Federal Communications Commission	FCC 26-24

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of  

Athens State University

Application for a Construction Permit for a New LPFM Station at Athens, Alabama

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
 




Application File No. 0000232649
Facility ID No. 784986

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  

Adopted:  April 25, 2026	Released:  April 28, 2026

By the Commission:

I. INTRODUCTION
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission considers an Application for Review (AFR) that challenges the dismissal by the Media Bureau (Bureau) of the challenger’s application for a new low power FM (LPFM) construction permit filed in the 2023 LPFM filing window. Media Bureau Announces Filing Procedures and Requirements for November 1 – November 8, 2023, Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 6660 (MB 2023) (Procedures Public Notice).  Based on a request from LPFM advocates, the Bureau subsequently delayed the window until December 6, 2023.  Media Bureau Announces Revised Dates for LPFM New Station Application Filing Window, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 9589 (MB  2023).  The Bureau subsequently extended the close of the window until December 15, 2023.  Media Bureau Announces Extension of LPFM New Station Application Filing Window, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 11882 (MB  2023).
  The Bureau dismissed the application of Athens State University (ASU), for a new LPFM station at Athens, Alabama (Application), Application File No. 0000232649 (filed Dec. 13, 2023).
 for violating the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807 of the Commission’s rules (Rules). 47 CFR § 73.807.
  Under section 73.870(c) of the Rules, ASU was not permitted to file a curative amendment. See id. § 73.870(c).  Pursuant to section 73.870(c), any application submitted during an LPFM filing window that fails to meet the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807 will be dismissed “without any opportunity to amend.”  
  ASU requests reinstatement of its application, claiming the public interest would be served by allowing applicants to correct clerical errors, particularly for a noncommercial service such as LPFM.  For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the dismissal of the Application and dismiss in part and otherwise deny the Application for Review.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Sections 73.807(a) and 73.870(c).  Applicants for new LPFM stations in the 2023 LPFM filing window were required to protect authorized FM stations, pending applications for new and existing FM stations filed prior to the release of the Procedures Public Notice, authorized LPFM stations, and vacant FM allotments, by meeting the minimum distance separation (spacing) requirements specified in section 73.807 of the Rules. 47 CFR § 73.807(a).
  Pursuant to section 73.870(c), the Bureau was required to dismiss without opportunity to amend any application submitted during the 2023 LPFM filing window that failed to meet the minimum spacing requirements of section 73.807. See id. § 73.870(c).
  The Bureau warned LPFM applicants in the Procedures Public Notice that, “[c]onsistent with established processing rules, an LPFM application that fails to protect these authorizations . . . will be dismissed with no opportunity to correct the deficiency.” Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6662, n.14 (emphasis in original) (citing Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 24817, 24818 (MB 2000)).  See also Media Bureau Announces Availability of the Revised FCC Form 318 and the Filing Procedures for October 15-October 29, 2013 Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 8854, 8855 (MB 2013); Christian Charities Deliverance Church, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10548, 10549-50, para. 5 (2015) (Christian Charities) (affirming section 73.870(c) dismissal of applications for failure to meet minimum spacing requirements).
  
3. Technical Acceptability – Tech Box.  In 2014, the Commission in Diocese of Portland announced a “clear policy” explaining how it would resolve inconsistencies in the specification of antenna sites in radio station applications. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15068, 15069, para. 2 (2014) (Diocese of Portland).
  The Commission acknowledged that there had been “apparent ambiguity” in the law in this area but stated that going forward the Bureau staff should rely only on the technical parameters specified within the discrete data fields contained in the technical portion of a radio station application (previously referred to as the “Tech Box,” now referred to as “Technical Sections”) when determining technical acceptability, without resort to any other data submitted elsewhere in the application or attachments. See Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15069, 15072, paras. 2, 8 (directing staff to “make any technical and legal evaluations of, and take any actions regarding, such applications based upon the stated antenna location coordinates specified in the Tech Box, without resort to any other data in the Tech Box or elsewhere in the application or attachments.  Such staff actions may include, but are not limited to, dismissal of such defective applications and refusal to accept amendments where such amendments would conflict with accurate and rule-compliant window-filed applications.”).  The Commission explicitly applied this guidance to equivalents to the Tech Box in future forms.  Id. at 15072, para. 8.
  The Commission stated See id. at 15062, para. 2.  
 that this policy would cover applications filed under FCC Form 318, which covers LPFM applications. Since Diocese of Portland, the Bureau has transitioned from the Consolidated Database System (CDBS) to the Licensing and Management System (LMS).  In CDBS, the engineering portion of the form included a marked portion titled “Tech Box,” which contained specific engineering questions pertinent to the radio service applied for and critical technical data required for engineering review.  LMS applications use a different layout and no longer include a subsection explicitly labeled as the “Tech Box.”  Instead, technical information in the LMS LPFM construction permit application, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318, is found in the Channel and Facility Information section and the Antenna Location Data section, or “Technical Sections.”  Thus, the Channel and Facility Information section and the Antenna Location Data section of the FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318, Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application are the updated LMS version of the “Tech Box.”  For the purposes of this Order, we refer to them as the “Technical Sections.”  
  Moreover, in the Procedures Public Notice issued shortly before the 2023 LPFM filing window, the Bureau reminded LPFM applicants of the Commission’s policy and cautioned them to “carefully review the channel and antenna location coordinates, and all data specified” in the Technical Sections and “to ensure the information is accurate and contains no typographical errors.” Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6667 (citing Diocese of Portland).
  The Bureau indicated that “staff will make technical evaluations based solely on the channel specified in the ‘Channel and Facility Information’ section and the antenna location coordinates specified in the ‘Antenna Location Data’ section.” Id.  
 
4. Section 73.807(a) Dismissal and Petition for Reconsideration.  The Application contained an error in the required technical data.  Specifically, ASU specified station Channel 210, instead of its intended Channel 250, in response to the required Technical Sections. Application at Technical Sections, Channel question.
  The Bureau dismissed the Application because it failed to meet the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807(a). ASU failed to meet the minimum distance spacing requirements of section 73.807(a) with respect to (1) the co-channel licenses of stations WAKD(FM), Sheffield, Alabama, and WZTN(FM), Cornersville, Tennessee, and (2) the first-adjacent channel license of station WJOU(FM), Huntsville, Alabama.
  The Bureau explained that an amendment was not permitted under section 73.870(c) of the Rules. See Actions, Public Notice, Report No. PN-2-240123-01 (MB Jan. 19, 2024) (Dismissal).
  ASU filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Pleading File No. 0000239429 (filed Feb. 18, 2024) (Petition).
  ASU requested reinstatement of the Application in order to change its proposed station channel as listed in the application Technical Sections from Channel 210 to Channel 250. See Petition at 1-2.  
  ASU acknowledged that the Application Technical Sections listed an inaccurate proposed channel due to a typographical error Id. at 2.
 but argued that (1) there was no intent to propose a radio channel that did not comply with section 73.807(a)’s spacing requirements, but rather, students mistakenly typed the wrong channel number on the form; Id. at 2-3. 
 and (2) the Bureau dismissed similar LPFM applications in the 2013 LPFM filing window due to section 73.807 location typographical errors, but the applicants corrected those errors, and the Bureau reinstated the applications. Id. at 3 (citing four 2013 LPFM applications filed by:  Pike Place Market Preservation and Developmental Authority (File No. BNPL-20131114AUD), Chiloquin Vision in Progress (File No. BNPL-20131112ABV), Radio 23 (File No. BNPL-20131114AVO), and Little Lake Grange (File No. BNPL-20131114ADG)).
  ASU further argued that there is “good cause” to request a waiver of section 73.870(c) to allow amendment, and specifically that:  (1) section 73.870(c) of the Rules conflicts with the public interest and is outweighed by the benefits of a new license to a local community; (2) the Bureau should allow nunc pro tunc reinstatement because it is “permissible for every other radio broadcast service;” (3) nonprofits should be afforded flexibility and the ability to amend application errors; (4) it is against the public interest for ASU to have to wait another decade for an LPFM license because of a typographical error; and (5) grant of its waiver request serves the public interest because the proposed station would be the only local-studio FM service in the Athens community. Id. at 5-9. 
  
5. Bureau Reconsideration Decision.  The Bureau denied the Petition, upholding its dismissal of the Application and conclusion that the Application, based on the channel specified within the Application Technical Sections, failed to meet the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807(a). Athens State University, Letter Order, 39 FCC Rcd 6539 (MB 2024) (Reconsideration Decision).
  The Bureau also reiterated that, consistent with the Commission’s established processing rules for LPFM applications, dismissed LPFM applicants are prohibited from filing amendments to correct violations of section 73.807. Reconsideration Decision, 39 FCC Rcd at 6540 (citing 47 CFR § 73.870(c)).  
  The Bureau held that typographical error claims cannot be used to justify filing an otherwise prohibited amendment. Reconsideration Decision, 39 FCC Rcd at 6541 (citing NCE MX Group 82, Letter Order, DA 23-348 (MB Apr. 25, 2023) (rejecting argument to correct typographical error where corrective amendment was prohibited)).
  The Bureau further held that ASU lacked good cause warranting a waiver of section 73.870(c) to correct its section 73.807 minimum distance separation violation, and noted that nunc pro tunc reinstatement for other services does not justify waiver of section 73.870(c) for LPFM spacing violations. Id. at 6542.  
  Specifically, the Bureau noted that the Commission adopted the section 73.870(c) policy to promote efficiency in the processing of LPFM applications, Id. at 6542.
 and held that allowing ASU to amend its violation would frustrate the processing efficiencies, which sections 73.807(a) and 73.870(c) were designed to promote, and be unfair to the many applicants who fully complied with the rules and filing requirements.  Therefore, the Bureau concluded that granting a waiver would be contrary to the public interest.  Further, although the Bureau found that ASU’s stated goal of  providing “the first locally-original[] service” for the Athens community was laudable, such goal did not warrant deviation from the LPFM rules. Id. at 6542-43.
  The Bureau also found that ASU’s reliance on the 2013 reinstated applications was misplaced.  Specifically, the Bureau explained that the 2013 reinstated applications predated Diocese of Portland, a 2014 order where the Commission clarified that, going forward, it would rely solely on Technical Sections data to determine technical acceptability and prohibit applicants from curing a location deficiency in an application with a prohibited amendment. Id. at 6541-42.
  Lastly, the Bureau rejected ASU’s argument that greater application processing flexibility is warranted here, noting that the Commission simplified the LPFM rules and procedures to aid and enable nonprofit organizations with limited expertise and budgets, and the Bureau also specifically advised LPFM applicants to consider professional assistance. Id. at 6543.

6. Application for Review.  ASU filed an Application for Review (AFR) AFR, Pleading File No. 0000249119 (filed July 15, 2024).
 in which ASU argues that:  (1) as previously raised in the Petition, applicants should be able to amend errors that are clerical in nature and not substantive; Id. at 9-10 and 12-14.
 (2) as previously raised in the Petition, the Bureau’s dismissal of the Application without opportunity to amend was inconsistent with Commission precedent and thus arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; Id. at 5.
 (3) the Application should be reinstated because increasing processing flexibility for noncommercial applicants is in the public interest, and ASU argues, for the first time, that the FCC’s reliance on processing efficiency is unpersuasive due to vast decreases in the number of new applications, efficiencies from new technologies, and inefficiencies caused by the processing of numerous petitions for reconsideration and applications for review; Id. at 3-5 and 25-26.
 (4) the section 73.870(c) dismissal is draconian in that the FCC treats LPFM applicants more harshly than other broadcast services by allowing other services nunc pro tunc reinstatement; Id. at 3-5 and 14-15.
 and (5) as previously raised in the Petition, prior applications that violated section 73.807 have been reinstated. Id. at 12-14.  To support this argument, the AFR cites two other 2013 LPFM applications:  Florida Educational Broadcasting, Inc. (File No. BMJPL-20131023AKY), and University of Washington Bothell (File No. BNPL-20131114BFU), in addition to the four 2013 LPFM applications previously cited in the Petition.  See supra note 21.  We refer to all six of these reinstated 2013 LPFM applications collectively as the 2013 Reinstated Applications.  
  ASU also asserts, for the first time, that Diocese of Portland is not applicable to its Application because: (1) contrary to the Bureau’s interpretation, Diocese of Portland does not apply to singleton An application that is not mutually exclusive with any other application.
 applications; it only applies in the mutually exclusive comparative consideration context, whereas in the LPFM context, Technical Sections coordinates do not grant an LPFM applicant a comparative advantage; AFR at 17-22.
 (2) applicants for new noncommercial educational (NCE) FM stations have made Technical Section amendments after Diocese of Portland; Id. at 19-20, referencing Application File Nos. BNPED-20100226AJU and 0000166836, as well as an application for Pierce, California.  However, ASU failed to provide a file number for the referenced Pierce, California, application.
 (3) Diocese of Portland does not apply to typographical errors concerning channel changes, only to those concerning antenna location, and Diocese of Portland should not apply to the entire Technical Sections; Id. at 23.
 and (4) the “defer to the Tech Box” approach was only “codified” for commercial stations. Id. at 10 (citing 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23082, para. 57 (1998) (1998 Streamlining R&O) (“[i]n the event of any discrepancies between data in the ‘Tech Box’ and data submitted elsewhere in the application, the data in the ‘Tech Box’ will be used.”), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17525 (1999)). 
  ASU further argues, for the first time, that (1) unsophisticated LPFM applicants should not be expected to submit error-free applications when the FCC’s own LPFM Channel Finder was down or malfunctioning prior to the closing window; AFR at 30.
 and (2) LPFM applicants lack the funds to hire experts to file applications and subsequent petitions for reconsideration and applications for review. Id.
  
7. In addition to these arguments, ASU also contends that the Reconsideration Decision did not address its assertions in the Petition that:  (1) LPFM applicants are treated differently than applicants for other broadcast services, who are allowed nunc pro tunc amendment of application errors, when LPFM applicants should instead have more flexible application requirements; (2) elimination of the main studio rule has reduced other broadcasters’ localism participation; and (3) dismissal of the Application would deprive Athens, Alabama, of its first truly local station. Id. at 3 and 31-36. 

III. DISCUSSION
8. An application for review of a final action taken on delegated authority will be granted when, inter alia, such action: conflicts with statute, regulation, precedent or established Commission policy; involves a question of law or policy which has not previously been resolved by the Commission; involves application of a precedent or policy that should be overturned; or makes an erroneous finding as to an important or material factual question. 47 CFR § 1.115(b)(2).
  As set forth below, we find that ASU has failed to demonstrate the Bureau erred, and thus we affirm the dismissal of the Application for the reasons stated in the Reconsideration Decision, and reject the remaining arguments in the AFR.  
9. Procedural Matters.  A number of ASU’s arguments are procedurally defective because they should have been previously presented to the Bureau as required by section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
 and section 1.115(c) of the Commission Rules, which provides that “[n]o 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 47 CFR § 1.115(c).
  Specifically, in the AFR, ASU raises various new arguments regarding section 73.870(c) and Diocese of Portland, See supra para. 6.
 and contends, for the first time that: the Commission’s reliance on processing efficiency is unpersuasive, AFR at 3-5 and 25-26.
 applicants should not be expected to file error-free applications when the FCC’s Channel Finder was malfunctioning; and LPFM applicants lack resources to hire professional assistance. Id. at 30.
  We dismiss the AFR as procedurally defective to the extent it relies on these new arguments that were not previously presented to the Bureau. See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5); 47 CFR § 1.115(c); Punjabi American Media, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6869, 6871, para. 7 (2020).
  As an alternative and independent ground for resolving these issues, we deny them on the merits for the reasons discussed below. We also note that the AFR is substantially similar to three previous AFRs filed by dismissed LPFM applicants.  ASU’s arguments in paragraph 6, supra, were all recently addressed in an omnibus order.  See University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Application for a Construction Permit for a New LPFM Station at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 25-58, (Sept. 12, 2025) (Omnibus Order).
  The AFR also raises the following matters that the Reconsideration Decision already addressed and rejected:  (1) clerical, non-substantive errors should be amendable; (2) the Bureau  previously reinstated 2013 applications with similar errors; (3) dismissal without opportunity to amend under section 73.870(c) is arbitrary; (4) LPFM applicants should have greater processing flexibility; and (5) LPFM applicants are treated more harshly than applicants for other broadcast services. Reconsideration Decision, 39 FCC Rcd at 6540-43.
  We affirm the Bureau’s decisions on these points for the reasons discussed below.
10. Diocese of Portland.  We uphold the Bureau’s finding that the technical information in the LPFM application must satisfy section 73.807.  In Diocese of Portland, the Commission directed that Bureau staff rely only on the technical parameters specified within the Technical Sections of a radio station application when determining technical acceptability and that staff may dismiss defective applications without accepting amendments. See Diocese of Portland, supra note 8.  
  We reject ASU’s argument that Diocese of Portland applies only to mutually exclusive applications, or to applications where a comparative advantage can be gained or lost.  While the Diocese of Portland decision concerned applications for new NCE FM stations, the Commission did not limit its decision to only NCE FM applicants or mutually exclusive applicants.  Rather, the Commission stated that its decision applied to “future radio station applications.” Id. at 15069, paras. 2.
  Specifically, the Commission noted that its decision was based on apparent ambiguity in the state of the decisional law in this area, and announced a clear policy with regard to inconsistencies in the specification of antenna sites “for applicants in future radio station applications, under which staff will review an FCC Form 301, 318 [LPFM construction permit application], or 340 application based solely on” the site coordinates provided by the applicant in response to the specific application question calling for them. Id. at 15069, paras. 2, 4 (emphasis added).
  Here, ASU’s application was filed under FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318, Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application. ASU’s argument ignores the Commission’s explicit application of its holding in Diocese of Portland to the LPFM service. Id. at 15069 and 15072, paras. 2 and 8 (clarifying that “we will require henceforth, for radio station applications, that the antenna location coordinates specified in Item 3 of the FCC Form 340 Tech Box, in Item 2 of the FCC Form 318 Tech Box, and in the Tech Boxes of FCC Form 301, or their equivalents in future form revisions, be set forth accurately.”).  We also reject ASU’s claims that the processing policy announced in the 1998 Streamlining R&O, which concluded that staff resources should not be consumed by guesswork when applications contain conflicting information or errors, applies only to commercial station applications.  AFR at 10.  While the Commission commenced its streamlining initiative by first reorganizing the commercial broadcast construction permit application (then-FCC Form 301), in Diocese of Portland, the Commission, explicitly referencing the 1998 Streamlining R&O, clearly held that Bureau staff should look only at the Tech Box antenna data for all radio station applications, including LPFM applications.  See Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15071, para. 7.  
  
11. We further reject ASU’s assertion that Diocese of Portland applies only to antenna location data, and not channel selection errors.  Although the Commission emphasized in Diocese of Portland that “antenna location coordinates represent perhaps the most crucial technical datum in an application, as it determines the proposed facility's compliance with general technical rules such as channel spacing,” Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15071, para. 7.
 as in the Omnibus Order), we emphasize here that the proposed station channel is equally vital in determining compliance with the spacing requirements in section 73.807. Omnibus Order, at 7-8, paras. 10-11.  When reviewing new LPFM application technical proposals, the key elements needed to determine compliance with the LPFM spacing requirements are the antenna location coordinates and the proposed channel.  Without the channel and antenna coordinates data, it is impossible to perform a spacing analysis and thus determine compliance with the section 73.807 minimum distance separation requirements.  See 47 CFR § 73.807.
  Additionally, the Commission has been clear in both the 1998 Streamlining R&O and Diocese of Portland that when determining technical acceptability, Bureau staff should rely on the technical data specified within the Technical Sections of the application. See Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15072, paras. 4, 8; 1998 Streamlining R&O, 13 FCC Rcd at 23081, para. 57.
  The antenna location coordinates and channel are both encompassed within the Technical Sections’ technical parameters. FCC Form 2100, Schedule 318, Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application at Channel and Facility Information section and Antenna Location Data section.
  
12. In any event, any doubt as to the scope and application of Diocese of Portland to the 2023 LPFM filing window was resolved in the Procedures Public Notice issued before the window opened, where the Bureau explicitly notified LPFM applicants that it would make technical evaluations “based on the channel specified in the ‘Channel and Facility Information’ section and the antenna location coordinates specified in the ‘Antenna Location Data’ section.” Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6667 (citing Diocese of Portland) (emphasis added).   
  We further reject ASU’s assertion that it should be allowed to amend typographical or clerical errors because Diocese of Portland does not apply to such minor mistakes.  In Diocese of Portland, the Commission explicitly stated that “[i]n 1998, the Commission acted to eliminate the need for repeated staff amendment requests and attendant processing delays, necessitated by minor errors and discrepancies within applications, by consolidating most technical application information in the Tech Box.” See Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15070, para. 4 (emphasis added) (citing 1998 Streamlining R&O, 13 FCC Rcd at 23081, para. 57).
  
13. 2013 Reinstated Applications.  We affirm the Bureau’s finding in the Reconsideration Decision that the staff’s reinstatement in 2013 of certain applications after the applicants corrected technical parameters, including to address section 73.807 spacing violations, is irrelevant to the 2023 LPFM filing window.  As an initial matter, we note that these staff actions are not binding on the Commission. See Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 526 F.3d 763, 769 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (affirming the “‘well-established view that an agency is not bound by the actions of its staff if the agency has not endorsed those actions’”) (internal citations omitted).
  In addition, mere reinstatement of an application without an accompanying explanation of the basis for the decision has no precedential value. 65 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at Three Transmitter Sites, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 11162, 11175, para. 41 (1995) (“unexplained staff actions are not precedent to be followed”); United States Cellular Operating Co. Compliance with Section 22.942 of the Commission's Rules in the Rockford, IL MSA, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4372, 4378, para. 10 (2000) (grant of application by Public Notice without explanation did not serve as precedent).
  In any event, ASU overlooks the fact that all the 2013 Reinstated Applications predated Diocese of Portland, where the Commission announced that it would, going forward, rely solely on Technical Sections data to determine technical acceptability. See Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15072, para. 8; see also Christian Charities, 30 FCC Rcd at 10552, para. 10, n.26 (citing Diocese of Portland and People of Progress, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15065 (2014) (People of Progress)).
  Further, the Commission declared that the new policy announced in Diocese of Portland would overrule any previous, inconsistent precedent. Diocese of Portland, 29 FCC Rcd at 15072, para. 8 (“To the extent that our application processing policy as clarified herein conflicts with that followed in previous cases, we hereby overrule that precedent.”).  
  Since Diocese of Portland, the Commission has consistently adhered to this practice. See Omnibus Order.  See also infra note 81.

14. We also reject ASU’s assertion that applicants for new NCE FM stations that have been allowed to amend Technical Section errors post-Diocese of Portland has any bearing here. Infra para. 16 and note 79.  See also Application File Nos. BNPED-20100226AJU (new NCE FM application amendment filed before Diocese of Portland in 2010), and 0000166836 (new NCE FM application filed for nunc pro tunc reinstatement, which Bureau granted in accordance with NCE FM precedent). 
  Again, as with the reinstatement of the pre-Diocese of Portland LPFM applications noted above, such staff actions are not binding on the Commission See supra note 64.
 and, in addition, staff action without an accompanying explanation of the basis for the decision has no precedential value. See supra note 65.
  In any event, unlike the LPFM applications at issue here, NCE FM applications are not subject to the section 73.870(c) prohibition on curative amendments. Section 73.870 mandates application processing procedures exclusively for LPFM applications. Therefore, section 73.870(c) has no bearing on applications for NCE FM stations.  See 47 CFR § 73.870(c).
  Accordingly, because LPFM applications are subject to different restrictions on amendments, these staff actions pertaining to NCE FM applications are distinguishable and inapposite.  Accordingly, we find that the Bureau acted consistently with the Commission’s rules and precedent and that the dismissals were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. See Omnibus Order.
  
15. Section 73.870(c).  We reject ASU’s attempts to revisit the validity of section 73.870 twenty-five years after it was adopted.  Section 73.870(c) of the Rules mandates that any application submitted during an LPFM filing window that fails to meet the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807 will be dismissed without opportunity to amend. See 47 CFR § 73.870(c).
  We reject ASU’s arguments that section 73.870(c) is somehow unfair and should not be applied in these cases.  Section 73.870(c) was adopted in 2000 as part of a notice-and-comment rulemaking. See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2205, 2257, para. 132 (2000) (First LPFM Order).
  In adopting the rule for the then-new LPFM service, the Commission concluded that prohibiting curative amendments for LPFM applications that fail to protect existing stations would “increase the speed and efficiency with which LPFM applications can be processed by the staff.” First LPFM Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2257, para. 132.  See further discussion infra para. 18.
  The rule is now final and no longer subject to challenges on reconsideration. See 47 CFR § 1.429.
  To the extent that ASU disputes the fairness of, and now requests increased processing flexibility to change the applicability of, section 73.870(c) in this proceeding, we note that such a request is not only untimely but inconsistent with the Commission’s longstanding policy of altering fundamental components of broadly applicable regulatory schemes in the context of rulemaking proceedings, not adjudications. See, e.g., Sunburst Media L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1366, 1368, para. 6 (2022); Clifford Brown Jazz Foundation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 13258, 13259, para. 2 (2014) (Clifford Brown) (stating that to the extent the applicant sought to alter section 73.870(c), “the proper forum is a notice and comment rule-making proceeding.”); see also Community Television of Southern California v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498, 511 (1983) (“[R]ulemaking is generally better, fairer, and more effective method of implementing a new industry-wide policy than the uneven application of conditions in isolated [adjudicatory] proceedings.”).  
  
16. We acknowledge that certain LPFM service rules differ from other broadcast service rules—in this context the section 73.870(c) prohibition on curative amendments for LPFM applicants that fail to meet the minimum distance separation requirements of section 73.807. See 47 CFR §§ 73.807, 73.870(c); AFR at 14-15.
  A number of LPFM rules vary from those in other broadcast services, and that even for other secondary services, such as FM translators, the relevant statutory framework does not require identical licensing procedures. See, e.g., Foundation for a Beautiful Life, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 15933, 15945-46, paras. 16-17 (2021); People of Progress, 29 FCC Rcd at 15066, para. 3 (stating that section 307(b) of the Communications Act does not mandate uniform processing rules for all radio services).  See also Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 15402, 15426, n.139 (2012) (finding nothing in the statute or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended the provision that FM translators and LPFM stations remain ‘equal in status’ to require the Commission to adopt identical rules for the two services”); MCRALDIA, Letter Order, DA-24-1262 (MB Dec. 17, 2024).  
  Here, dismissal of ASU’s filings was consistent with the Rules and prior precedent for the LPFM service, and thus, there is no merit to ASU’s claims regarding other services. See, e.g., Omnibus Order; Renew Taylorsville, Letter Order, 39 FCC Rcd 2971 (MB 2024);Tahoma Preservation, Letter Order, 39 FCC Rcd 3970 (MB 2024) (dismissing application based on 73.807(a) spacing violation and prohibiting amendment in accordance with section 73.870(c)).
  
17. We also note that ASU’s suggestion that nunc pro tunc reinstatement be applied because it is allowed for other broadcast services is misplaced.  The 1984 Nunc Pro Tunc Public Notice Commission States Future Policy on Incomplete and Patently Defective AM and FM Construction Permit Applications, Public Notice, 56 RR 2d 776 (1984), recon. denied, 57 RR 2d 1603 (1985) (as subsequently published in the Federal Register, 49 Fed. Reg. 47331 (Dec. 3, 1984)).
 policy is inapplicable in this context because it is superseded by the Commission’s adoption of section 73.870(c) in 2000. See First LPFM Order, supra note 75; see also Christian Charities, 30 FCC Rcd at 10549 (finding the Nunc Pro Tunc Public Notice inapplicable to section 73.870(c) dismissals).   
  The Commission has held previously that the Bureau may properly prohibit dismissed LPFM applicants that did not comply with the spacing rules in the filing window from filing amendments to correct violations of section 73.807. See People of Progress, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15065 (2014); Clifford Brown, 29 FCC Rcd at 13259; see also Christian Charities, 30 FCC Rcd at 10552-53, paras. 11-12 (affirming section 73.870(c) dismissal of applications for failure to meet minimum spacing requirements). 
  Moreover, in the Procedures Public Notice, the Bureau explicitly warned LPFM applicants that pursuant to section 73.870(c), applicants would not be provided an opportunity to cure a section 73.807 deficiency. See Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6662, n.14 (citing Low Power FM Filing Window, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 24817, 24818 (MB 2000)).  

18. When section 73.870(c) was adopted in 2000, the Commission explained that a rule prohibiting curative amendments for LPFM applications that fail to protect existing stations would “increase the speed and efficiency with which LPFM applications can be processed by the staff.” First LPFM Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2257, para. 132.
  The Commission subsequently affirmed this practice, noting that the approach promotes expedient “introduction of new service by successful applicants and conserve[es] the limited resources of the agency.” People of Progress, 29 FCC Rcd at n.9.
  ASU asserts that the Commission’s reliance on processing speed and efficiency is now unpersuasive due to decreases in the number of new applications, efficiencies from new technologies, and inefficiencies caused by the processing of numerous petitions for reconsideration and applications for review. AFR at 24-26.  
  We disagree. We also reiterate that this is not the appropriate forum to debate the rule.  ASU’s qualms with the rule, and suggested changes, are more appropriately considered in the context of a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding, rather than a fact-specific adjudicatory proceeding, such as this.  
  Over 1,000 applications were filed during the 2023 LPFM Window, and the Bureau has granted over 800 applications.  Efficiency in initial application processing of more than a thousand applications is paramount, and requiring staff to spend additional time to resolve inconsistencies in such applications resulting from errors made by applicants is not a good use of the Commission’s limited resources.  See Omnibus Order.

19. Section 73.870(c) Waiver Request.  We find that the Bureau acted consistently with the applicable waiver standard in its rejection of ASU’s request to waive section 73.870(c).  Under section 1.3, which provides that the Commission may waive its rules if “good cause is shown,” 47 CFR § 1.3.  
 waiver is appropriate only if both 1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and 2) such deviation better serves the public interest. NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990). 
  When an applicant seeks waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
  The Commission must give waiver requests “a hard look,” Id. at 1160.  
 but an applicant for waiver “faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate” Id. at 1157.
 and must support its waiver request with a compelling showing. Greater Media Radio Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7090, 7094, para. 9 (1999) (citing Stoner Broadcasting System, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 FCC 2d 1011, 1012 (1974)). 
  ASU fails to meet this burden.
20. ASU argues that the Bureau failed to address its assertion that elimination of the main studio rule has had negative consequences to localism. AFR at 31-32.
  ASU further maintains that by dismissing its Application, which would deprive Athens of its first “truly locally-originally service,” the Bureau has effectively “disenfranchised” the local Athens community. Id. at 32.
  ASU also argues that the Bureau provided no reasoning “concerning why it is not in the public interest to grant amendment and/or provide a waiver.” Id. at 33.
  
21. The Commission eliminated section 73.1125(a), i.e., the requirement that AM radio, FM radio, and television broadcast stations have a main studio located in or near their local community, in 2017, as part of a notice-and-comment rulemaking. See Elimination of Main Studio Rule, MB Docket No. 17-106, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 8158 (2017).
  The Commission explained that requiring broadcasters to maintain a main studio is outdated and unnecessarily burdensome as “broadcast stations now interact with their communities of license via online means, and technology enables them to produce local news even without a nearby studio.” Id. at 8158, para. 3. 
  The rule elimination is now final and no longer subject to challenges on reconsideration. See 47 CFR § 1.429.
  To the extent that ASU disagrees with the rule’s elimination, we note that its contention is not only untimely, but also inconsistent with the Commission’s longstanding policy of altering fundamental components of broadly applicable regulatory schemes in the context of rulemaking proceedings, not adjudications.  Further, ASU’s general assertion that elimination of the main studio rule has created an absence of local programming is not a special circumstance that would justify grant of its waiver request.  
22. We also reject ASU’s argument that waiver is appropriate because dismissal of the Application deprives Athens of its first “truly locally-originally service,” which is “counter to the local public interest.” AFR at 32.
  An LPFM station providing the first locally originated programming to a community, though laudable, is not a special circumstance warranting waiver of section 73.870(c). Moreover, as a secondary service, an LPFM station and the programming it provides are subject to displacement by a full service FM station.  
  Indeed, granting a waiver of section 73.870(c) on that basis could potentially apply to many LPFM stations, and as such is not a special circumstance justifying a waiver. See, e.g., Birmingham Christian Radio, Inc. and Radio South Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7909, 7915, para. 19 (2003) (finding that arguments challenging market definitions are more appropriately addressed in a rulemaking proceeding, not in an application for consent to assign a station license); Great Empire Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11145, 11148, para. 8 (1999) (“It is generally inappropriate . . . to address arguments for a change in rules where third parties, including those with substantial stakes in the outcome, have had no opportunity to participate, and in which we, as a result, have not had the benefit of a full and well-counseled record.”) (internal citations omitted).
  
23. LPFM Channel Finder.  We reject ASU’s argument that LPFM applicants should not be required to submit accurate data if the Commission’s technology, the LPFM Channel Finder, cannot be relied upon to find available channels. See Low Power FM (LPFM) Channel Finder, available at https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/lpfm-channel-finder (last visited Jan. 5, 2026).
  The Bureau clearly cautioned that “the LPFM Channel Finder tool is intended solely to assist LPFM applicants in tentatively identifying available FM channels.  There is no guarantee that channels represented as ‘available’ will be technically acceptable at the time an application is filed.” Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6663 (citing https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/lpfm-channel-finder).
  ASU acknowledges that it read the LPFM Channel Finder disclaimer. AFR at 28.
  Moreover, applicants are responsible for submitting accurate application information, sign a certification attesting to accurate submission, and are encouraged to consider hiring a professional to assist with ensuring compliance with LPFM technical rules. Procedures Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd at 6663.
  While we recognize that hiring technical consultants or legal counsel creates added expense, applicants are ultimately responsible for complying with the Rules, whether or not they are represented by counsel. See Salzer v. FCC, 778 F.2d 869, 875 n.27 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (stating that in evaluating an application, FCC need not consider whether counsel assisted in the preparation of such application); Burlington Cablevision, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 772, 779, para. 18 (MB 1998) (finding that regardless of whether petitioner was represented by counsel, petitioner “was solely responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission’s rules.”). 

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review filed by Athens State University on July 15, 2024, (Pleading File No. 0000249119) IS DISMISSED in part, pursuant to section 1.115(c) of the Commission’s Rules, and otherwise IS DENIED, pursuant to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5).
 and section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s Rules. 47 CFR § 1.115(c) and (g).


																			FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




						Marlene H. Dortch
						Secretary


2