Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 20, 2014
DA 14-226
In Reply Refer To:
1800B3-PPD
Mr. Christopher Maxwell
Synergy Project, Inc.
1520 Porter Street
Richmond, VA 23224
In Re: Application for Construction Permit 
for a Low Power Broadcast FM 
Station
New-LP, Richmond, VA
Facility ID Number: 197068
Synergy Project, Inc.
File Number: BNPL-20131114AOI 
Dear Mr. Maxwell:
This letter concerns Synergy Project, Inc.’s (“Synergy”) Form 318 application for a construction 
permit for a low power broadcast FM (“LPFM”) station in Richmond, VA, File No. BNPL-20131114AOI 
(“LPFM Application”).  The LPFM Application was “accepted for filing” on November 25, 2013.  For 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the LPFM application was inadvertently accepted for filing and 
dismiss it.
Background.  Synergy timely filed the LPFM Application on November 14, 2013.1 The LPFM 
Application was accepted for filing as a singleton on November 25, 2013.2  
The LPFM Application included a “Statement of Pledge of Divestiture,” which states that 
Synergy “has three applications for Full Power that have been DISMISSED….”3 However, Synergy 
currently has an application for review pending for the dismissed application for Montpelier, VA, File No. 
BNPED-20071016AIY (“NCE Application”).4  
Discussion.  The Commission’s rules (“Rules”) prohibit the filing of inconsistent applications.5  
An application is inconsistent with another pending application when grant of both would result in a 
  
1 See Media Bureau Extends Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 15763 (2013). 
2 See Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 28125 (November 29, 2013).
3 See Application for Construction Permit for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station, BNPL-20131114AOI, 
Attachment 5, citing File Nos. BNPED-20071016AIY (Montpelier, VA), BNPED-20071016AJB (Chester, VA), 
and BNPED-20071019AYH (Chester, VA).
4 Synergy did not appeal the dismissal of File Nos. BNPED-20071016AJB and BNPED-20071019AYH.
5 47 C.F.R. § 73.3518 (“While an application is pending and undecided, no subsequent inconsistent or conflicting 
application may be filed by or on behalf of or for the benefit of the same applicant, successor or assignee.”).
2violation of the Commission’s multiple ownership rules.6 Section 73.860 of the Rules prohibits a party 
from owning an attributable interest in both an LPFM station and a full-power broadcast station.7  
The Commission has previously determined that when an applicant appeals the dismissal of an 
application, that application is treated as “pending and undecided” for purposes of the inconsistent 
application rule.8 Thus, the NCE Application remains “pending and undecided.”   
Grant of both the LPFM Application and the NCE Application would give Synergy an 
attributable interest in an LPFM station and a full-power NCE broadcast station, in violation of the 
Commission’s cross-ownership prohibition.9 Thus, the filing of the LPFM Application resulted in the 
violation of the inconsistent application rule.
We note that Synergy’s LPFM Application includes a divestiture pledge for the NCE Application.  
However, the Commission has previously determined that a “pledge to subsequently dismiss a pending 
application conditioned on the future grant of another application does nothing to avoid” the violation of 
the inconsistent application rule.10 Thus, the divestiture pledge in this case was ineffective in preventing 
the violation.11  
Conclusion/Action.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the LPFM Application (File No. BNPL-
20131114AOI) IS DISMISSED.
Sincerely,
Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau
  
6 See Treasure Coast Media, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 5533 (1992).
7 47 C.F.R. § 73.860(a).
8 Premier Broadcasting, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 867 (1992) (returned application “was properly considered ‘pending and 
undecided’ for purposes of the inconsistent application rules” because applicant had on file a petition for 
reconsideration for the returned application).  See also, Amendment of Section 73.202(B), Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Stations (Lancaster, Pickerington, and Westerville, Ohio), 21 FCC Rcd 1504, 1505 (2006) (“Under 
Section 73.3518 of the rules, we cannot consider the subsequent inconsistent and conflicting…application in this 
proceeding until final disposition of the [applicant’s] Petition for Reconsideration.”)
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.860(a).
10 Treasure Coast Media, 7 FCC Rcd at 5534.
11 We also note that a violation of the inconsistent application rule cannot be cured through a post-hoc amendment.  
See Big Wyoming Broadcasting Corp., 2 FCC Rcd 3493 (1987) (“The graveman of the rule violation… was the 
filing of the inconsistent application itself and such a violation can never be cured by subsequent amendment 
because the act of filing cannot be undone.”) (emphasis added).  See also Jersey Shore Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 
37 F. 3d 1531, 1537 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (applicant cannot cure a violation of the inconsistent application rule by 
amendment).  Accordingly, a dismissal of the application for review would not result in reinstatement of the LPFM 
Application.