WPCS 2BJ  Courier3|w s BoldTimes New Roman BoldXPCG 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#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2d 4Ba1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2"o1a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2 3oea8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:8wC;,Xw PE37XPD?7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X@V"G($,hG PE37hPA7nC:,4Xn4  pG;X6uC;,,cXu&_ x7XX odXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2;XD13<S9K9>8wC;,Xw PE37XPD?7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X@V"G($,hG PE37hP7nC:,4Xn4  pG;XpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx- 12. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application or authorized station, the applicable cutoff date is the oneday filing date designated for those") 0*(("  Y-applications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg.  Y-33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746. Based upon our de novo review of the returned Henryetta applications and the publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and previously filed applications, we conclude that each of the Henryetta applications  Y-was mutually exclusive with and cutoff by 1983 authorized and previously proposed stations.  Y-See 21.31; see also Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as  Y~-corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746. Specifically, all of the Henryetta applicants proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical path of three 1983 authorized and previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on  Y;-October 18, 1990, and October 22, 1990, the filing dates of the Henryetta applications.; Y -ԍ Application File Nos. 16600CMP83, WLK382, at Clayton, Oklahoma; 02528CMP83, WMH684, at Canadian, Oklahoma, which was subsequently authorized and then forfeited; and 01028CMP83 at McAlester, Oklahoma.  Y$ -See infra  15 . Thus, the abovereferenced applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to 21.31(d), which states: XAn 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).  Y)-13. 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 channel.  Y-. . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. Almost a decade before the Henryetta applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications. XIt 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.(# " K0*(( "Ԍ Y-R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981). Yy-ԍ The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical  Yb-path from the applicant's MDS station. MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 111.  YM-Subsequent to the filing of the last of these 13 returned applications, the distance was  Y6-extended to 100 miles. Amendment of Parts 1, 2 and 21 of the Commission's Rules, 8 FCC Rcd 1444, 1448 (1993). 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  Y-licensee." Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768, n. 10 (Dom. Fac.  Y-Div. 1994) (hereinafter Family Entertainment). Thus,  21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection and 0 dB of  Y|-adjacent channel interference protection,U |! YN -ԍ MDS applicants have been consistently required to comply with  21.902(b). In the  Y7-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: X[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. U and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. 14. At the time the Henryetta applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the application 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. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1990). In addition,  21.902(c)(2) required 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. 47 C.F.R.  Y -21.902(c)(2)(1990); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required that each MDS application for the E or F channels include the applicant's" 0*((" written statement of the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel stations. The applicant was also required to show what steps were taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees, to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7). 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 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  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.l Y -ԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985)  Y-(hereinafter New Channels) ("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  Y-required by the criteria for 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  Y--unacceptable for 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 . . . .").  "[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of  Yf-an application." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567. "In the processing of MDS  YQ-station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are crucial." Dan S.  Y<-Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  Y-15. In addition, to being mutually exclusive with and cutoff by authorized and  Y-pending previously filed applications, see supra  12, we find that the Henryetta applications" 0*((" were properly returned for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements.  Y-Each of petitioners' applications failed to include all of the required analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and to cochannel and adjacent channel stations for which there was an  Y-unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo review, on reconsideration, we  Y-have determined that each Henryetta applicant failed to include required interference studies  Yx-for: (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station;x Y-ԍ WLK382 at Clayton, Oklahoma, Application File No. 16600CMP83, which appeared on public notice on July 20, 1988. (2) three 1983 subsequently  Ya-authorized MMDS stations;<_ab Yt -ԍ WMH684 at Canadian, Oklahoma, Application File No. 02528CMP83, which was forfeited on February 28, 1993; WLW923 at Tulsa, Oklahoma, Application File No. 07727CMP83, which was forfeited on October 16, 1993; and WLW895, at Tulsa, Oklahoma, Application File No. 10449CMP83, which was forfeited on August 16, 1993. While these stations were subsequently forfeited, at the time the Henryetta applications were filed, the applicants were required by 21.902(b) and (c) to include interference analyses for these stations. < and (3) 60 pending previously proposed 1983 applications.a  Y-ԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 00536CMP83, for Henryetta, Oklahoma; 16671CMP83, for Muskogee, Oklahoma; and 14809CMP83 for Tulsa, Oklahoma which appeared on public notice on February 24, 1986. In addition, the Henryetta applications filed on October 18, 1990, failed to include interference  Y3-studies for seven pending previously proposed post1983 applications.3  Y-ԍ Application File Nos. 52145CMP90; 52146CMP90; 53033CMP90 through 53035CMP90; 50702CMP91; and 51211CMP91 at Henryetta, Oklahoma. The Henryetta  Y -applications filed on October 22, 1990, failed to include interference analyses for ten pending  Y -previously proposed post1983 applications.  Y\-ԍ The post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations include the above mentioned  YE-applications, see supra note 23, as well as Application File Nos. 52231CMP91; 52281CMP91 and 52296CMP91 at Henryetta, Oklahoma. 16. Regarding petitioners' failure to file required interference studies, we note that the Henryetta applicants failed to submit required interference analyses for authorized or  Y -previously proposed stations which had appeared on public noticel + Y#-ԍ Copies of the Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of  Yn$-issuance. See 47 C.F.R.  0.422 and 0.443. In addition, previously released notices are  YY%-available for public inspection at the Commission's Press and News Media Division. Id.l or FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioners applications. For example, the Henryetta applicants failed to submit an interference study for an authorized station in Clayton,"{ 0*((;" Oklahoma, WLK382 which was placed on public notice on July 20, 1988, over two years prior to petitioners' filing dates. Petitioners do not attempt to explain their failure to file these required interference analyses except with regard to one pending 1983 Canadian Valley application, Application File No. 02528CMP83. Thus, given petitioners' failure to file for  Y-pending previously proposed and authorized 1983 and post1983 Y-ԍ For example, regarding the post1983 pending previously proposed stations, we note that Application File Nos. 52145CMP90 and 52146CMP90 at Henryetta, Oklahoma appeared on the July 30, 1990, FCC internal staff listing that petitioners relied on in performing their engineering work. Petitioners fail to explain their failure to submit required interference analyses for these applicants.  stations listed on public notice or FCC internal staff listings, we find that even apart from any failure of petitioners to file interference studies for the Canadian Valley station would not have affected our determination that the Henryetta applicants failed to comply with 21.902(c). 17. As for petitioners' use of other independent data bases, these are by definition not affiliated with the Commission and, hence, the Commission does not attest to their accuracy. The Commission has, over the years, announced, in public notices, third party entities which have contracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to  Y -the MDS data base. See e.g. Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to  Y -Commission Data Bases, Mimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioners did not use the Commission's official online contractor, but rather chose to rely on unofficial nonCommission affiliated data bases and did so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete.  YO- 18. Petitioners' pledge, contained in their applications, to take all measures necessary to avoid harmful interference, including ceasing operations, does not excuse petitioners' failure to submit 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 mandates 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 . . . ."  Y-See also 47 C.F.R. 21.31. A pledge to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of Sections  Y-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  YV-constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under  YA-47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7)." As discussed previously, interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. This is a step which cannot be skipped, as implied by these petitions. In addition, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that applicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of a license. " 0*((!"Ԍ19. In addition, the study that was submitted for a pending 1983 McAlester, Oklahoma application, Application File No. 01028CMP83, failed to meet the interference  Y-analysis requirements. See supra  1314. Specifically, petitioners failed to engineer the proposed stations to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection, pursuant to 21.902(b)(3); submitted incorrect free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously  Yx-proposed station; x Y-ԍ The Henryetta applicants listed the distance to the McAlester, Oklahoma site from their proposed site as 33.7 miles instead of the more precise distance of 33.64 miles. Free space path loss is dependent on frequency and distance. The Henryetta applicants' rounding to increase the distance between the McAlester station's transmitting antenna and their transmitting antenna increased the free space path loss of petitioners' proposed signal and resulted in an inaccurate calculation (in petitioners' favor) of the desired signal to undesired signal ratios. Additionally, we note, the Henryetta applicants failed to submit, in some areas of the McAlester protected service area to which their proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path, calculations of the desired signal to undesired signal ratio. Our independent calculations, conducted on reconsideration, revealed the potential for harmful interference in these areas.  indicated terrain blockage but did not submit required demonstrations such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; and used incorrect technical parameters for transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. "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  Y -filing." MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93. Because petitioners here failed to make the required showings regarding interference protection, their applications cannot be  Y -characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules.  New  Y -Channels, 57 RR 2d at 1602. Thus, due to the lack of required interference analyses the Henryetta applications were unacceptable for filing and were properly returned.  Y-20. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon all previously proposed or authorized station applicants, conditional licensees or licensees required to be studied and submit a list identifying each applicant, conditional  Y%-licensee and licensee served. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). Each of the Henryetta applicants  Y-failed to serve copies of the required interference analyses,^x  YR!-ԍ Prior to the return of their applications, petitioners submitted an amended certificate of service reserving the same parties originally served in the Henryetta applications, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Petitioners had initially served these parties by first class mail, postage prepaid. However, petitioners still did not satisfy the requirements of  Y$-21.902(g) because they failed to serve copies of the required interference analyses on all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees required to be studied.^ as mandated by 21.902(g), on  Y-all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by"0*(("  Y-21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. In Edna  Y-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): XThe 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 opposition are filed, was negated.(# 47 C.F.R. 21.902(g). 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}-21. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. Regarding petitioners' requests for waivers, we find that their grant would not serve the public interest. 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: X(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.(# 47 C.F.R. 21.19. "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  Y$-circumstances which warrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C.  Y-Cir. 1969) (hereinafter WAIT Radio) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v.  Y-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 rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule."). 22. While petitioners request, in their applications, waivers "of the Commission's Rules," it appears from the surrounding context of this request that the Henryetta applicants  Y[%-were requesting waiver of the 50 mile separation restrictions, contained in the 1988 Public  YF&-Notice, and the interference analyses, required pursuant to 21.902, specifically for the pending previously proposed Tulsa applications. On reconsideration, petitioners attempt to"1'0*((P(" expand their waiver requests to include the Canadian Valley application as well. 23. Regarding petitioners' requests for waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions, we note that petitioners fail to address, as required by 21.19(b), the issue of whether there was a reasonable alternative site which is located more than 50 miles from the sites of 1983 previously proposed stations. An applicant must demonstrate a lack of a reasonable  Yv-alternative under 21.19(b). See 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  Y3-numerous potential sites in Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also  Y -Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has been recognized in another context. "Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fullyspaced sites.... [Without such a showing, the applicant's]  Y -waiver request died, as it were, at the stating gate." Orange Park Florida TV, Inc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 24. Petitioners assert that the one Tulsa interference analysis, submitted with their  YS-applications and based on dismissed a Tulsa application, see supra note 7, showed no harmful interference would be caused by their proposed stations given the distance and the terrain blockage between the Tulsa site and petitioners' proposed site. However, petitioners' Tulsa interference study was inadequate since petitioners used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and reference receiving antenna gain; stated incorrect line loss; and indicated terrain blockage, but did not include all of the required demonstrations,  Y-such as shadow maps or terrain profiles. YD-ԍ The Henryetta applicants only submitted two terrain profile graphs entitled: "Henryetta MMDS transmitter and Tulsa Near Protected Receiver;'" and "Henryetta MMDS transmitter and Tulsa Distant Protected Receiver.'" The Henryetta applicants failed  Y-to submit demonstrations of a lack of unobstructed electrical paths to all portions of the Tulsa applicants' protected service area. In addition we note, while petitioners performed an interference analysis which was representative with regard to the coordinates and  Y-frequency of some of the pending Tulsa applications,^ Ym -ԍ Specifically, petitioners' interference study was geographically representative of the following nine pending 1983 Tulsa F channels applications: Application File Nos. 14915CMP83; 07996CMP83; 03198CMP83; 06356CMP83; 12207CMP83; 16214CMP83; 00872CMP83; 03737CMP83; and 14416CMP83. ^ it was not representative and, hence, not probative regarding the potential for interference for numerous other pending Tulsa applications which proposed different, closer transmitter sites or proposed using the E"o 0*((N"  Y-channel frequencies.  Yy-ԍ Specifically, petitioners' Tulsa interference study was not representative of 60 other pending 1983 Tulsa applications. These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 15861CMP83, which was located 31.90 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 01031CMP83, which was located 43.70 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 03374CMP83, which was located 44.32 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 14226CMP83, which was located 45.97 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 11343CMP83, which was located 47.1 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 12090CMP83, which was located 47.50 miles from petitioners' proposed site; and 14809CMP83, which was located 49.73 miles from petitioners' proposed site. Moreover, the Commission has already determined that the "mileage between [MDS] stations is not the only factor that determines whether interference  Y -will occur." MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 90. In 1984 the Commission adopted, at 47 C.F.R. 21.902(f), the definition of harmful interference as a free space calculation of  Yg -desired to undesired signal ratio. See MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 8990. 25. Moreover, petitioners' statements agreeing, in their applications, to submit interference studies for the new Tulsa lottery winners, after these were selected by the Commission, and petitioners' statements, on reconsideration, seeking to submit, at that time also, an interference analysis for the Canadian Valley application, ignore the purposes behind  Yv-the interference analysis requirement. As discussed previously, the interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which demands complete compliance at the time of the  YH-application. In the MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264, the Commission emphasized that "we expect applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in  Y -their applications." See e.g. G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008; see also Boyd B. Hopkins,  Y -Sr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570 ("[S]tation engineering must be demonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to Section 21.902(c) . . . ."). Interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made. Without such  Y -studies a logjam would be created making it more difficult to reach final actions. See Sioux  Y -Valley, 3 FCC Rcd at 7376 ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS applications as mutuallyexclusive was determined by a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses . . . ."). If the Commission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would lack sufficient technical information for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on many applications until the studies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants may be tempted to wait as long as possible to submit interference studies so as to minimize the number that must be submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would lead to a stalemate where the Commission could neither grant nor return  Y-or dismiss any MMDS application. As noted, supra, each of the Henryetta applications lacked interference studies as required by 21.902, for pending previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of petitioners' proposed transmitter site and failed to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. Indeed, in each of these  Y-returned applications petitioners failed to even identify all of the previously proposed stations, including the Tulsa applications for which petitioners specifically requested the waivers,"i 0*((O" contrary to the claims of the reconsideration petitions. Thus, their assertions that  Y-interference to other previously proposed stations was unlikely are unsupported.   Yb-ԍ A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining whether a proposed station would cause harmful interference.  Y4-Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987).  These  Y-unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver. 26. We also find petitioners' statements, contained in their waiver requests, that it was their understanding that Commission policies would allow them to file their applications without proving noninterference to all 1983 lottery losers, unsupported assertions. Applicants for MMDS stations were required to file interference studies for all pending previously proposed stations within 50 miles of their proposed sites, including lottery losers. 47 C.F.R. 21.902(c). We do not believe the facts and circumstances of the Henryetta applications are sufficiently unique so as to warrant a waiver of this requirement. More 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  Y -qualification review. See 1.824(a). This is exactly what happened here. After subsequent lotteries of 1983 Tulsa applications, the Henryetta applications lacked required interference analyses for previously proposed lotterywinning applications which then became authorized  Yf-stations.!fM Yd-ԍ These authorized stations were WLW895 and WLW923 at Tulsa, Oklahoma. See  YO-supra note 21. 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 requests, 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. Similarly, petitioners' pledges "to take extraordinary measures" to ensure noninterference to these proposed stations also fail to address this underlying purpose, since all applicants are required by 21.902(b) "to cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve interference . . .  Y-problems." Id. Petitioners fail to justify why their applications merit different treatment from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. 27. In view of these considerations, we find it would be contrary to the public  YT-interest to grant waivers of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice and the interference analysis requirements mandated by 21.902. Therefore, we conclude that  Y(-petitioners' waiver requests were properly denied. In addition, even if the 1988 Public  Y-Notice location restrictions and the interference analysis requirements stipulated by 21.902 were waived as to 1983 MMDS applications, the Henryetta applications would still have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at"!0*(( "  Y-the time the returned applications were filed. See supra  12. 3IV. CONCLUSION 28. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the Henryetta applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. 29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the  Y3-Henryetta applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. 30. 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. ` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  YM-` `  William F. Caton  Y6-` `  Acting Secretary#Xn4  pG;X#