form application filed by “a 
winning bidder or a non-mutually exclusive applicant for a new station . . . in all broadcast services 
subject to competitive bidding” may be filed to “cur[e] any defect, omission or inconsistency identified by 
the Commission, or to make minor modifications to the application, or pursuant to § 1.65.”
18
9. In Falletti, we clarified that the liberal amendment policy applies to site availability 
defects in the same way that it does to all other application defects in the auctioned services.
19
   In so 
holding, we ruled, “To the extent that our decision in [the 2008 Schober Decision] is inconsistent with 
this holding, it is overruled.”
20
  Because Schober was allowed under the liberal amendment policy to 
amend the Application to cure the alleged site availability defect, we reinstate and grant the Application 
effective with the release of this Order.
21
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended,
22
and Sections 1.115(c) and (g) of the Commission’s Rules,
23
the Application 
for Review filed by Edward A. Schober on May 6, 2013, IS DISMISSED to the extent described in 
paragraph 7 of this Order and IS OTHERWISE GRANTED.
                                                     
15
Reconsideration Decision at 3.
16
Christopher Falletti, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 827 (2015) (Falletti).
17
Auction Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15986-87.  
18
47 CFR § 73.3522(a)(2)
19
To the extent that the Instructions to FCC Forms 301 and 349 do not reflect our holding in Falletti, we direct the 
Bureau to modify the relevant language as necessary when these forms are transitioned to the new License and 
Management System (LMS).  See generally, Media Bureau Announces Completion of First Phase of Licensing and 
Management System for Full Power TV Stations, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 11585 (MB 2014).
20
Falletti, 30 FCC Rcd at 831.
21
We note that Schober was granted tolling based on administrative review on December 10, 2007.  Edward A. 
Schober, Letter, Ref. No. 1800B3-IB (MB Dec. 10, 2007).  At the time tolling was granted, there were two months 
and five days remaining before expiration of the Construction Permit.  Id.  When tolling ends, the expiration date 
will be modified to reflect this remaining time on the Construction Permit, unless Schober requests and receives 
further tolling. 
22
47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
23
47 CFR § 1.115(c),(g).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-50
4
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Schober’s Application to construct a new FM 
translator station at Manahawkin, New Jersey (File No. BNPFT-20030825AIW) IS REINSTATED and 
GRANTED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary