NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95-237 Washington, D.C. In the Matter of 20 ) Applications for Authority ) To Construct and Operate ) Multipoint Distribution ) Service Stations at Two Transmitter Sites ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 15, 1995 Released: July 7, 1995 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it petitions for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to delegated authority, of 20 applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the E or F channels at transmitter sites in Naples, Florida and Elk City, Oklahoma. The Naples applications were filed with the Commission on October 31, 1990, and the Elk City application was filed on January 2, 1992. In their petitions, which were filed on April 9, 1993, and April 2, 1993, respectively, petitioners seek reconsideration of the Commission staff decision to return their applications as unacceptable for filing. As these petitions raise recurring, common issues, their collective consideration is the most efficient use of Commission resources. Thus, we will consider these petitions for reconsideration in this single order, which has been referred by the staff to the Commission pursuant to  1.106(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a). II. BACKGROUND 2. Each of the returned applications proposed an MDS station on the E or F channels to which Part 21 of the Commission's rules apply. A review of the Naples and Elk City applications, conducted by Commission staff, revealed that the applications were unacceptable for filing. Section 21.20(a) of the rules sets forth the standards for returning MDS applications as unacceptable for filing: Unless the Commission shall otherwise permit, an application will be unacceptable for filing and will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies if: (1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, execution, or other matters of a formal character; or (2) The application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements. 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). 3. Commission staff returned the Naples applications by return notification letters dated March 10, 1993, pursuant to  21.20. Specifically, the Naples applications were returned by the Commission staff as unacceptable for filing because the applicant: (1) filed past the cut-off period established in 47 C.F.R.  21.31 or  21.914; (2) proposed an area not open for filing pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(4), as it did not meet the criteria established in Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Open Filing Period for Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice), which specifically states that an applicant may not file in a geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or pending MMDS application; (3) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by 47 C.F.R.  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; (4) did not comply with 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5), in that the applicant proposed a transmitter site within a Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") or its buffer zone. See also Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1262-64 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order); and (5) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under 47 C.F.R.  21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. 4. The Elk City application was returned by the Commission staff as unacceptable for filing because the applicant: (1) proposed an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4), as it did not meet the criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice; (2) 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 (3) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under  21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the application was unacceptable for filing. Consequently, the Commission staff returned the Elk City application by return notification letter dated March 3, 1993, pursuant to  21.20. III. DISCUSSION 5. Mutual Exclusivity and Cut-off. Based upon our review of the returned applications and publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications, we conclude that petitioners' applications were mutually exclusive with and cut off by 1983 authorized stations. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for the determination of mutual exclusivity. The Commission will consider applications to be mutually exclusive if their conflicts are such that the grant of one application would effectively preclude by reason of harmful electrical interference, or other practical reason, the grant of one or more of the other applications. The Commission will presume "harmful electrical interference" to mean interference which would result in a material impairment to service rendered to the public despite full cooperation in good faith by all applicants or parties to achieve reasonable technical adjustments which would avoid electrical conflict. 47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In addition, 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5) states that "[n]otwithstanding the provision of  21.31(a) all applications that propose to locate within or within 24.1 kilometers (15 miles) of the border of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area ("SMSA") will be considered together." We also stated our intention to use the United States Census Bureau 1983 definitions of Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Metropolitan Statistical Areas which were released by the Office of Management and Budget on June 27, 1983, and effective on June 30, 1983, as our source for identifying metropolitan statistical areas for the MDS service. See MMDS Allocation Order 94 FCC 2d at 1263, n.43. 6. In determining whether MMDS applications are mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) and  21.901(d)(5), the staff evaluates whether the MMDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station; (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station; or (3) within an MSA, or its 15-mile buffer zone, for which there is an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station. Applications which are determined to be either within 50 mile, or with an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area, of any previously proposed or authorized station, are considered to be mutually exclusive with the station, unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference by submission of interference studies with their application, pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4). 7. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application or authorized station, the applicable cut-off date is the one day filing date designated for those applications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983). If there is no mutually exclusive 1983 application or authorized station, but there is a mutually exclusive, post-1983, previously proposed or authorized MMDS station, the applicable cut-off rule for applications filed from April 20, 1988 through October 31, 1990 is  21.31(b), which provides, in part, that in order to be entitled to comparative status: The application [must be] received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing by whichever "cut-off" date is earlier: (i) Sixty (60) days after the date of the public notice listing the first of the conflicting applications as accepted for filing; or (ii) One (1) business day preceding the date on which the Commission takes final action on the previously filed application (should the commission act upon such application in the interval between thirty (30) and sixty (60) days after the date of its public notice). 47 C.F.R.  21.31(b)(2). For applications filed on or after November 1, 1990, the applicable cut-off rule is  21.914, which provides that: Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this part, to be entitled to be included in a random selection process or to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications, an [MDS] application . . . must be received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing on the same calendar day as the first of the conflicting applications is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing. 47 C.F.R.  21.914. 8. Whether an MDS application is cut-off is not determined solely by the date of filing vis-a-vis applications specifying the same transmitter site and proposing service to the same community, but also by: (1) whether, pursuant to  21.31, granting the application would result in harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station for which the cut-off date is past; or (2) whether, pursuant to  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 cut-off date is past. In order to be acceptable for filing, each of the above-referenced MDS applications was required to be filed on or before the applicable cut-off date for mutually exclusive applications. 9. These returned applications propose a transmitter site which make the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31 or  21.914, with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. Specifically, each of these 20 returned applications was mutually exclusive and cut-off with respect to a 1983 authorized station, for which the cut-off date was the one day filing date designated for these applications, September 9, 1983. Further, the Naples applicants selected a transmitter site within the Fort Myers, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, and thus, are also mutually exclusive with and cut-off by authorized or previously proposed stations within that MSA or its 15 mile buffer zone. Thus, all of the above-referenced applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d). 10. Interference Protection. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires each MDS applicant to engineer its proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas of all other authorized or previously proposed cochannel stations. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3). Section 21.902(b)(4) requires each MDS applicant to engineer its station to provide at least 0 dB of interference protection within the protected service area of all other previously proposed or authorized adjacent channel stations. MDS applicants have consistently been required to comply with  21.902(b). In Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994), the return of an application as unacceptable for filing was upheld, where the applicant demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In doing so, it was stated that: [W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of 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. 11. At the time these applicants filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with 21.902(b), applicants were required to include an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. See e.g., 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1990). In addition,  21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 12. These interference showings are a significant requirement because of the extensive planning and engineering involved in the MDS licensing process. The Commission has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these interference showings. See In the Matter of 4330 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335 (1995), appeal docketed, A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 95-1027 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 9, 1995). When the Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F channel groups in 1983, 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 acceptable for filing." MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. (emphasis in original). See also  21.902 (b) and (c). Consequently, there has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 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 Commission rules and regulations, as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."). 13. In a de novo review at the time of reconsideration, we have determined that each petitioner failed to file required interference studies for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice, or in the publicly available lists of currently pending MMDS applications in the Domestic Facilities Division Public Reference Room, prior to the filing date of petitioners' applications. Specifically, the Naples applications lacked interference studies for one authorized and 70 previously proposed MMDS stations, and the Elk City application lacked interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for 126 previously proposed MMDS stations. Moreover, the interference analyses that were submitted by the Naples and Elk City applicants 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 required by  21.902 (c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) failed to engineer the stations to provide 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 (3) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. In addition, the interference studies submitted by the Elk City applicant were inadequate in that the applicant indicated terrain blockage, but failed to submit required demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles. Thus, the Naples and Elk City applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. Accordingly, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing due to failure to comply with  21.902. See MDS 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 accepted for filing."). 14. The Elk City petitioner acknowledges that it failed to consider 47 pending E channel group applications and 44 pending F channel group applications, but argues that his failure to do so was justified on the basis that a lottery had not yet been conducted for that area. Petitioner instead pledges to coordinate with the eventual lottery winner. Petitioner's assertion that he would cooperate in good faith to resolve any harmful electrical interference does not excuse the failure to submit detailed interference studies as required by  21.902. The mandate that applicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith commandment of  21.902(a), which specifies 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 will take to comply with  21.902(a). See also 47 C.F.R.  21.31. Thus, a pledge to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a) does not exempt an MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of  21.901(d)(7) or  21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7)." 15. The Elk City petitioner also argues that it was not required to file interference analyses for two applications in Wellington, Texas, which were 49.61 miles from the proposed site, because if the distances were rounded off, their applications would not fall under the 50-mile rule of  21.902(c)(1). Section 21.902(c)(1), in effect at the time petitioner filed its application, required an applicant to submit an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed cochannel station if the proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the coordinates of any such station. We note that even if 49.61 were rounded up to 50, this distance still comes under this rule. Furthermore, at the time petitioner filed his application,  21.902(c)(1) and (2) also required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel or adjacent channel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed station. Our independent engineering review reveals that the Elk City applicant's proposed transmitting antenna indeed had an unobstructed electrical path to the protected service area of the proposed Wellington, Texas applications. Hence, the Elk City petitioner was required to submit interference studies for both Wellington applications, pursuant to  21.902. 16. Based upon these considerations, we conclude that the Naples and Elk City 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 MDS licensees as required by  21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See New Channels, 57 RR 2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. 17. Notice to Affected Parties. The Naples and Elk City applicants also 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 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): The 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). 18. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are: (1) farther than 50 miles from the 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 a statistical area for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first 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 this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. The Notice also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, all of the above- referenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. 19. Specifically, the Naples applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles of: (1) two 1983 previously authorized MMDS stations; (2) one 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS station; and (3) four 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations. In addition, the Naples applications proposed a site that was within 15 miles of the boundary of the Fort Myers MSA for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The Elk City application proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles of WMI331, a 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS station at Colony, Oklahoma. Thus, each of the above referenced applications was properly returned as unacceptable for filing due to failure to comply with the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. 20. Waiver Requests. Section 21.20(c)(1) states that a defective application may still be accepted for filing if the application is accompanied by a waiver request. The Naples applications contained a request for waiver of the 50 mile and MSA location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice and the service requirement of  21.902(g). The Elk City application contained a request for waiver of the service requirement of  21.902(g). Petitioners argue that their applications contained adequate justification for grant of a waiver. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest, thus we will not grant the requested waiver, and will not grant waivers on our own motion pursuant to  21.20(c)(2). 21. 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: (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 (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 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) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per 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 rule would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.") 22. The Naples petitioners acknowledge that they failed to consider 54 E or F channel group applications, on the basis that these applications were lottery losers that had been, or would be, dismissed. However, it was recently reiterated that MDS applicants must consider all previously proposed and pending applications, before filing their applications. See CNI Wireless, 9 FCC Rcd at 2040; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5443. In Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992), Roundtree argued that the dismissal of its application for a new H-channel station in the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service ("OFS"), for failure to file the required interference analysis for an application which was pending at the time Roundtree filed, but which was subsequently dismissed, was arbitrary and capricious. In upholding the dismissal of Roundtree's application we explained that: The Bureau's long-standing choice of the date of filing for this evaluation provides a standard that is known, certain, and fair to all interested parties. Roundtree's proposed alternative -- the date of Commission action -- varies from application to application, depending on staff resources, application backlogs, and other administrative considerations. To assess applicant rights and obligations under so variable a standard would indeed be arbitrary and capricious, with decisions made primarily on the basis of chance. Id. at 5456 (citations omitted). 23. Nonetheless, the Naples petitioners assert that enforcement of the interference protection requirements of 21.902(b), at the time their applications were filed, would impose an unnecessary and unreasonable economic burden, and therefore, a waiver should be granted. However, the Commission rejects economic justification as a basis for a waiver when claims of economic hardship are not substantiated. See Nelson County Broadcasting Co., 64 FCC 2d 932, 933 (1977). We do not believe that the facts and circumstances of this case are sufficiently unique so as to warrant a waiver of the interference protection requirements of  21.902 (b) and (c). Most importantly, due to the procedures established for MDS lotteries, it is not unusual for an applicant that initially loses in a lottery to be selected in a later lottery for qualification review and to be subsequently granted because the initial tentative selectee did not survive the final qualification review. See  1.824(a). One of the underlying purposes of the interference analysis filing requirement is to avoid grant of an MDS application which would cause harmful interference to previously proposed, but subsequently authorized, stations. Thus, if we granted petitioners' waiver request, we would effectively strip subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference protection to which they are entitled pursuant to  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. 24. Petitioners' statements that they are willing to cooperate with the new tentative selectee on problems of harmful interference in the event that any of the lottery losing applicants should become a tentative selectee does not address the underlying purpose of the interference analysis filing requirement, since all applicants are required by  21.902(b) "to cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve interference . . . problems." Nor does it justify our treating these applicants differently from other MMDS applicants which have complied with the interference protection requirements in cases involving pending, lottery losing applications. Therefore, petitioners' argument that enforcement of the requirement to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference and to serve a copy of the interference analysis on affected parties would be unduly burdensome and expensive is not persuasive. As the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1969, we neither "must [n]or should tolerate evisceration of a rule by waivers." WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159. 25. The Naples and Elk City petitioners also argue that the Commission should grant a waiver of the service requirement of  21.902(g) because it would be unreasonably burdensome to serve all of the affected applicants. However, given the general availability of modern duplicating equipment, we believe that situations involving an unreasonable burden to the applicant are rare."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. Delegations of Authority, 7 FCC 2d 352 (1967). See also Springfield Television Broadcasting Corporation, 71 FCC 2d 611 (1979); Nelson County Broadcasting Co., 64 FCC 2d 932. Accordingly, we do not find petitioners' argument convincing. 26. Similarly, the Elk City petitioner's alternative argument that a waiver of the service requirements of  21.902(g) should be granted because addresses of many affected parties were not available from Commission records, is without merit. The Elk City petitioner failed to serve previously proposed or authorized stations, including the three which it identified in the interference study submitted with its application. MDS applications are available for public inspection in the MDS Public Reference Room, and were available when the Elk City petitioner filed his application. Hence, the Elk City petitioner could have gone to the MDS Public Reference Room, requested the application files for these authorized and previously proposed stations, and determined the licensees' or applicants' respective addresses. Similarly, the Elk City petitioner could have obtained copies of previously filed applications from the Commission's official public record copy contractor. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC at 2663. In addition, a printed listing of MDS applicant addresses is also available in the MDS Public Reference Room, for inspection, and was available when the Elk City petitioner filed its application. Hence, we reject the Elk City petitioner's argument that a waiver of  21.902(g) should be granted. 27. Finally, the Elk City petitioner also argues that it was not necessary to serve affected parties, because "all interested parties would have the opportunity to review the application and file any protests or petitions to deny with the Commission." However,  21.902(g) requires that an applicant serve all affected previously proposed or authorized stations. The service requirement is significant, because "[c]oordination of MDS . . . systems . . . also relies on accurate data about the interference environment. MDS . . . applicants and licensees are required to serve copies of their interference analyses on any existing users and prior filed applicants. . . ." Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5716 (1987). All interested parties are entitled to rely on being served with notice, pursuant to  21.902(g). The Elk City petitioner has not convinced us that a waiver of  21.902(g) is warranted. Accordingly, the Elk City application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing for failure to comply with  21.902(g). 28. The Naples petitioners also seek a waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice. In support of their request for waiver, the Naples petitioners claim that a waiver of the 50 mile and MSA location restrictions 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 each community's borders. We disagree. The Commission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in nearby areas. In Microband 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 cut-off 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 Newark-Elizabeth-Jersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station located in New York City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 185-86. 29. The Naples petitioners also assert, incorrectly, that the purpose of the location restriction contained in the 1988 Public Notice is to "foster the development of a viable competitive video distribution service." The location restriction, however, serves other important administrative purposes, including minimizing the possibility for application grid lock, and allowing the Commission to process applications more expeditiously and to efficiently utilize scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). These purposes would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location restriction. Thus, we conclude that petitioners' requested waivers fail to meet the requirements of  21.19(a), and granting them would frustrate the underlying purpose of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions, and would not be in the public interest. 30. We reject the Naples and Elk City petitioners' claim that Commission staff had created a "marriage" policy exception to the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice. Petitioners argue that the staff had previously granted such exceptions where "both the E and F Group channels were licensed for a market within 50 miles of an applicant's proposed site, and only one channel group in the second market had been licensed or had an application pending." Petitioners state that "the staff allowed a marriage by granting the second channel group as well. That is, where short spacing already existed between a set of E Group (or F Group) channels, and one of the short-spaced markets already had a second channel group, the other market also was allowed to obtain service on a second channel group." Petitioners offer no documentary support for these assertions and fail to state any specific instances of where this policy purportedly was applied. 31. While the Commission may grant two applications proposing to serve communities within 50 miles of another authorized or previously proposed station, the second applicant must ensure that its proposed transmitter site complies with Section 21 of the Commission's rules and offer sufficient justification for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. See Fortuna Systems Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 5122 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988). As discussed supra, the petitioners failed to comply with these requirements. Moreover, petitioners failed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative site, from which they could provide acceptable service to their specified communities, that is located more than 50 miles from the sites of previously proposed or existing stations. Hence, petitioners also failed to convince us that a waiver is justified under  21.19(b), which requires that the applicant show the lack of a reasonable alternative to the grant of a waiver. See Orange Park Florida T.V., Inc. v. FCC, 811 F.2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) ("Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fully-spaced sites . . . [Without such a showing, the applicant's] waiver request died, as it were, at the starting gate."). See also Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444, n.6 ("Contrary to the assertion in the reconsideration petition that the Gary site . . . is the only possible site for this MMDS station, the [seven transmitter sites studied by the applicant] do not exhaust the numerous potential sites in the Chicago [CMSA] and its 15-mile buffer zone."). Moreover, contrary to the assertions of petitioners, they did not submit the proper interference protection showings to justify a waiver and failed to demonstrate that they should be exempted from the transmitter site selection requirements applicable to thousands of other MMDS applications filed on or after April 20, 1988. Therefore, we are not persuaded that a waiver should be granted. 32. Petitioners assert that the staff's disposition of their waiver requests was erroneous and complains that the return notification failed to provide an adequate explanation for the "inadequacy" of the waiver requests. However: The 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. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. The waiver requests that were submitted 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. 33. The Naples petitioners argue that their waiver requests should have been more closely examined given the Commission's interest in encouraging MDS as a competitor to cable services. The Commission's interest in encouraging competitors to cable service does not override its obligation to impartial application of its regulations. Moreover, the granting of waiver requests to any of this group of petitioners would undercut the interference protection guarantees given to earlier-filed MDS licensees or applicants, ultimately discouraging investment in MDS services. In addition, the experience of existing MDS stations demonstrates that competition with the cable industry can flourish when MDS stations are located in accordance with our rules. See Falcon Telecable, 10 FCC Rcd 1654 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1995) (rescinding cable rate regulation of municipality due to effective competition from wireless cable television operator). 34. We disagree with petitioners' argument that the Commission's return of these applications constituted an "unannounced and arbitrary reversal of its prior well-established policies by refusing to grant the waivers and accept these applications for filing." As discussed at length above, petitioners' applications were properly returned as unacceptable because the applicants filed after the relevant cut-off dates established in  21.31 and  21.914 of the rules, failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  21.902, and failed to demonstrate circumstances that would justify a waiver. See Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456; Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442. Petitioners offer no documentary support or specific examples of where the Commission waived its rules, granting applications filed after the relevant cut-off date established by  21.31 or  21.914, and despite the applicant's failure to demonstrate non- harmful interference, as is the case here. All of the pertinent rules cited herein, including the standard for justifying the grant of a waiver, were long-established and applicable at the time the returned applications were filed. 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 application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1961); see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Thus, we reject petitioners' claims that the Commission engaged in arbitrary action and find that "[t]he Division's return of [the above-referenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or arbitrary, but rather was based on [the applicant's] failure to comply with Commission rules." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568. 35. The Naples and Elk City petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post- 1983 MMDS applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public interest to grant a waiver of the 50 mile and MSA location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice and  21.901(d)(5), or the interference protection and service requirement of  21.902. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers were properly denied. III. CONCLUSION 36. In view of all of 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. 37. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the reconsideration petitions filed by the above-referenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. 38. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of the decision to the contact representative for petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary