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. ***************************************************************** ******** I. Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95-242 Washington, D.C. In re Applications of ) ) NORTH FLORIDA MMDS PARTNERS ) ) For Authority to Construct and Operate a) File No. 52201-CM-P-90 Multipoint Distribution Service Station on) the E Group Channels in Ocala, Florida) ) HUGH GERRINGER ) ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) File No. 61733-CM-P-91 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on) File No. 62642-CM-P-91 the E and F Group Channels in ) Augusta, Arkansas ) ) WAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) File No. 2450-CM-P-92 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on) File No. 2451-CM-P-92 the E and F Group Channels in ) Beaconsfield, Iowa ) ) LAWRENCE E. WOLFF ) ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) File No. 2452-CM-P-92 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on) File No. 2453-CM-P-92 the E and F Group Channels in ) Beaconsfield, Iowa ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 15, 1995 Released: July 7, 1995 By the Commission: Table of Contents Title Paragraphs I. Introduction 1 II. Background 2-9 III. Petitions for Reconsideration 10-18 Ocala, Florida Augusta, Arkansas Beaconsfield, Iowa IV. Discussion 19-49 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it petitions for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to delegated authority, of seven applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the E or F channels. As these petitions raise common issues, we believe that 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. 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. Location Restrictions. The Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E and F channels on one filing date, September 9, 1983. See 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, 1262-66 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order); Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983). Thereafter, no additional applications for new stations were accepted for filing until April 20, 1988. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, MDS applications for E and F channel stations could then be submitted for filing, but only for locations which were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the E or F channels pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the E or F channels pending as of April 19, 1988. Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice). Thus, applicants were permitted to file: (1) beyond 50 miles of a station proposed in an application pending or authorized on April 19, 1988, as long as the location was also farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on April 19, 1988; and (2) within 50 miles of a station proposed in an application filed after April 19, 1988. The 1988 Public Notice also advised potential applicants that all applications must comply with the specified location restrictions, that grant of waivers of the location restrictions were not anticipated, and that applications failing to meet these location restrictions would be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. Id. at 2661-2662. Applications which complied with these restrictions could be filed between April 20, 1988 and April 9, 1992. 4. The 1988 location restrictions were a natural outgrowth of a policy that had provided certain efficiencies in the processing of MDS applications for channels 1, 2, and 2A. In 1981, we noted: At the inception of the MDS service in 1974 . . . we . . . established the presumption that no harmful interference would occur if stations were greater than 50 miles apart. If a proposed station were to be located 50 miles or closer to an existing station then we required (and still require) that the applicant submit an engineering showing of the possible impact it would have on the other station. The 50 mile presumption was primarily a processing standard to assist the staff . . . . Our intention was to establish general standards which would permit authorization of operations to proceed in an expeditious manner. R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981). See also Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). It was our experience prior to 1988 that there were fewer interference analyses submitted for authorized or previously proposed stations with transmitter sites beyond 50 miles of the subsequently proposed transmitter sites, but within the radio horizon and with an unobstructed electrical path, than for authorized or previously proposed stations within 50 miles. Without the need to review interference analyses for 1983 stations within 50 miles of the post-1983 MMDS applications' transmitter sites, scarce engineering resources instead could be used to review interference analyses filed for modification applications, or to make necessary engineering determinations on 1983 applications. 5. Mutual Exclusivity. Along with evaluating whether an applicant has complied with applicable location restrictions, the first determination typically made by Commission staff is whether the MDS application is mutually exclusive with any previously filed application or authorized station. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for this determination: "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." 47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In applying this standard, the staff evaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station, and (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station. Applications which are determined to be either within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station, are considered to be mutually exclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4) and  7 and 8, infra. For the above-referenced MDS applications on the E or F channels,  21.901(d)(5) also defines mutual exclusivity as based on whether the proposed transmitter site is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or its 15-mile buffer zone of an authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 6. Cut-off Rules. In order to be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed on or before the applicable cut-off date for mutually exclusive applications. 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. 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 day 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. 7. Station Design Requirement. 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) similarly calls for each MDS applicant to engineer its station to provide at least 0 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas of all other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(4). Cochannel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation determines that the ratio of desired signal to undesired signal is less than 45 dB. Adjacent channel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation determines that this ratio is less than 0 dB. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(f). 8. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the above-referenced 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. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1991). 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. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)(1991); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further requires that each MDS application for the E or F channels include the applicant's 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 must also show what steps it has taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, conditional licensees and 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). 9. Service Requirement. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon the applicant, conditional licensee or licensee of each previously proposed or authorized station required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application. III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 10. A description of the applications filed for each of these locations and the reasons for the staff's disposition of each application follows. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that the applications were defective because each applicant failed to submit and serve the required interference analyses for previously proposed MMDS stations. The Ocala application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing because it was filed within the geographic area of previously proposed MMDS stations, including within an MSA or its 15 mile buffer zone, in violation of the specific filing requirements set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, and presented no grounds justifying the grant of a waiver. Finally, all of these applications except for the Augusta application for the F channels were also cut-off by an entity with whom they were mutually exclusive. 11. Ocala, Florida. On May 18, 1990, North Florida MMDS Partners ("North Florida") filed an MMDS application proposing a transmitter site at Ocala, Florida. After reviewing this application, the Commission staff returned the application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated December 15, 1993. The letter indicated that the application was returned because the applicant: (1) filed past the cut-off period established in  21.31 or  21.914; (2) filed in an area not open for filing, in that the applicant filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or pending MMDS application; (3) proposed a transmitter site within an MSA or its buffer zone in noncompliance with the MMDS Allocation Order and  21.901(d)(5); (4) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") stations; 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 application was unacceptable for filing. A reconsideration petition for the returned application was timely filed on January 13, 1994. 12. The application specified a transmitter site within the Ocala MSA and its buffer zone, and was thus mutually exclusive with and cut-off by previously proposed stations within the MSA, pursuant to  21.901(d)(5). See  20, infra. The proposed transmitter site was also within 50 miles or the radio horizon of three 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS stations, and 61 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on May 18, 1990, the date North Florida filed its E channel application for Ocala. North Florida therefore filed within a geographic area closed under the 1988 Public Notice, and was required to file interference analyses for these subsequently authorized and previously proposed stations. 13. The application lacked interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for two subsequently authorized and 60 previously proposed MMDS stations. Furthermore, the interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that North Florida: (1) did not include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for 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) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations; (3) indicated terrain blockage, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; and (4) failed to demonstrate that the proposed station is engineered to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3). Thus, North Florida failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in its returned application would not cause harmful interference to any authorized or previously proposed station. See  21.902. North Florida also failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by  21.902(g). 14. Notwithstanding checking "No" in response to question 19 of the application, which asks whether the proposal contained in the application is inconsistent with any of the Commission's rules and thus whether a waiver is required, North Florida requested a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice at Exhibit I. 15. Augusta, Arkansas. On July 10, 1991 and August 29, 1991, Hugh Gerringer filed two MMDS applications proposing the same transmitter site at Augusta, Arkansas. After reviewing both of these applications, the Commission staff returned them as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated November 1, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because Gerringer: (1) failed to provide a certificate of service required by  21.902(g); (2) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis as required by  21.901 and/or 21.902 due to failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or ITFS stations; (3) failed to provide an updated fully-executed deed, lease, or option agreement required by  21.15(a); (4) failed to provide as required by  21.15(e) a written description of emergency repair notification procedures by customers and the average repair response time; and (5) failed to submit an updated FCC Form 430 required pursuant to item 28 of FCC Form 494 and  21.11. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on November 30, 1993. 16. The E channel application proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of four post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on July 10, 1991, the date Gerringer filed his E channel application for Augusta. The F channel application proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of six post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on August 29, 1991, the date Gerringer filed his F channel application for Augusta. However, neither the E channel nor the F channel application included interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for the previously proposed MMDS stations. Furthermore, no waiver requests were included in these Augusta applications. Thus, Gerringer failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed station. See  21.902. Gerringer also failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by  21.902(g). 17. Beaconsfield, Iowa. On March 4, 1992, Wave Technologies, Inc. ("Wave") and Lawrence E. Wolff each filed two MMDS applications proposing the same transmitter site at Beaconsfield, Iowa. After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned the applications as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated October 26, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis pursuant to  21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and/or failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or ITFS stations; (2) failed to provide an updated fully-executed deed, lease, or option agreement required by  21.15(a); (3) failed to submit a public interest statement required by item 21 of FCC Form 494 and  21.13(a)(4); (4) failed to submit specific maintenance information required by item 18 of FCC Form 494 and  21.15(e); and (5) failed to submit a License Qualification Report (FCC Form 430) required by item 28 of FCC Form 494 and pursuant to  21.13(a)(3). Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on November 24, 1993, and November 30, 1993. 18. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of 87 post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on March 4, 1992, the filing date of the Beaconsfield applications. However, none of the applications included interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for the previously proposed MMDS stations. Furthermore, no waiver requests were included in these Beaconsfield applications. Thus, these Beaconsfield applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed station. See  21.902. The applicants also failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by  21.902(g). IV. DISCUSSION 19. 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 each of petitioners' applications except for the Augusta application for the F channels proposed a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31 or 21.901(d)(5), with authorized stations or previously filed applications, and cut-off by these authorized or previously proposed stations. See  5-6, supra. Specifically, the Ocala application and the Augusta application for the E channels were mutually exclusive with and cut-off by previously filed MMDS applications with a cut-off date of September 9, 1983. In addition, the Beaconsfield applications were cut-off by post-1983 pending applications which were subsequently authorized. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d), which states in part: "An application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed applications, but filed after the appropriate [cut-off] date . . . will be returned without prejudice. . . ." 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d). See also  21.20(a) and (b)(9). 20. North Florida contends that its application should not be cut-off since the application is not mutually exclusive "with any other known application," and the applicability of  21.901(d)(5) "is not understandable." However, in May 1990, when the Ocala application was filed for its proposed site within the Ocala MSA, there were seven 1983 cochannel applications within 50 miles pending for different locations within the Ocala MSA. The applicability of  21.901(d)(5), the MSA mutual exclusivity rule, is therefore clear. Moreover, all of these applications were placed on public notice on August 25, 1986. Thus, there was sufficient notice of the pendency of the 1983 Ocala applications. Because the Ocala application failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference with cochannel 1983 proposals, and proposed a site within the same MSA where there were pending 1983 applications on the date of filing, the application was mutually exclusive with those pending 1983 applications pursuant to  21.31 and 21.901(d)(5), and cut-off pursuant to Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746, and  21.31(b). 21. 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. . . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. Almost ten years before the above-referenced applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: It is possible for co-channel 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. R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 606. Thus,  21.902(b) sets certain threshold interference protection levels, see  7, supra, and requires all MDS applicants to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. 22. 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 require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "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." Id. (emphasis in original). See also  21.902(b) and (c). In view of these concerns with the potential for harmful interference, there has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. 23. The Beaconsfield petitioners and Gerringer argue that there were no previously proposed or authorized stations within 50 miles of their proposed stations, so they were not responsible for filing nor serving any interference studies. As demonstrated above, however, for both proposed sites there were numerous previous proposals within 50 miles or the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path. These applicants failed to file and serve any of the required interference studies for the previously proposed MDS stations. See  16 and 18, supra. Similarly, the Ocala application lacked required interference studies for many previously proposed applications, including subsequently authorized stations. See  13, supra. 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  21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 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.") 24. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve, as required by  21.902(g), applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied under  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an opportunity to be heard. We have previously explained the importance of the  21.902(g) service requirement: "Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . 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 within 50 miles." Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5716 (1987). 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). 25. Location Restrictions. The first paragraph of the 1988 Public 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 dismissed as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, the Ocala application proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, because the location restrictions prohibited the filing of an application for the site chosen by North Florida, the application was submitted on a date not designated for filing of MMDS applications for the proposed location. See  21.901(d)(4); see also  3, supra. Accordingly, the Ocala application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 26. Waiver Requests. North Florida does not contest the fact that the Ocala application proposed a site which violates the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Instead, petitioner maintains that the application presented a sufficiently justified request for waiver of those restrictions. 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. Section 21.19 further 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, 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)). 27. In its waiver request for Ocala, North Florida asserted that it was entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions because the application demonstrated that its proposed facility would not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed stations within 50 miles. The applicant also pledged to cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve any and all interference conflicts that might occur from granting its application. However, as shown in  13, supra, North Florida failed to submit interference studies, as required by  21.902, for almost all of the previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of its proposed transmitter site, and those interference studies that were submitted were inadequate. Thus, North Florida failed to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. In addition, the promise to cooperate with previously proposed stations in the event of harmful interference, as required by  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(a), does not cure the applicant's failure to demonstrate interference protection pursuant to  21.902(c). See 4,330 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335, 1470 (1995) (hereinafter 4,330 MDS Applications), appeal docketed, A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 95-1027 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 1995) ("[P]etitioners' assertions that they have committed to make every effort to avoid harmful interference to others and to cooperate in good faith should any interference occur in the future does not excuse their failure to submit detailed interference studies as required as by  21.902.") These wholly unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver. The waiver request is further deficient for failing to specify and affirmatively demonstrate the lack of a reasonable alternative site. 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.") 28. In its petition for reconsideration, North Florida attempts to bolster its waiver request, maintaining as in its original request, that its revised proposal will not cause harmful interference to any existing station, and further requesting that the Commission "waive the prohibition of this 1988 public notice and any other rule or policy which it may find to otherwise be inconsistent with this application." A request of such generality as to seek waiver of "any" inconsistent rule or policy need not be considered. The Court of Appeals has made clear that: "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." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. The Commission's Part 21 rules similarly demand that a waiver request set forth the reasons in support of a waiver of "any specific rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in conflict." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(c)(1) (emphasis added). See also  26, supra. In addition, as with its original waiver request, North Florida fails to support its assertion that its proposed station will not cause harmful interference to other stations. See  46, infra. 29. North Florida failed to present justification as to why its application merits 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 location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that North Florida's request for waiver of the location requirements was properly denied. 30. North Florida also argues that the blanket denial without any discussion of the merits of the original waiver request does not comport with administrative fairness nor the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. However, the court in WAIT Radio made clear that even where an applicant for waiver articulates a specific pleading and provides concrete support, "the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application." 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. Here, the waiver request was 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 letter indicating that the request was denied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules was sufficient. Moreover, we have now reviewed the staff's denial of North Florida's waiver request and have fully explained the basis for denying that request. 31. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the filing of the Ocala application, the application would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violation of other Commission rules in effect at the time the application was filed. Such other rules violated by the Ocala application include filing after the relevant cut-off date of mutually exclusive applications, and failing to submit adequate interference analyses for authorized stations and previously proposed applications. See  13, 20 and 23, supra. 32. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. North Florida complains that the return notification letter cites petitioner for having performed inadequate interference studies, but fails to indicate which stations were not studied or served. 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 suggested by North Florida here. As the Court of Appeals recently explained, return letters providing only "brief explanations" of why petitioners' applications failed to satisfy the filing requirements are adequate, where those explanations are "sufficient for [the court] (and the parties) to understand the basis for the decision. . . . No more than this is required." Adams Telcom, Inc. v. FCC, 38 F.3d 576, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1994). North Florida had a duty, prior to the filing of its application, to identify each cochannel and adjacent channel station within 50 miles or the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of its proposed station. Thus, North Florida should have discovered, in the course of its research, the previously filed applications which it was required to study and serve. Given that the requirement to identify authorized and previously proposed stations must be fulfilled prior to filing of the application, North Florida cannot claim disadvantage based on the Commission's failure to specify those stations in the application return notification letter. In any event, we have now specified, in notes 15-16 herein, a number of subsequently authorized and other previously proposed stations for which North Florida was required to file interference analyses. 33. Public Interest Statement. Section 21.13(a)(4) mandates that a statement of "the reasons why a grant of the proposal would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity" be included in each application for an MDS license. Furthermore, under  21.20(b)(3), failure to demonstrate how the proposal will serve the public interest, convenience or necessity is a specifically enumerated deficiency which results in an application unacceptable for filing. The Beaconsfield petitioners concede having omitted this statement from its applications. This omission alone renders the application unacceptable for filing under  21.20(b)(3). Moreover, because item 21 of FCC Form 494 specifically requested such a statement as Exhibit M, the Beaconsfield petitioners also failed to comply with  21.13(a)(3), which requires each application to include "the information required by the Commission's Rules, requests, and application forms," and the application is also unacceptable for filing under  21.20(b)(8), which enumerates an application's failure to include "all necessary exhibits" as a fatal deficiency. 34. Statement of Maintenance and Outage Notification Procedures. Gerringer argues that the statement of maintenance and outage notification procedures contained in Exhibit H of his Augusta applications is as detailed as those that the Commission has routinely accepted in the past. Section 21.15(e) provides, inter alia, that an applicant "must submit a showing of the general maintenance procedures involved. . . . The showing should include. . . . (2) [t]he manner in which technical personnel are made aware of malfunction at any of the stations and the appropriate time required for them to reach any of the stations in the event of an emergency. . . ." 47 C.F.R.  21.15(e). The only information specified by Exhibit H of the Augusta applications regarding outage notification is that "[f]ollowing receipt of notification of a malfunction, the maintenance center will contact the local engineer. . . ." This statement is deficient because there is no specific mention of procedures for notification. One example of such procedures would be use of fault alarms. While Gerringer maintains that the information he provided is sufficiently detailed for Commission purposes, we specifically affirmed the importance of explicitly describing outage notification procedures when we revised Part 21 of the Commission's rules and eliminated some of the maintenance information requirements, but retained this required description. See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission' s Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5752, n.53. Moreover, Gerringer provides no support for his assertion that the Commission has "routinely accepted" showings of the same generality as his. We note that in at least one case, deficiency of the statement of outage notification procedures, as well as other deficiencies, "precluded the staff from making a finding that Broadcast was legally, technically, financially, and otherwise qualified to be a licensee, and that a grant of each of its applications would serve the public interest." See Broadcast Data Corporation, 7 FCC Rcd 7594 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) (applications dismissed for failure to supply certain information, including outage notification procedures). 35. The statement of maintenance and outage notification procedures, as originally submitted as Exhibit J of the Beaconsfield applications, read: "There will be a local maintenance center established for the technical operation of this station. At that time maintenance and malfunction procedures will be established to ensure continued service." The Beaconsfield petitioners concede that this exhibit gave "limited information" and "admittedly could have been more detailed." As discussed above, the procedures for maintenance and outage notification are necessary information which require a certain threshold level of specificity. It has been held that general statements may be regarded as omissions rendering an application unacceptable for filing, and this "statement" falls under the purview of those holdings. See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). 36. Licensee Qualification Report (FCC Form 430). While Wave provided no response to item 28 in its application, it argues in its petition for reconsideration that it had submitted the requisite FCC Form 430 on December 19, 1991, two-and-a-half months before it filed its Beaconsfield applications. On reconsideration, Commission staff searched a second time for the Form 430, but was again unable to locate one which would have been current on the date Wave filed its applications for Beaconsfield. Similarly, though Wolff's application indicated that a Form 430 had been filed on February 11, 1992, neither a search at the time of processing the Beaconsfield applications nor on reconsideration was able to locate a Form 430 filed on that date. In addition, while the Beaconsfield petitioners purport to attach a date-stamped copy of their respective reports to their petitions, no such attachments or exhibits were enclosed. Finally, where no concrete evidence is found to indicate compliance with a clear request on a Commission application form, we must assume that the corresponding requirement has not been satisfied. See Hughes-Moore Associates, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 1454, 1455 (1992) (An applicant whose claim to have filed a document is disputed "has the initial burden to show that the document was properly delivered to the Commission when there is no record of such a filing in the Commission's files."); Multichannel Distribution of America, 8 FCC Rcd 5510, n.4 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) (hereinafter MDA). In omitting a Form 430, the Beaconsfield petitioners failed to comply with  21.13(a)(3), which mandates inter alia that applicants submit all information required by the Commission's application forms. Petitioners likewise violated  21.13(a)(2), which requires that each application "[d]emonstrate the applicant's . . . qualifications" to be a licensee. 37. Site Availability. The Beaconsfield petitioners and Gerringer argue that either Exhibit A of their applications as originally filed, or their certification of site availability on reconsideration, satisfies the current policy regarding demonstration of site availability. While the current requirements and policy regarding demonstration of site availability were established in 1993, the Augusta and Beaconsfield applications were filed in 1991 and 1992, prior to the change in requirements. Thus, we need only address the compliance of the Augusta and Beaconsfield applications with the requirements in effect at the time they were filed, not their compliance with current rules and policies. 38. At the time that the Augusta and Beaconsfield applications were filed,  21.15(a) required that if an applicant did not own the location on which it sought to construct its proposed station, the location's "availability for the proposed radio station site shall be demonstrated." See, e.g., 47 C.F.R.  21.15(a)(1991). In the 1987 Report and Order, we clarified this requirement as it applied to MMDS applications: "[W]hen selection between mutually-exclusive applications is by the random selection process, it shall be sufficient if the application adequately demonstrates reasonable assurance of the availability of the site." Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5721. The Beaconsfield applications included as Exhibit A a document styled "Lease Option", the crux of which provided: "Mr. Jackson stated that he is willing to lease space and is sending a letter stating his intentions. As of this date, the letter has not been received." Though a lease option agreement is not necessarily required to demonstrate reasonable assurance of site availability, not only is the above statement not in reality a "lease option," but such a statement can hardly be deemed to meet the reasonable assurance test regardless of its characterization. Thus, the staff properly cited in the return notification letters applicants' failure to comply with the requirements of  21.15(a). 39. Standard for Acceptability of Applications. Petitioners cite James River Broadcasting Corporation v. FCC, 399 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1968), and Radio Athens, Inc., (WATH) v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1968), for three "teachings" regarding acceptability of applications. First, Commission rules must indicate where extraordinary strictness will be required. Second, strict procedures must be designed to achieve a result reasonably related to an efficient processing procedure. Third, acceptability standards cannot be so strict as to contravene the statutory right to competitive consideration. Petitioners then conclude that the Part 21 rules do not establish a "fault-free" standard for acceptability of applications. Instead, they argue, the Part 21 standard is at most similar to the "substantially complete" standard addressed in James River and Radio Athens. In addition, they maintain that the language of  21.20(a) confers upon the Commission staff significant leeway in determining whether to allow an applicant to cure defects by submitting amendments or whether to return applications. 40. James River and Radio Athens do not assist petitioners in this case, and petitioners' reliance on them is misplaced. The decisions in both of those cases primarily rested upon the "substantially complete" criterion for acceptability of applications. See  1.227(b)(1). Specifically, the Court of Appeals held in James River that a broadcast application which was defective when filed but cured prior to processing by a post cut-off amendment could not be returned as defective, denying the applicant rights to a comparative hearing, if the application was tendered for filing and was "substantially complete" on the cut-off date. In contrast to the rules governing the James River applications, the standard specified by Part 21 is "acceptable for filing." See  21.31(b) and 21.914; see also 47 U.S.C.  309(i)(1); Allen C. Moore dba Moore's Service, 86 FCC 2d 787, 795 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1981) ("[T]he Commission adopted a cutoff rule that explicitly states applications must be received in a condition acceptable for filing, by the cutoff date.") Section 21.20(a) of the Commission's rules sets forth two tests each of which must be met in order for an application to be deemed "unacceptable for filing," and states that an application deemed unacceptable for filing will be returned to the applicant. See  2, supra. Once the Part 21 rules were changed almost 20 years ago, "James River [was] no longer applicable to applications filed under Part 21 of the Commission's rules. . . . [T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part 21 of the rules is not substantial completeness,' but rather acceptability for filing.'" G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008, n.9 (citations omitted). Indeed, it was in response to James River that the Commission created the Part 21 standard in its present form. Over 13 years before any of the above-referenced applications was filed, the Commission explained the change it adopted for the Part 21 standard: [T]he application must be in a condition acceptable for filing, a revised requirement which we believe is, in light of case interpretation and past policy, less ambiguous than the present requirement of "substantial completeness." The present terminology has caused some processing confusion because it has been construed as establishing different standards for defective applications such that it is possible for a "skeleton" application to be otherwise unacceptable for filing and yet be "substantially complete" enough to be entitled to comparative consideration with a competing application. Domestic Public Radio Services Order, 60 FCC 2d at 552 (referring to James River in footnote). In addition, the acceptable for filing standard is not a "fault-free" standard, as petitioners contend it is. See Rulemaking to Amend Part 1 and Part 21 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 - 29.5 GHz Frequency Band and to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service, 8 FCC Rcd 557, 564 (1993) ("We propose that the standard to be met for LMDS applications be the letter perfect' standard, rather than the present Part 21 standard of substantial compliance and opportunity to amend."); Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 571 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("While Hopkins argues that the Commission has adopted a letter perfect' standard for determining the acceptability of an application for filing, Section 21.902 clearly outlines the demonstration required to be filed by an MMDS applicant. . . . This requirement is not inconsistent with or a contradiction of the substantial compliance' standard.") 41. The Part 21 acceptability rules meet the "full and explicit notice" test discussed in Radio Athens. In referring to the Domestic Public Radio Services Order, we explicitly stated that "all MDS applicants have been on notice since 1976 of the processing requirements for MDS applications and the requirement that the applications be in a condition acceptable for filing' in order to be entitled to comparative consideration." New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1601, n.3 (1985). In Radio Athens, the application was reinstated in part because the duopoly ownership rule in question did not indicate that an application with a duopoly problem would be dismissed without consideration. Id. at 403. In contrast,  21.20(a), 21.31(b) and 21.914 clearly indicate the criteria for rendering an application unacceptable for filing and depriving it of comparative consideration. See Florida Cellular Mobil Communications Corporation v. FCC, 28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("The Commission need not supply a separate shopping list' specifying that each separate rule violation may lead to dismissal. It is enough that the FCC rules are clearly spelled out and applicants are on notice that their applications are subject to dismissal for failure to comply with these rules.") Thus, petitioners had full notice of the standard under which their applications were evaluated, and we reject their contentions that the Part 21 acceptability standard is analogous to the "substantially complete" standard. 42. As discussed above, each of the applications lacked required interference analyses. The interference analysis requirement is an important one that demands complete compliance at the time of filing of the application. See  21-23, supra. 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 their applications." See Boyd B. Hopkins, 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). . . .") In addition, "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." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567-68, n.10. Without the requirement that interference studies be complete at the time of filing, determinations of mutual exclusivity would be hampered, and a logjam would be created making it more difficult to reach final actions. Thus, since petitioners' applications lacked interference analyses at the time of filing, their applications did not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, and they were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20(a). See New Channels, 57 RR 2d at 1602 (an MDS application which does not contain all of the required interference analyses "cannot be characterized as . . . in substantial compliance with Commission rules and regulations, as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); 101 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations, 9 FCC Rcd 7886, 7899 (1994) (hereinafter Multipoint Distribution Service Applications), appeal docketed, A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 95- 1027 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 1995) ("[P]etitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  21.902.") Moreover, because missing interference analyses is such a serious omission, it is unlikely that petitioners would even meet the "substantial completeness" standard that they propose. See Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4669 ("Benson's failure to submit the necessary interference protection showing . . . renders its application incomplete. . . ."); see also New Channels, 57 RR 2d at 1602 ("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. . . .") 43. Petitioners also failed to substantially comply with other application requirements, as discussed above. Section 21.20(b) lists several such deficiencies as examples which can individually render an application unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20(a). These include: "(3) the application does not demonstrate how the proposed radio facilities will serve the public interest . . ."; "(4) the application does not demonstrate compliance with the special requirements applicable to the radio service involved"; "(8) the application does not include all necessary exhibits"; and "(9) the application is filed after the cutoff date prescribed in  21.31 or  21.914 of this part." See  21.13, 21.15, 21.26, 21.31, 21.900 and 21.914. Each of petitioners' applications failed to satisfy at least one of the deficiencies enunciated in  21.20(b). Furthermore,  21.20(b) asserts that these examples are "[b]y way of illustration only, and not in any way limiting the scope of paragraph (a)," and there are many other rules that require completeness of responses or command substantial compliance pursuant to  21.20(a). In this regard, the MMDS Allocation Order specifically stated that "all applicants are expected to comply with all pertinent Sections of Part 21. . . ." Id. at 1238. Moreover, "it is important that an applicant file a complete application providing all necessary information," because "[w]ithout this information, the Commission cannot make the public interest determination that the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to be a licensee." G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. Thus, applications have often been returned as unacceptable for filing for failure to submit complete responses to or substantially comply with rules specified in  21.20(b), as well as other Commission rules. See G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 (applicant's general statement with respect to  21.901(d)(7) regarded as an omission rendering the application unacceptable for filing). 44. Petitioners argue that because the Commission has discretion under  21.20(c)(2) "to not return" an application, Part 21 does not have a fault-free standard with respect to acceptability of applications. See, e.g., the petition for Ocala, Florida, at 7. As discussed above, the Part 21 rules do not contain a fault-free standard for acceptability of applications; rather, the standard is whether the application is acceptable for filing. See  40, supra. While the Part 21 rules do allow for a certain degree of discretion in reviewing an application, each application is examined under the acceptable for filing standard. Thus, an applicant who violates Part 21 rules assumes the risk that its application will be returned as unacceptable for filing. See Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1961) (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.") See also, e.g., Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). As the Court of Appeals has further stated, "[t]he very essence of waiver is the assumed validity of the general rule, and also the applicant's violation unless waiver is granted. . . . [P]rovision for waiver may have a pivotal importance in sustaining the system of administration by general rule." WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1158. 45. Post-Action Curative Showings. For the same reasons that petitioners' applications were properly returned for what petitioners mischaracterize as "minor defects," the attempts of some of the petitioners to file curative showings simultaneously with their petitions for reconsideration likewise fail. The Commission need not accept curative showings after an application has been returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such showings at that stage. Applications which lack complete and necessary information are unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20. See  43, supra. Such necessary information, for example, may include a public interest statement; a statement of maintenance and outage notification procedures; and a Licensee Qualification Report, FCC Form 430. Because the Beaconsfield applications lacked or insufficiently provided some information required to be included with the applications, and were properly returned as unacceptable for filing, acceptance of curative showings on reconsideration is not warranted. 46. North Florida on reconsideration also seeks to file curative showings which would relocate its proposed station as well as add and upgrade interference analyses. Petitioner argues on reconsideration that to the extent the engineering showing contained in the application as originally filed is deficient, the cured application should resolve the problem. However, as discussed above, it is important that interference analyses be complete at the time of filing of the application, and where they are not, the application is properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See  42, supra. By the same reasoning, therefore, acceptance of curative interference showings on reconsideration is not warranted. This conclusion is consistent with past Commission staff treatment of such showings. In G.C. Cooper, it was decided: [T]o the extent that Cooper seeks to meet the requirements of Section 21.901(d)(7) by filing a new exhibit H, we reject the argument that he should be permitted to file a curative amendment and have his application reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. As discussed below, we find that the Division's initial return of Cooper's application as unacceptable for filing was correct. . . . G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008, n.8. See also 4,330 MDS Applications, 10 FCC Rcd at 1470 ("Nor do the applicants' offers to file curative amendments at some later time excuse them from submitting all required interference studies at the time the applications are initially filed."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506. In addition, even were we to consider this proffered curative showing, the attempted curative engineering showing is inadequate in that North Florida failed to propose a station design and location that provides, pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection to authorized station WGW515 at Gainesville, Florida. Moreover, North Florida's revised interference study is deficient in its use of incorrect methodology and technical parameters in calculating the protected service areas of WGW515 and WMH620 at Gainesville, Florida. Acceptance of a curative showing is even that much more undeserving where petitioner has not persuaded us that the showing should be accepted. 47. 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. 48. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the above-referenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. 49. 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 William F. Caton Acting Secretary