NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ***************************************************************** ******** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 95-243 Washington, D.C. In re Applications of ) ) R. GARDNER PARTNERS ) ) For Authority To Construct and Operate ) File No. 01025-CM-P-92 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations ) File No. 01026-CM-P-92 on the E and F Group Channels in ) Santa Cruz, California ) ) KA5E54 TELEVISION PARTNERSHIP ) ) For Authority To Construct and Operate ) File No. 04264-CM-P-92 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations ) File No. 04265-CM-P-92 on the E and F Group Channels in ) Rockingham, North Carolina ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 15, 1995 Released: July 7, 1995 By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission has before it petitions for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to delegated authority, of four applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the E or F channels at two transmitter sites. These four applications were filed with the Commission between January 24, 1992, and April 9, 1992, after the Commission had reopened the filing period for MDS applications on the E or F channels, subject to certain location restrictions. See  9, infra. As these petitions raise recurring, common issues, we believe that their joint 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). Section 21.20(b) lists examples of common deficiencies which result in defective applications under paragraph (a) such as, the "application does not demonstrate compliance with the special requirements applicable to the radio service involved," the "application does not include all necessary exhibits," and the "application is filed after the cut-off date prescribed in  21.31 or  21.914 of this part." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(b)(4), (8) and (9); see 47 C.F.R.  21.13, 21.15, 21.26 and 21.900. 3. Mutual Exclusivity. Typically, the first determination made by Commission staff is whether an 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. The Commission will presume "harmful electrical interference" to mean interference which would result in a material impairment to service rendered to the public despite full cooperation in good faith by all applicants or parties to achieve reasonable technical adjustments which would avoid electrical conflict. 47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In 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 to 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 by submission of interference studies with their applications pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4) and  6 and 7, 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 station. 4. 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. By way of background, the Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F channels on one filing date, September 9, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1262-66; 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, pursuant to  21.901(d)(4). Applications for the E or F channels which complied with specified restrictions could then be filed between April 20, 1988, and April 9, 1992. See  9, infra. 5. 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. If there is no mutually exclusive 1983 application or authorized station, but there is a mutually exclusive, post-1983, previously proposed or authorized station, the applicable cut-off rule for the above-referenced applications, all of which were filed after October 31, 1990, is  21.914, which provides that: Notwithstanding the provisions of  21.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this part, to be entitled to 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. 6. 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) requires 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). Section 21.902(f) defines harmful interference as the ratio of desired signal to undesired signal present in the cochannel or adjacent channel, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented to receive the maximum desired signal. 7. 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 is within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 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, 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). 8. 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 previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee 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. 9. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing period was designated until 1988. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, the Commission then designated that MDS applications for E or F channel stations could be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, 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"). 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. 10. 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 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 at 604. See also Sioux Valley, 2 FCC Rcd at 7376. 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, 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. III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 11. Petitions for reconsideration were filed for the four returned MMDS applications at two different transmitter sites. Petitioners contend that their applications fully complied with all pertinent Commission rules, or else presented facts which would compel the grant of any necessary waivers. In support, petitioners chiefly assert that the staff failed to take a "hard look" at the waiver requests, and failed to give a reasoned explanation for denying the requests. 12. 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 authorized and previously proposed MMDS stations. The Santa Cruz applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing because they were filed within the geographic area of authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations, or 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, the Santa Cruz applications were mutually exclusive with an authorized station or previously filed application with an earlier cut-off date, and thus, not entitled to comparative consideration even if in a form acceptable for filing. 13. Santa Cruz, California. On January 24, 1992, certain petitioners filed two MMDS applications proposing the same transmitter site at Santa Cruz, California. After reviewing each Santa Cruz application, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated February 2, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) proposed a transmitter site within an MSA or its buffer zone in noncompliance with the MMDS Allocation Order and  21.901(d)(5); and (2) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under  21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on March 4, 1993. 14. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of (1) two 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS stations; (2) 54 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on January 24, 1992, the filing date of the Santa Cruz applications; and (3) three post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on January 24, 1992. 15. The applications lacked interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for one subsequently authorized and 57 previously proposed MMDS stations. The interference study that was submitted was inadequate in that the applicants: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4); and (3) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Thus, these Santa Cruz applicants failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. See  21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by  21.902(g). The applications included a request for waiver of 21.901(d)(5) of the Commission's rules. 16. Rockingham, North Carolina. On April 9, 1992, certain petitioners filed two MMDS applications proposing the same transmitter site at Rockingham, North Carolina. After reviewing each Rockingham application, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated February 9, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) proposed a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or a pending MMDS application and thereby failed to meet the criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice; and (2) failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under  21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on March 11, 1993. 17. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station; (2) one 1983 previously proposed MMDS station which had an application pending on April 9, 1992, the filing date of the Rockingham applications; and (3) 316 post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on April 9, 1992. 18. The applications lacked interference studies, required by  21.902(b) and (c), for 316 previously proposed MMDS stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that the applicants: (1) indicated terrain blockage, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (2) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4); and (3) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Thus, these Rockingham applicants failed to demonstrate that the station proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. See  21.902. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies stipulated by  21.902(g). The applications included a request for waiver of the fifty mile location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. 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 the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to authorized stations or previously filed applications with which the returned applications were mutually exclusive. The determining factors we used to ascertain if the above-referenced MMDS applications were mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) were whether the applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station; (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station; or (3) within an MSA, or its 15-mile buffer zone, for which there is an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station. Each of the returned applications propose a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31, with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. See  3-5, supra. Specifically, the applications were mutually exclusive and cut-off by previously filed MDS applications, with a cut-off date of September 9, 1983. In fact, the Santa Cruz petitioners admit that grant of their applications requires waiver of  21.901(d)(5). Thus, the applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d), which states: An application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications). 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d). 20. Whether an MDS application is cut-off is not determined solely by the date of filing vis-a-vis applications specifying the same transmitter site and listing the name of the same town, but also by: (1) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.31, granting the application would result in harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station for which the cut-off date is past; or (2) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5), the application proposes a transmitter site that is within or within 15 miles of the borders of an MSA, which has a previously proposed or authorized station for which the cut-off date is past. See  3-5, supra. As explained above, the applications were cut-off by mutually exclusive, previously proposed or authorized stations which, although they specified towns different than the towns specified by the returned applications, would have received harmful interference from the stations proposed in the returned applications. 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. It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of interference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest determination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 567-68, n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,  21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. 22. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to existing and previously proposed MMDS licensees and to previously proposed MMDS applicants. In addition, in a de novo review at the time of reconsideration, we have determined that each of these petitioners failed to file required interference studies for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice prior to the filing date of petitioners' applications. See notes 18 and 24, supra. As discussed in Section II, supra, applicants for new MDS stations on the E or F channels are required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel and adjacent channel stations. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1246, 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there have been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. 23. Our analysis of the interference statements submitted shows that the returned applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection or at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); failed to submit free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously proposed stations as required by  21.902(f); failed to demonstrate terrain blockage (see  21.902(d)); and contained incorrect technical specifications for the petitioner's station or the previously proposed station. See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5716-17 (1987) ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment.") Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See MMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93 ("An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing."); see also Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application."); Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are crucial."). 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. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. 24. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve, as required by  21.902(g), all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g): The Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which the Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated. Thus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on their failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g). 25. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988 or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there are applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first paragraph of the Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, all of the above-referenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restriction of the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, these applicants submitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E or F channels. 26. Petitioners can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to carefully select the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), we explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more desirable bands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioners had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioners chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, their applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (1961). 27. Waiver Requests. Petitioners assert that their waiver requests provided an "affirmative showing" to meet the threshold requirements of 21.19, and, therefore, the Commission was required to grant the Rockingham applicants' request for waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice, and the Santa Cruz applicants' request for waiver of  21.901(d)(5). No provision of  21.20 requires that waivers be granted. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest. 28. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules must contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that: (a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or (b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative. "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. 'When an applicant seeks a waiver. . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action. " WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver ... must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.") 29. Petitioners assert that they are entitled to waivers of the 1988 Public Notice location requirements and  21.901(d)(5) because grant of a waiver would not result in harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. However, as shown in Section III, supra, each of the returned applicants failed to submit interference studies, as required by  21.902, for all authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of their proposed transmitter sites, and to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. Indeed, petitioners failed to even identify all authorized or previously proposed stations in their applications. Thus, petitioners' assertion that each application had demonstrated a lack of harmful interference to other authorized or proposed stations is unsupported. These unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver. 30. Furthermore, the location restrictions serve other important administrative purposes which do not concern interference avoidance. The location restrictions also minimize the possibility for application gridlock, and allow us to process applications more expeditiously. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604. One of the most significant underlying purposes of the location restrictions is to avoid diversion of scarce engineering resources from making necessary engineering determinations for 1983 MMDS applications or modification applications to reviewing interference analyses filed with post-1983 applications. These purposes would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location restrictions to each applicant that demonstrated non-interference through the submission of interference studies. Thus, we conclude that granting petitioners' requested waivers would frustrate the underlying purposes of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. 31. The Santa Cruz petitioners request a waiver of  21.901(d)(5) with respect to the San Francisco, California MSA. To justify their waiver request, the Santa Cruz applicants claim that the configuration of the San Francisco MSA, along with the characteristics of the terrain separating their proposed service area in Santa Cruz and the San Francisco MSA, eliminates the possibility of any San Francisco-originated transmissions from reaching the Santa Cruz area. The Santa Cruz applicants conclude that unless  21.901(d)(5) is waived, residents of Santa Cruz will indefinitely be deprived of an alternative form of video distribution, thereby frustrating the underlying purpose of  21.901(d)(5), which is "to foster the development of wireless cable systems in an administratively efficient way." 32. As a preliminary matter, the Santa Cruz applicants have incorrectly identified San Francisco as the MSA for which they require a waiver of  21.901(d)(5), when they have actually proposed transmitter sites located within the Salinas, California MSA buffer zone. The Santa Cruz applicants never discuss in their waiver requests the selection of a transmitter site inside the Salinas MSA. Pursuant to  21.901(d)(5), the Santa Cruz applications are thus mutually exclusive with and cut-off by MMDS applications filed in 1983 in Salinas because the Santa Cruz applications were filed after the relevant cut-off date of September 9, 1983. In addition, the Santa Cruz waiver requests fail to address the provision of service to the Santa Cruz community from facilities located within the Salinas MSA. This is particularly relevant since two 1983 subsequently authorized stations for Salinas could provide service to the Santa Cruz applicants' proposed service area. Also, we note that, had the correct MSA been identified, grant of the waivers requested here would permanently block the grant of necessary modification applications filed for these authorized MMDS stations at Salinas. Furthermore, even if the waiver request was granted, we would still conclude that the Santa Cruz applications were unacceptable for filing for failure to demonstrate that their proposed stations would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles. 33. Like the Santa Cruz petitioners, the Rockingham petitioners claim that grant of their waiver request would be in the public interest because it would result in service to unserved communities, implying that the proposed communities can only be served from an MDS transmitter located within each community's borders. We disagree. The Commission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in nearby areas. In Microband Corp. of America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the Commission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS application proposing a station at Newark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cut-off by a previously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that service to New Jersey would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we recognized that "the Newark-Elizabeth- Jersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station located in New York City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 185-86. However, petitioners fail to address the provision of cable competitive MMDS service from a location more than 50 miles away from 1983 station sites. Petitioners offer no documentary support for their assertions and fail to address whether there is a lack of a reasonable alternative, as required by  21.19. Thus, petitioners have failed to "plead with particularity the facts and circumstances" warranting a waiver. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. 34. Petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post-1983 MMDS applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public interest to grant waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice or waiver of  21.901(d)(5). Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice and of  21.901(d)(5) were properly denied. 35. Petitioners assert that the staff failed to meet the court-imposed requirement to give waiver requests a "hard look," and failed to give a reasoned explanation for denying their requests. However, the Court in WAIT Radio 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. Even when an applicant complies with these rigorous requirements, the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application. 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. Here, the requests were of a general nature and lacked concrete, documentary support. Under these circumstances, and in light of the thousands of applications the staff was processing, the return notification letters indicating that the request was denied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules were sufficient. Moreover, we have now reviewed the staff's denial of petitioners' waiver requests and have fully explained the basis for denying those requests. 36. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions and  21.901(d)(5) had not prohibited the filing of the above-referenced applications, in each instance these applications still would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the returned applications were filed, including filing after the relevant cut-off date of mutually exclusive applications and failing to submit interference analyses for authorized stations or previously filed applications. All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part 21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger, 294 F.2d at 242 (1961); see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). 37. Finally, we reject petitioners' implication that the denial of their waiver requests violates fundamental precepts of administrative due process. The 1988 Public Notice states that the Commission did not anticipate granting waivers of the location restrictions. In fact, language in the Notice reminded applicants that they must comply with the rules requiring the filing of interference studies for ITFS and MMDS authorized and proposed stations within 50 miles, and that the imposition of additional location restrictions on post-1983 applicants did not exempt those applicants from the requirements to file both MMDS and ITFS interference studies, which were adopted in 1984 and are contained in  21.901(d)(1), 21.902(i) and 21.902(c). See MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68. Section 21.905(d)(5), moreover, was adopted on May 26, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1263-64 and 1278- 79. Having been given notice of the MMDS and ITFS interference study filing requirements, and given the Commission's express warning that waivers of the location restrictions were not contemplated, petitioners fail to show how they were deprived of their fundamental due process rights. Moreover, due process does not require that all waiver requests must be granted. Applicants fail to meet the requirements for grant of their waiver requests, and thus, their requests were properly denied. 38. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioners suggest that the return letters failed to detail the reasons for the applications' return. However,  21.20(a), which governs the disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies," not the breadth of detail demanded by the petitioners here. We find that the return notification letters sent to petitioners gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return of the applications. In each case, the return notification letters indicated at least one reason why the applications were unacceptable for filing, and cited the relevant rule section or Commission decision. "[T]he agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application." WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. As discussed in Section III, supra, these petitioning applicants were afforded sufficient information to know that their applications were being returned due to defects specified in the return letters. 39. 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. 40. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the above-referenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. 41. 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