WPCa 2BJ  Courier3|w s BoldTimes New RomanE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6 F ZPv3|wHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\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#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:>KIZDLCG TimesCG Times BoldTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New Roman ItalicCG Times Bold Italic"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxH = 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; 10 applications for Fort Collins, Colorado, Application File Nos. 00505CMP83; 02961CM"r' 0*(('"ԫP83; 04520CMP83; 05000CMP83; 07101CMP83; 11666CMP83; 12386CMP83; 13560CMP83; 15279CMP83; and 15681CMP83; and two applications for Scottsbluff, Nebraska, Application File Nos. 02304CMP83 and 16610CMP83. The applicants were also mutually exclusive and cutoff by a 1983 previously proposed application for Laramie, Wyoming in the Greeley, Colorado MSA, Application File No. 02988CMP83. Even if this Laramie application had not been filed, the Cheyenne applicants were mutually exclusive and cutoff by an application filed for Greeley, Colorado, with a public notice date of October 11, 1989, and a cutoff date of December 11, 1989.>"  0*(("Ԍ Y-ԙ x14. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for  Y-two subsequently authorized and 18 previously proposed MMDS stations.= Yr -ԍxFor example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for a proposed station in Fort Collins, Colorado, Application File No. 12386CMP83, placed on public notice June 30, 1990. 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  Y-stations.  See 21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for  Y-service of interference studies stipulated by 21.902(g).[ = Y-ԍxIn lieu of the required interference analyses, petitioners served three applicants for 1983 previously proposed, adjacent channel stations with copies of their proposal "to  Yn-coordinate" with the eventual adjacent channel group licensee to avoid harmful interference.   YW-See  20, infra. The applications included  Yy-requests for waiver of the fifty mile location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice,  Yd-and  21.901 and 21.902 of the Commission's rules. On June 27, 1991, petitioners filed a minor amendment to their applications, supplementing their original waiver request to include  Y6-waiver of  21.901(d)(5).   W -   IV. DISCUSSION  Y - x15. 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  Y9-proposed MMDS station;g9= 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;_"|= YO'-ԍxMMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC at 109111._ or "" /0*(("Ԍ(3) within an MSA, or its 15mile buffer zone, for which there is an authorized or previously  Y-proposed MMDS station.c= Yb-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 and 21.901(d)(5),  Y-with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. See  35, supra. Specifically,  Y-each of these 14 returned applications was mutually exclusive and cutoff by previously filed MDS applications, with a cutoff date of September 9, 1983. 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). x16. Whether an MDS application is cutoff is not determined solely by the date of  Yd-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  Y-past. See  35, supra. As explained above, the abovereferenced applications were cutoff by mutually exclusive, previously proposed or authorized stations which, although they may have specified towns different than the towns specified by the returned applications, would have received harmful interference from the stations proposed in the returned applications.  Yk-x 17. 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"p$ {0*((%" 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.(#  Y-R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 606.= Y4-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."  Yx-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  YL-interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection,\ Ld= Ya -ԍxMDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the  YJ -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  Y-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. x18. 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 studies for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice prior to the  Y-filing date of petitioners' applications. See n.15, supra. As discussed in 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 allowed and  Y-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 acceptable for" 0*((~"  Y-filing." Id. at 1264. 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  Y-for the E or F channels.j= YM-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  Yk -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-  Y-x19. Petitioners failed to file and serve any interference analyses for existing or previously proposed MDS stations with transmitter sites within 50 miles or the radio horizon  Yz-with an unobstructed electrical path of the applicants' proposed stations. See, e.g., 1214,  Ye-supra. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  See  YP-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  Y$ -not cause harmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing."); see also  Y -Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining  Y -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."). x20. In addition, petitioners pledge "to coordinate with the eventual licensee" and "to undertake whatever technical changes might be necessary" to avoid harmful interference. This pledge, however, does not excuse their failure to submit detailed interference studies as  YD-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 engineering techniques' does not constitute the  Y-kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).") The requirement of  21.902(c) that an applicant submit interference" 0*((" 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  Y-demonstrate what steps they have taken to comply 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 MDS licensees as required by  Y3- 21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. New  Y -Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040.  Y -x21. 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).  Y?-x22. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS  Y*-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.= Y`"-ԍx Petitioners filed applications proposing transmitter sites within the Greeley, Colorado and Fort Collins, Colorado MSAs. 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"#b0*(($"  Y-unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, all of the abovereferenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the  Y-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. x23. 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  Yc-clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of  YN-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  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).  Yr-x24. Waiver Requests. As the return notification letters did not explain the staff's  Y[-analysis of the waivers requested, we shall analyze these waiver requests de novo here. Petitioners assert that the applications contained all necessary elements for grant of waivers  Y/-of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice and  21.901, 21.901(d)(5)  Y-and 21.902, and, therefore, the Commission was required to grant such waivers. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest. x 25. 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  Yk%-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.")"?'0*((P("Ԍ Y-ԙ x26. Petitioners assert that they are entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location requirements because grant of a waiver would not result in harmful interference to  Y-authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations.= YM-ԍxPetitioners suggest that a waiver is warranted because copies of their proposal to coordinate with the eventual adjacent channel licensee were served on each applicant of previously proposed stations, and no objections were received. However, only three applicants for 1983 previously proposed, adjacent channel MMDS stations, who had applications pending on the filing dates of the applications, were served by petitioners. However, as shown in Section III,  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  Yz-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  Y7-unsupported.*7= 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.  Y-Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987). * These unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required  Y -by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.  x27. Furthermore, the location restrictions serve other important administrative purposes which do not concern interference avoidance. The location restrictions also minimize the possibility for application gridlock, and allow us to process applications more  Y -expeditiously. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L.  Y-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 frustrate the underlying purposes  Y-of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. h x28. Petitioners also request a waiver of  21.901 and 21.902 "to the extent necessary," and in an amendment to their applications, request waiver of  21.901(d)(5). However,  21.901 and 21.902 each contain several various provisions which address, among other items, location restrictions, the performance of interference analyses, and service requirements. Petitioners fail to specify those provisions of  21.901 and 21.902 for which they seek waivers, and neglect to demonstrate how enforcement of  21.901, 21.901(d)(5), and 21.902 would not serve, or would frustrate, their underlying purposes. In fact, petitioners even fail to articulate the underlying purposes of  21.901, 21.901(d)(5)". 0*((" and 21.902. x29. Instead, petitioners maintain that "strict adherence" to the location restrictions  Y-contained in the 1988 Public Notice and to  21.901, 21.901(d)(5) and 21.902 would frustrate the "general purpose" of the Commission's rules, the development of a competitive video distribution service. Petitioners assert that their proposed community of license is unserved and has various unmet needs. Waiver of the location restrictions and of  21.901, 21.901(d)(5) and 21.902, petitioners claim, would be in the public interest because it would result in service to unserved communities and to a greater number of potential subscribers, implying that the proposed communities can only be served from an MDS transmitter located  Y -within each community's borders.^ = Y -ԍ xAccording to petitioners, denial of their waiver requests would wreak a "perverse" result because, in protecting the adjacent channel applicants, Commission staff would doom the ultimate adjacent channel licensee by precluding development of a viable system using both channel groups. x^ Petitioners further claim that providing consumers a competitive alternative to cable through the development of a viable MMDS system can only be achieved by grant of their waiver requests. 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.  Y -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 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  Y!-City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 18586. Moreover, petitioners fail to address both the potential injury to the 1983 previously proposed, cochannel applicant,  Y-see note 12, 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  Y-circumstances" warranting a waiver. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. x  Yo- x30. 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 waivers of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice, or  21.901, 21.901(d)(5) and 21.902 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers of the location requirements and  21.901, 21.901(d)(5) and 21.902 were properly denied. " 0*((!"Ԍ Y-x31. 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. All of the pertinent rules cited herein were longestablished and applicable at the time the returned  Ya-applications were filed.qa= Y-ԍxFor example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking  Y -order (MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d 616) and the initial cutoff provisions of  Y - 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  Y -risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger, 294 F.2d at 242 (1961);  Y -see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993).  Y -x32. 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 x33. 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. x34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the reconsideration petitions filed by the abovereferenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. "*80*((" x35. 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