WPCEa 2BJ Courier3|n  BoldCG TimesCG Times Bold;XTimes New Roman BoldHPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6 F ZPv3|nHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xn4  pG;\oeXa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2=pRkk-a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2votY a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  o  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 22   Y 2 a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-unacceptable for filing. Id. at 26612662. x10. The 1988 location restrictions were a natural outgrowth of a policy that had provided certain efficiencies in the processing of MDS applications for channels 1, 2, and 2A. In 1981, we noted:   XxAt the inception of the MDS service in 1974 . . . we . . . established the presumption that no harmful interference would occur if stations were greater than 50 miles apart. If a proposed station were to be located 50 miles or closer to an existing station then we required (and still require) that the applicant submit an engineering showing of the possible impact it would have on the other station. The 50 mile presumption was primarily a processing standard to assist staff . . . . Our intention was to establish general standards which would permit authorization of operations to proceed in an expeditious manner.(#  Y-R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604. See also Sioux Valley, 2 FCC Rcd at 7376. It was our experience prior to 1988 that there were fewer interference analyses submitted for authorized or previously proposed stations with transmitter sites beyond 50 miles of the subsequently proposed transmitter sites, but within the radio horizon, than for authorized or previously proposed stations within 50 miles. Without the need to review interference analyses for 1983 stations within 50 miles of the post1983 MMDS applications' transmitter sites, scarce engineering resources instead could be used to review interference analyses filed for modification applications, or to make necessary engineering determinations on 1983 applications. "1' 0*((P("Ԍe III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION x11. Petitions for reconsideration were filed for the 65 returned MMDS applications at three transmitter sites. Petitioners contend that their applications fully complied with all pertinent Commission rules, or else presented facts which would compel the grant of any necessary waivers. In support, petitioners chiefly assert that the interference analyses submitted with their applications demonstrated that there is no realistic possibility of harmful interference to existing or proposed stations, and that to the extent the proposed stations  YH-failed to comply with the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice, Commission precedent supports a grant of a waiver. Petitioners also argue that the staff failed to take a "hard look" at the waiver requests, and failed to give a reasoned explanation for denying the requests. x12. A description of the applications filed for each of these locations and the reasons for the staff's disposition of each application follows. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that the applications were defective because each applicant failed to submit and serve the required interference analyses for authorized and previously proposed MMDS stations. The applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing because they were filed within the geographic area of authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations, or within an MSA or its 15 mile buffer zone, in violation of the specific filing  Y6-requirements set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, and presented no grounds justifying the grant of a waiver. Finally, these applications were mutually exclusive with an authorized station or previously filed application with an earlier cutoff date, and thus, not entitled to  Y-comparative consideration even if in a form acceptable for filing.X01Í ÍX01Í Í  W-   Y-x13. Naples, Florida. On October 31, 1990, certain petitioners filed 11 MMDS  Y-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Naples, Florida. F Y'-ԍxApplication File Nos. 54985CMP91; 55008CMP91; 55013CMP91; 55014CMP91; 55084CMP91; 55085CMP91; 55698CMP91 through 55700CMP91; 55702CMP91; and 55703CMP91. After reviewing each Naples application, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated March 10, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) filed past the cutoff  YR-period established in 21.31 or 21.914; RKF YN!-ԍxThe cutoff date for these applications for the E channel group was established by mutually exclusive applications filed on September 9, 1983, proposing transmitter sites at  Y #-Fort Meyers, Florida and Sarasota, Florida. See Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48  Y $-Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected; see also  21.31(b). (2) proposed a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or a pending MMDS application and thereby failed to meet the  Y -criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice; (3) proposed a transmitter site within an MSA"   0*(("  Y-or its buffer zone in noncompliance with the MMDS Allocation Order and 21.901(d)(5); (4) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or ITFS stations; and (5) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under 21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on April 9, 1993. x14. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio  Y3-horizon of: (1) two 1983 previously authorized MMDS stations; 3F Y -ԍxCall signs WHK973 and WHK974 at Fort Myers, Florida, Application File Nos. 03158CMP83 and 08182CMP83, respectively. (2) one 1983 subsequently  Y -authorized MMDS station;r bF Y/-ԍxCall sign WMH632 at Naples, Florida, Application File No. 13311CMP83. While station WMH632 was subsequently forfeited on January 16, 1993, at the time the applications were filed, the applicants were required to include an interference analysis for this station in the applications pursuant to 21.902(b) and (c).r (3) four 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had  Y -applications pending on October 31, 1990, the filing date of the Naples applications; F Y-ԍxThese include one application for Sarasota, Florida, Application File No. 08625CMP83; and three applications for Naples, Florida, Application File Nos. 05222CMP83; 09978CMP83; and 14501CMP83.  and  Y -(4) 66 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, Q F Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxThese include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 55045CMP90 and 55046CMP90 for Marco Island, Florida; and 50215CMP90; 53845CMP91; and 54500CMP91 for Naples, Florida.  which had applications pending on October 31, 1990. x15. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for  Y-one subsequently authorized and 70 previously proposed MMDS stations.F Y-#XR  P7jQ=9XP#эxFor example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for a proposed station in Naples, Florida, Application File No. 05222CMP83, placed on public notice December 15, 1986. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that the applicants: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations, as  Y6-required by 21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see 21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations; (3) indicated terrain blockage, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of" W0*((" cochannel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(4); and (5) used incorrect technical  Y-parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Thus, these Naples applicants failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed  Y-stations.  See 21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for  Yx-service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g). The applications included a request  Ya-for waiver of  21.901(d)(4) and the policies set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, which includes the fifty mile location restrictions, as well as a request for waiver of  21.902 and  Y5- 21.902(g).    Y -x16. Tupelo, Mississippi. On October 11, 1990, certain petitioners filed two MMDS  Y -applications proposing the same transmitter site at Tupelo, Mississippi. F Yi -#XR  P7jQ=9XP#эxApplication File Nos. 50933CMP91 and 50934CMP91. After reviewing each Tupelo application, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated March 24, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) filed past the cutoff  Y-period established in 21.31 or 21.914;yF Y-ԍxThe cutoff date for these applications for the F channel group was established by mutually exclusive applications filed on September 9, 1983, proposing transmitter sites at  Y-Tupelo, Mississippi and Columbus, Mississippi. See Establishment of MultiChannel  Y{-Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected; see also  21.31(b). (2) proposed a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or a pending MMDS application and thereby failed to meet the  YO-criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice; (3) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or ITFS stations; and (4) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under 21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on April 23, 1993. x17. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio  Y-horizon of : (1) two 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS stations;vF Y"-ԍxCall sign WHK948 at Columbus, Mississippi, Application File No. 01723CMP83, and call sign WMH581 at Columbus, Mississippi, Application File No. 16568CMP83. While stations WHK948 and WMH581 were subsequently forfeited on September 16, 1992, and November 5, 1993, respectively, at the time the applications were filed, the applicants were required to include interference analyses for these stations in the applications pursuant to  21.902(b) and (c). (2) three 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on October 11, 1990,"k ' 0*((]"  Y-the filing date of the Tupelo applications;F Yy-ԍxApplication File Nos. 08879CMP83 for Tupelo, Mississippi; 00650CMP83 for Oxford, Mississippi; and 06179CMP83 for Columbus, Mississippi. and (3) 29 post1983 previously proposed MMDS  Y-stations,bF Y-ԍxThese include 29 applications for Tupelo, Mississippi, Application File Nos. 54848CMP90; and 50905CMP91 through 50932CMP91. which had applications pending on October 11, 1990. x18. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for  Y-two subsequently authorized and 32 previously proposed MMDS stations.F YQ -ԍxFor example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for a proposed station in Tupelo, Mississippi, Application File No. 08879CMP83, placed on public notice November 10, 1988. However, we note that the applicants submitted an interference study for a pending ITFS station application for which an interference analysis was not required. Thus, these Tupelo applicants failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the returned applications  Yv-would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations.  See  Ya-21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g). The applications included a request for waiver  Y3-of  21.901(d)(4) and the policies set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, which includes the  Y -fifty mile location restrictions.    Y -x19. Cheyenne, Wyoming. On October 17, 1990, October 24, 1990, and October 29,  Y -1990, certain petitioners filed 52 MMDS applications proposing the same transmitter site at  Y -Cheyenne, Wyoming.6_ h F Y-ԍxApplication File Nos. 52011CMP91 through 52015CMP91; 52020CMP91; 52036CMP91 through 52039CMP91; 52041CMP91 through 52049CMP91; 52069CMP91; 52074CMP91 through 52076CMP91; 52101CMP91; 52102CMP91; 52104CMP91 through 52106CMP91; 52108CMP91; 52111CMP91; 52112CMP91; 52121CMP91; 52129CMP91; 52134CMP91; 52142CMP91; 52151CMP91 through 52160CMP91; 52183CMP91; 52184CMP91; 52135CMP91; 53926CMP91; 53927CMP91; 54598CMP91; and 54663CMP91.6 After reviewing each Cheyenne application, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated March 10, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the  Y}-applicants: (1) filed past the cutoff period established in 21.31 or  21.914;Yz}F Y"-ԍxThe cutoff date for these applications for the F channel group was established by a mutually exclusive application filed on September 9, 1983, proposing a transmitter site at  Y$-Laramie, Wyoming. See Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as  Yz%-corrected; see also  21.31(b). The Cheyenne applicants were also mutually exclusive and cutoff by a cochannel, subsequently granted application for the Greeley, Colorado MSA, Application File No. 50044CM90, station WMH425.Y (2) proposed"} 0*((," a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or a pending MMDS  Y-application and thereby failed to meet the criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice; (3) proposed a transmitter site within an MSA or its buffer zone in noncompliance with the  Y-MMDS Allocation Order and 21.901(d)(5); (4) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or ITFS stations; and (6) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under 21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on April 9, 1993. x20. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio  Y -horizon of 15 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on October 17, 1990, October 24, 1990, and October 29, 1990, the filing dates of the Cheyenne  Y -applications.v F Y$-ԍxThese include three applications for Cheyenne, Wyoming, Application File Nos. 00439CMP83; 04983CMP83; and 11186CMP83; three applications for Laramie, Wyoming, Application File Nos. 00582CMP83; 02988CMP83; and 16641CMP83; and nine applications for Fort Collins, Colorado, Application File Nos. 00505CMP83; 04520CMP83; 05000CMP83; 07101CMP83; 11666CMP83; 12386CMP83; 13560CMP83; 15279CMP83; and 15681CMP83.  x21. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for  Yf-12 previously proposed MMDS stations.fF Y-ԍxFor example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for a proposed station in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Application File No. 11186CMP83, placed on public notice October 23, 1986. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that the applicants: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of  Y"-the authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by 21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  Y -21.902(e)); (2) indicated terrain blockage, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (3) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(4); and (4) used incorrect technical  Y-parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Thus, these Cheyenne applicants failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed  Yl-stations.  See 21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g). The applications included a request  Y@-for waiver of  21.901(d)(4) and the policies set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, which"@ 0*((."  Y-includes the fifty mile location restrictions, as well as a request for waiver of  21.902.     x  IV. DISCUSSION  Y-x22. Mutual Exclusivity and Cutoff. Based upon our review of the returned applications and publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications, we conclude that the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to authorized stations or previously filed applications with which the returned applications were mutually exclusive. The determining factors we used to ascertain if the abovereferenced MMDS applications were mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) were whether the applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously  Y -proposed MMDS station;g F Y| -ԍxMDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 62021.g (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path)  Y -of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station;_ {F Y-ԍxMMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC at 109111._ or (3) within an MSA, or its 15mile buffer zone, for which there is an authorized or previously  Y -proposed MMDS station.c .F Y-ԍxMMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 126264.c Each of these returned applications propose a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31, with authorized  Y-or previously proposed MMDS stations. See  35, supra. Specifically, each of these 65 returned applications was mutually exclusive and cutoff by previously filed MDS applications, with a cutoff date of September 9, 1983. In fact, petitioners admit that their  YM-applications violate  21.901(d)(4) and the policies articulated in the 1988 Public Notice. Thus, the abovereferenced applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d), which states: Xx An application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications). (# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d). x23. Whether an MDS application is cutoff is not determined solely by the date of  Y$-filing visavis applications specifying the same transmitter site and listing the name of the same town, but also by: (1) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.31, granting the application would result in harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date is past; or (2) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5), the application proposes a transmitter site that is within or within 15 miles of the borders of an MSA, which has a previously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date is"!0*((""  Y-past. See  35, supra. As explained above, the abovereferenced applications were cutoff by mutually exclusive, previously proposed or authorized stations which, although they specified towns different than the towns specified by the returned applications, would have received harmful interference from the stations proposed in the returned applications.  Y-x 24. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established the principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel sought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference will not occur with respect to the first MDS  Y -channel. . . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. Almost ten years before the abovereferenced applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: XxIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause unacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles. Section 21.90[2](c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an interference study containing an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station.(#  Y8-R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 606.8F Y-ԍxThe distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed  Y-electrical path of the applicant's MDS station. MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 111. It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of interference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest determination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee."  Y-Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768, n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,  21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel  Y-interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection,\ dF Y-ԍxMDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the  Y-Family Entertainment case, the Domestic Facilities Division returned as unacceptable for filing an application which demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that: Xx[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of  YV!-interference . . . is de minimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference protection. In this rule provision, no reference is made to qualifying terms, degrees or levels, other than 45 dB at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (# 9 FCC Rcd at 568. \ and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. " 0*((~"Ԍx25. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to existing and previously proposed MMDS licensees and to previously proposed MMDS  Y-applicants. In addition, in a de novo review at the time of reconsideration, we have determined that each of these petitioners failed to file required interference analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice prior to the  Y-filing date of petitioners' applications. See nn.17, 23, and 27, supra. As discussed in  Yz-Section II, supra, applicants for new MDS stations on the E or F channels are required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel and adjacent channel stations. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily  Y -allowed and require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1246, 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  Y-acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there have been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in  Yl-MDS applications for the E or F channels.!jlF Y-ԍxSee, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS application which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by  21.902(c) cannot be characterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by the criteria for  Y-acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio horizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section 21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for  Y-filing, was proper.");  G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part 21 of the rules is not `substantial completeness' but rather `acceptability for filing'. . . . Cooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing  Y-required . . . . "); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . .").    Y>-x26. Applicants for one location failed to file and serve any interference analyses for existing or previously proposed MDS stations with transmitter sites within 50 miles or the  Y-radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of the applicants' proposed stations. See,  Y-e.g.,  1618, supra. Our analysis of the interference statements submitted shows that the"!0*(("  Y-returned applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection or at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); failed to submit free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously  Y-proposed stations as required by  21.902(f); failed to demonstrate terrain blockage (see  Y- 21.902(d)); used incorrect methodology in performing the interference study (see  21.902(d)); and contained incorrect technical specifications for the petitioner's station or  Ye-the previously proposed station. See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 571617 (1987) ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment.") Thus, these applications were properly returned as  Y" -unacceptable for filing. See MMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93 ("An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference as described herein will not be  Y -accepted for filing."); see also Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic  Y -requirement in determining the acceptability of an application."); Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are crucial."). x27. In addition, the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners promise to protect fully the adjacent channel to avoid harmful interference and cooperate in good faith should any  Y+-interference occur in the future."+F Y-ԍxThe Naples and Cheyenne petitioners have requested a waiver of  21.902 of the Commission's rules, and the Naples petitioners have additionally requested a waiver of the  21.902(g) notice requirements. This pledge, however, does not excuse their failure to  Y-submit detailed interference studies as required by  21.902. See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use `all legitimate  Y-engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS  Y-Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).") The requirement of  21.902(c) that an applicant submit interference analyses at the time its application is filed is separate from the requirement in  21.902(a) that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ," and is also separate from the requirement in  21.901(d)(7) that applicants submit a showing of how interference will be avoided and demonstrate what steps they have taken to comply  Y4-with  21.902(a).  See also  21.31. Based upon these considerations, we conclude that petitioners failed to comply with the technical requirements set forth in  21.902 regarding interference protection and failed to demonstrate that the applicants are technically qualified to be an MDS licensee as required by  21.900. Thus, these applications were properly  Y -returned as unacceptable for filing. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR2d at 1602;  Y!-CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. x""K"0*((#"Ԍ Y-x28. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve, as required by  21.902(g), all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an  Y-opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g):   XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which the Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(# Thus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on their failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g).  YM-x29. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS  Y8-applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of  Y-a statistical area for which there are applications pending on April 19, 1988.#F Yn-ԍx The Cheyenne petitioners filed applications proposing transmitter sites within the Fort Collins, Colorado and Greeley, Colorado MSAs, and the Naples petitioners filed applications within the Fort Meyers, Florida MSA.  The first  Y-paragraph of the Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of  Y-this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as  Y-unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, all of the abovereferenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restriction of the  YZ-1988 Public Notice. Therefore, these applicants submitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E or F channels. x30. Petitioners can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to carefully select the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the  Y-clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of  Y -compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), we explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower  Y"-more desirable bands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a""K#0*((#"  Y-cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more  Y-sophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioners had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioners chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, their applications  Y-were properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (1961). x  Ye-x31. Waiver Requests. Petitioners assert that the applications contained all necessary  YN-elements for grant of waivers of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice, and thus, the Commission was required to grant such waivers. No provision of  21.20 requires that waivers be granted. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest. x 32. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules must contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that:   Xx(a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or(# Xx(b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative. (# "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. `When an applicant seeks a waiver. . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant  Y-such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  Y-Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per  Y-curiam)); see also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver ... must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.")  Y.-x33. The petitioners assert that they are entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions because grant of a waiver would not result in harmful interference to  Y-authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations."$_F Y{!-ԍxThe Cheyenne petitioners claim grant of a waiver would not result in harmful interference to any proposed or authorized cochannel station. On the other hand, the Tupelo petitioners maintain that grant of their applications would not result in harmful interference because no adjacent or cochannel stations or applications within 50 miles of their proposed transmitter sites existed. Since all of the 1983 Naples applications that were pending had been dismissed, the Naples petitioners also maintain that no harmful interference would result from grant of their applications. However, the Naples petitioners fail to comment on post"&#0*((*'"ԫ1983 applications that were pending at the time their applications were filed." However, as shown in Section III,"y$0*(("  Y-supra, each of the returned applicants failed to submit interference studies, as required by  21.902, for all authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of their proposed transmitter sites, and to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause  Y-harmful interference. Indeed, petitioners failed to even identify all authorized or previously proposed stations in their applications. Thus, petitioners' assertion that each application had demonstrated a lack of harmful interference to other authorized or proposed stations is  Yz-unsupported.*%zyF Y -ԍxA bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining whether a proposed station would cause harmful interference.  Yv -Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987). * These unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required  Yc-by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.  x34. We further disagree with the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners' assertion that, since they have agreed to protect the eventual adjacent channel licensee, no prejudice will result from grant of the waiver to  21.902 requiring the submission of interference studies.  Y -These petitioners not only fail to consider the harm to authorized adjacent channel MDS stations, but also to previously proposed or authorized cochannel MDS stations within 50  Y -miles of their proposed transmitter sites. See nn.13 and 25, supra. Thus, these petitioners have failed to show how prejudice will not result from grant of the waiver. For these reasons, the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners' request for waiver of  21.902(c) is properly denied. x35. The Naples petitioners have also requested waiver of  21.902(g) requiring service of interference studies on affected parties. However, we are not persuaded by these petitioners' stated "belief" that, because the previously proposed stations have not been the subject of interference studies, the Naples petitioners need not comply with  21.902(g). Notice and an opportunity to be heard for stations which by rule are entitled to the filing of an interference study are not eliminated by an applicant's decision to shirk its obligation to file an interference study. Our denial of petitioners' request for waiver of  21.902(c) requiring the submission of interference studies obviates any claim by petitioners that the service requirement was superfluous because no studies were filed or required to be filed. Nor do we find compelling these petitioners' request for waiver of  21.902(g) "to avoid the  Yo-time and expense of serving the many mutually exclusive applicants involved." See  YZ-Delegations of Authority, 7 FCC 2d 352 (1967) ("In view of the general availability of modern duplicating equipment, it is contemplated that situations involving an unreasonable burden to the applicant will rarely occur and that...[waiver] authority will be exercised sparingly...The fact that an amendment is voluminous, or that there are a relatively large number...[to serve] would not ordinarily by itself support a waiver of the rule" requiring service.) " %0*((!"Ԍx36. In addition to the avoidance of harmful interference, the location restrictions for which petitioners seek a waiver, serve other important administrative purposes. The location restrictions minimize the possibility for application gridlock, and allow us to process  Y-applications more expeditiously. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom.  Y-Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604. One of the most significant underlying purposes of the location restrictions is to avoid diversion of scarce engineering resources from making necessary engineering determinations for 1983 MMDS applications or modification applications to reviewing interference analyses filed with post1983 applications. These purposes would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location restrictions to each applicant that demonstrated noninterference through the submission of interference studies. Thus, we conclude that granting petitioners' requested waivers would  Y -frustrate the underlying purposes of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions.  0 x37. Petitioners also claim that a waiver of the 50 mile location restriction would be in the public interest because it would result in service to unserved communities, implying that the proposed communities can only be served from an MDS transmitter located within  Y-each community's borders.M&F Y-ԍ xPetitioners assert that their proposed community of license is unserved and has various unmet needs. Petitioners also claim that providing consumers a competitive alternative to cable through the development of a viable MMDS system can only be achieved by grant of a waiver. M We disagree. The Commission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city  Yh-limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in nearby areas. In Microband  YS-Corp. of America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the Commission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS application proposing a station at Newark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cutoff by a previously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that service to New Jersey would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we recognized that "the NewarkElizabethJersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station located in New York City than through a . . .  Y-station located in Newark." Id. at 18586. Moreover, petitioners fail to address both the  Y-potential injury to the 1983 previously proposed, cochannel applicants, see notes 12, 19, and  Y-25 supra, and the provision of cable competitive MMDS service from a location more than 50 miles away from 1983 station sites. Petitioners offer no documentary support for their assertions and do not show the lack of a reasonable alternative, as required by  21.19(b). Thus, petitioners have failed to "plead with particularity the facts and circumstances"  YG-warranting a waiver. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157.  Y- x38. Petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public  Y -interest to grant a waiver of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers of the location requirements were properly"!4&0*(("" denied. x39. Petitioners assert that the staff failed to meet the courtimposed requirement to give waiver requests a "hard look," and failed in the letters returning their applications to  Y-give a reasoned explanation for denying their requests.H'F Y-ԍxThe petitioners cite U.S. Gas Pipeline v. FERC, 707 F2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969) to support their position that an administrative agency must give a reasoned explanation when it  Y-rejects a waiver of its rules. Additionally, petitioners cite Alascom, Inc. v. FCC, 727 F2d  Y-1212 (D.C. Cir. 1984) and KIRO, Inc. v. FCC, 631 F2d 900 (D.C. Cir. 1980) as examples  Y -of the court applying WAIT Radio's "hard look" requirement to waiver requests. H However, the Court in WAIT Radio made clear that: XxThe agency is not bound to process in depth what are only generalized pleas, a requirement that would condemn it to divert resources of time and personnel to hollow claims. The applicant for waiver must articulate a specific pleading, and adduce concrete support, preferably documentary. Even when an applicant complies with these rigorous requirements, the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application. (#  Y -418 F.2d at 1157, n.9.  Here, the requests were of a general nature and lacked concrete, documentary support. Under these circumstances, and in light of the thousands of applications the staff was processing, the return notification letters indicating that the request was denied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules were sufficient. Moreover, we have now reviewed the staff's denial of petitioners' waiver requests and have fully explained the basis for denying those requests.  Y-x40. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the filing of the abovereferenced applications, in each instance these applications still would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the returned applications were filed, including filing after the relevant cutoff date of mutually exclusive applications and failing to submit interference analyses for authorized stations or previously filed applications.  Y-x41. Marriage Policy. Contrary to the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners' claim, the Commission staff had no policy of exempting applicants from compliance with the 50 mile location restriction in circumstances which petitioners refer to as "marryingup." These petitioners' claim of a general exception for the "marryingup" of adjacent channel stations and proposed stations apparently is derived from these petitioners' own analysis of the facts surrounding the grants of two applications filed within 50 miles of an adjacent channel authorized station (Sioux City) or an adjacent channel proposed station (Johnson City), notwithstanding the location restriction. The grants referred to were made without discussion or explanation by the staff. The staff did not purport to rely in any way on the facts which" %'0*((!" the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners now assert were the basis for those grants and for the establishment of a distinct exception to the location restriction. We reject the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners' afterthefact and unsupported attempt to identify a general exemption policy from what appears to have been an unintentional oversight by the staff of the  Y-applicants' violation of the 50 mile location restriction in those instances.:(vF Y-ԍxIt may be noted as well that the Naples and Cheyenne petitioners' applications violated not only the 50 mile location restriction, but also the restriction prohibiting the proposal of transmitter sites within MSA buffer zones, set forth in  21.901(d)(5). Thus, even under these petitioners' own characterization of what they deem a "marryingup" policy, their applications present restriction violations that were not present in the Sioux City and Johnson City situations and were not addressed by these petitioners.: The Sioux City and Johnson City applications were granted in violation of specific application requirements  Yv-set forth in the 1988 Public Notice. Had those unexplained grants been brought to the Commission's attention at that time, we would have reversed the staff action and dismissed  YJ-the applications in conformance with the location restrictions set forth in the 1988 Public  Y5-Notice. Those erroneous and unexplained staff actions are not precedent to be followed here.  Y -The Commission is not bound by such staff errors. See e.g., North Texas Media, Inc. v.  Y -FCC, 778 F.2d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident grant of a [shortspacing] waiver...now described as an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require  Y -future applicants to meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver); Quinnipiac  Y -College, 8 FCC Rcd 6285, 6286 (1993); Walter Faber, 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493 (1989),  Y -recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3601 (1991), aff'd mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992). x42. To justify further its waiver request, the Tupelo petitioners imply that new service cannot be introduced to Tupelo, Mississippi by any existing or previously proposed MMDS stations, and that no transmitter site exists which can serve Tupelo while remaining  Y--at least 50 miles from all station locations specified in the 1988 Public Notice. The Tupelo petitioners do not address whether there is a "lack of a reasonable alternative" as required by  21.19(b). In addition, the Tupelo petitioners provide no explanation as to why Tupelo cannot be served from MMDS station sites proposed in 1983. For example, a 1983 MMDS application proposed a transmitter site as close as 1.46 miles away from the petitioners' proposed site. With regard to distance, we note that MMDS licensees in various parts of the country advise us that they are currently serving subscribers more than 50 miles from their  Y-transmitter sites. In fact, the 1983 cochannel application for Columbus, MississippiU)F YE"-ԍx Application File No. 16568CMP83.U which  Yw-was subsequently granted could have served Tupelo. See also  37, supra. x43. Finally, we disagree with the petitioners' argument that we have changed the  Y4-requirements, rules and standards applied to the returned applications by refusing to grant the"4)0*(("  Y-waivers and accept these applications for filing.x*F Yy-ԍxSpecifically, the petitioners maintain that the Commission has departed from past practice by denying their waiver requests, and has granted waivers to other similarly situated applicants. However, the petitioners fail to specify any waiver requests which were in fact granted so that we might compare the circumstances.x As discussed at length above, the petitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they were filed after the relevant cutoff dates established in  21.31 of the rules, and failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  Y- 21.902. See Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992); Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr.,  Y-9 FCC Rcd 569; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442. All of the pertinent rules cited herein  Yz-were longestablished and applicable at the time the returned applications were filed.q+z4F Y_ -ԍxFor example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking  YH -order (MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d 616) and the initial cutoff provisions of  Y3- 21.31 were adopted in 1968.  See Applications for Common Carrier Facilities, 13 FCC 2d 415 (1968).q All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part 21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that the  Y -application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger, 294 F.2d at 242 (1961); see also  Y -Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Thus, we reject petitioners' claims that the Commission engaged in arbitrary and capricious action and find that "[t]he Division's return of [the abovereferenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or arbitrary, but rather was based on the [applicant's] failure to comply with Commission  Y -rules." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568.  Y-x44. In particular, we reject petitioners' argument that the denial of their waiver  Yl-requests "violates fundamental precepts of administrative due process." The 1988 Public  YW-Notice states that the Commission did not anticipate granting waivers of the location  YB-restrictions. Language in the Notice also reminded applicants that they must comply with the rules requiring the filing of interference studies for MMDS authorized and proposed stations within 50 miles, and that the imposition of additional location restrictions on post1983 applicants did not exempt those applicants from the requirements to file MMDS interference studies, which were adopted in 1984 and are contained in  21.901(d)(1), 21.902(i) and  Y-21.902(c). See MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68 (1984). Having been given the Commission's express warning that waivers of the location restrictions were not contemplated, and having been given notice of the MMDS interference study filing requirements if the applicant did file within 50 mile of authorized or proposed stations, petitioners fail to show how they were deprived of their fundamental due process rights. To the extent the applicants chose to file within 50 miles of authorized or previously proposed stations and chose to file a waiver request, it did not abrogate their requirement to file interference studies. Moreover, due process does not require that all waiver requests must"2 +0*((" be granted. Applicants fail to meet the requirements for grant of their waiver requests, and, thus, their requests were properly denied.  Y-x45. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioners suggest that the return letters failed to detail the reasons for the applications' return. However,  21.20(a), which governs the disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies," not the breadth of detail demanded by the petitioners here. We find that the return notification letters sent to petitioners gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return of the applications. In each case, the return notification letters indicated at least one reason why the applications were unacceptable for  Y -filing, and cited the relevant rule section or Commission decision. "[T]he agency is not  Y -required to author an essay for the disposition of each application." WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d  Y -at 1157, n.9. As discussed in Section III, supra, these petitioning applicants were afforded sufficient information to know that their applications were being returned due to defects specified in the return letters.  Y - x x46. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. x47. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the abovereferenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. x48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   x` `  William F. Caton  Y;-x` `  Acting Secretary