WPC!D 2BJ  Courier3|w  Xw PE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6 F ZPv3|wHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4XR  P7jQ\oeXPa8DocumentgDocument 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:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx&-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")'0*((P(" Commission waived its rules, granting applications filed after the relevant cutoff date established by  21.31 or  21.914, and despite the applicant's failure to demonstrate nonharmful interference, as is the case here. All of the pertinent rules cited herein, including the standard for justifying the grant of a waiver, were longestablished and applicable at the  Y-time the returned applications were filed.~o Y-#XR  P7jQ=9XP#э For example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking  Y-order (Amendments of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint  Y-Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616 (1974)) and the initial cutoff provisions of  Y - 21.31 were adopted in 1968.  See Amendment of Section 1.227(b)(3) of the Commission's  Y -Rules Relating to Applications for Common Carrier Facilities, 13 FCC 2d 415 (1968). 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  Y_-application assumes the risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v.  YJ-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 abovereferenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or arbitrary, but rather was based on [the applicant's]  Y -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 post1983 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  Yh-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  Y<-properly denied.  4III. CONCLUSION lU 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 abovereferenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. "V0*((/" 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