WPCz 2BJ  Courier3|w s BoldXw PE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26 F ZP'3|wHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXPCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic2f i X-",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g``````oYQh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QTJQJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`QMCQCCT;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Tc,C```Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`cCCC```Q,MC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx"i~'K2^(,>CCwh,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,w;w`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``V,,,CC,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC14%CC`CC;;C;C#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCC%`;`;`;`;`;wY[;T;T;T;T;,%,%,%,%cC`C`C`C`CcCcCcCcC`C`;cC`C`C`CcCMC`;`C`;[;[;[C[CcPS;TCTCS;`C`C`C`C`CcCcC,%CCCC,CaJCC^CS%S0TCU(S%cCMcCcC`C`Cw`X0X0YCH3H3H3HCS0S%TCcCcCcCcCcCcC~``CU;U;U;cCTCcCHCTC`CP,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,;66CCuCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,EECw##CCQQeCC`COooJJw,EC~/"``C`E``wwCww&wC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`hV``````````>``````oYQh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QTJQJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`QMCQCCT;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Tc,C```Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`cCCC```Q,MC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx2%v$p!%k%"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``VJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g't'a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2*Z( ( ) >*a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2(. + +,X-a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 21Z.3/301a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2>41C223a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2q7p42553>6a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2=7e; <<PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:CCwm,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,wCw`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````Y,,,CC,CJ;J;/CJ%,J%mJCJJ;4,JC`CC;CCCC#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCJ%`C`C`C`C`C``;Y;Y;Y;Y;4%4%4%4%`JhChChChC`J`J`J`J`C`C`KhChC`C`CPJ`C`C`C`;`;`C`C`[X;YCYCX;hChChChChChJhJ3%CJCC4JyLCChJX%X5YCY4Y%`Kj`K`JhChCc`;`;`CK3J4K3JCX5X-YC`J`K`J`J`K`J``CX;Y;X;`JYC`JJCYC`C[,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,C99CCCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,MMCw##CCQQeCC`CTooJJw,MC~/"``C`L``wwCww&wC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`h[``````````@``````tYQh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QYJQJY;Y4Y;h;`;4%h;YJ~J`;YCh;`QQCQCCY;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Yh4Ch``Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`hCCC```Q,QC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````YSSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SSA]_SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxx`oYfQoYoYoYhx`A4hoY~x`oYhx`fQfQoYx`oYx`hfQxoASxxfJffffz88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?kdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2i f hoZz"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx-notice.-H>= Y-ԍ A printed inventory of active MMDS applications filed with the Commission was available for public inspection. This lists, for each application, the applicant's name, the city proposed to be served, the coordinates of the proposed transmitter site, public notice date, and the application status. From this listing, a potential applicant could identify proposed stations for which interference studies must be submitted, and order copies of the necessary applications from the Commission's copy contractor. Files for authorized stations have always been available for public inspection in the Domestic Facilities Division Public Reference Room. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2663. In addition, as early as November, 1990, before any of these returned applications were filed, a "readonly" copy of the MDS  Y-database was available to the public through a third party public access contractor..= Y-ԍ  See Public Notice: New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data  Y-Bases, Mimeo No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Thus, we reject petitioners' claim that their failure to file interference studies was somehow caused by the Commission's policies regarding access to applications. x40. In addition, petitioners' 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  Yq-required by 21.902. See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use 'all legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute the"\v .0*((>"  Y-kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).") The requirement of 21.902(c) that an applicant submit interference analyses at the time its application is filed is separate from the requirement in 21.902(a) that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ," and is also separate from the requirement in 21.901(d)(7) that applicants submit a showing of how interference will be avoided and  Ya-demonstrate what steps they have taken to comply with 21.902(a).  See also 21.31. Nor do applicants' offers to file curative amendments at some later time excuse them from  Y5-submitting all required interference studies at the time the applications are initially filed.  See  Y -Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4669, n. 9. 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 they are technically qualified to be an MDS licensee as required by 21.900. Thus, these applications were  Y -properly returned as unacceptable for filing. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 R.R.  Y -2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. x41. Garnett and Lexington petitioners' arguments that previously filed applications had not been accepted for filing and thus were not "entitled to interference protection" is incorrect. Even if these applications were later determined to be unacceptable for filing, they would be entitled to interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b), which requires this protection for all previously filed applications.  Y-x42. The Commission has observed that:  XxThe Bureau's longstanding choice of the date of filing for this evaluation provides a standard that is known, certain, and fair to all interested parties. [The applicant's] proposed alternativethe date of Commission actionvaries from application to application, depending on staff resources, application backlogs, and other administrative considerations. To assess applicant rights and obligations under so variable a standard would indeed be arbitrary and capricious, with decisions made primarily on the basis of chance. The date of filing, in contrast, is fixed at the outset and can be applied to applicants on equal terms. Its use is well within the broad  Y-discretion permitted agencies in the ordering of their processes. See, e.g., Ranger v.  Y-FCC, 294 F.2d 240 (D.C. Cir. 1961).(#  Y -Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992)(footnotes omitted); See also In the  Y!-Matter of 4,300 Applications, 10 FCC Rcd 1335 (1994) appeal docketed A/B Financial Inc.,  Y"-et al v. FCC, No. 951027, (D.C. Cir. Jan. 9, 1995); In the Matter of 101 Applications, 9  Y#-FCC Rcd 7886 (1994); Boyd B. Hopkins, 9 FCC Rcd 569 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Family  Y$-Entertainment Network, 9 FCC Rcd 566 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC  Yk%-Rcd 5442 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS application which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by 21.902(c) cannot be characterized as complete or in"?'.0*((P(" substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule 21.20(a)."). As the Commission noted in  Y-Roundtree Communications, a departure from the current requirement that applications include all required interference analyses at the time of filing could "tempt applicants to expedite, delay or otherwise interfere with the orderly conduct of our business, in an effort to obtain action at some moment they deem advantageous to their interests. Disruption of this nature is clearly contrary to the public interest." 7 FCC Rcd 5456. Petitioners's applications were therefore unacceptable for filing.  Y3- x43. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve copies of interference analyses, as required by 21.902(g), on all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied by 21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of  Y -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): XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which the Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(# Therefore, these applications were properly returned for failure to comply with the service requirements contained in 21.902(g).  Y-x44. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS  Yk-applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are: (1) farther than 50 miles from the 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 were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first  Y-paragraph of the Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the  Y-location restrictions contained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of  Y-this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. We also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as  Y!-unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these directives, most of the abovereferenced MMDS  Y"-applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988  Y#-Public Notice. Therefore, these applicants submitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for the filing of MDS applications. x45. 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"5'.0*((P("  Y-clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of  Y-compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), we explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower  Y-more desirable bands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a  Y-cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more  Y-sophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioners had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioners chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, their applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  Y$ -x46. Waiver Requests. As the return notification letters for the Livermore applications did not explain the staff's analysis of the waivers requested, we shall explain the denial of the waiver requests here. Section 21.20(c)(1) states that a defective application  Y -may still be accepted for filing if the application is accompanied by a waiver request. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest, and thus will not grant the requested waiver or grant a waiver on our own motion  Y-pursuant to 21.20(c)(2)./= Y-ԍ The Commission may waive any rule or requirement on its own motion. See 21.20(c)(2). x 47. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules must contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that: Xx(a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or(# Xx(b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative.(# "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. 'When an applicant seeks a waiver. . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant  YA-such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  Y,-Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per  Y-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.")  Y!-x48. As shown in Section III, supra, the Livermore applicant 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 failed to demonstrate"#d/0*(($" that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. The Livermore application's request for a waiver is based upon the assertion that the terrain ensures that "the signals cannot have a direct electrical path into communities outside the valley . . . ." In fact, the proposed station has an unobstructed electrical path to a 1983 previously proposed,  Y-subsequently authorized station.N0= Y-ԍ WHT653 at San Francisco, California.N These wholly unsupported assertions fall far short of the  Y-stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special  Yx-circumstances justifying a waiver.   YJ-x49. The 1988 Public Notice location restrictions serve important administrative purposes beyond those concerning interference avoidance. The location restrictions minimize the possibility for application gridlock, and allow us to process applications more  Y -expeditiously and to efficiently utilize scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins,  Y -Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981).  Y -These purposes, which the Livermore petitioner does not address, would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location restrictions to each and every applicant that demonstrated noninterference through the submission of interference studies. Thus, we conclude that granting petitioners' requested waivers would frustrate the underlying purpose  Y-of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions.  YU- x50. Petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public  Y-interest to grant a waiver of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers of the location requirements were properly denied. x51. Some petitioners also request that the Commission waive the requirement for submitting interference analyses for previously proposed stations which they characterize as  Y-"lottery losers."1 Jy= Y-ԍ It was recently reiterated that before filing their applications, MMDS applicants must  Y-consider all previously proposed and pending applications, including lotterylosing  Y-applications. See CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at  Yq -5443. Similarly, in Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992), Roundtree argued that the dismissal of its application for a new Hchannel station in the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), for failure to file the required interference analysis for an application which was pending at the time Roundtree filed, but which was subsequently dismissed, was arbitrary and capricious. In upholding the dismissal of Roundtree's application we explained that: XxThe Bureau's longstanding choice of the date of filing for this evaluation provides a"&00*((!'" standard that is known, certain, and fair to all interested parties. Roundtree's proposed alternative the date of Commission action varies from application to application, depending on staff resources, application backlogs, and other administrative considerations. To assess applicant rights and obligations under so variable a standard would indeed be arbitrary and capricious, with decisions made primarily on the basis of chance.(#  Y-Id. at 5456 (citations omitted). To justify this waiver request, petitioners assert that enforcement of the"10*((O" interference protection requirements at the time their applications were filed would be unduly burdensome and a significant unnecessary expense, because lottery losers are unlikely to become licensees. We do not believe the facts and circumstances of this case are sufficiently unique so as to warrant a waiver. Most importantly, due to the procedures established for MDS lotteries, it is not unusual for an applicant that initially loses in a lottery to be selected in a later lottery for qualification review and to be subsequently granted because the initial  Yv-tentative selectee did not survive final qualification review. See 1.824(a). One of the underlying purposes of the interference analysis filing requirement is to avoid grant of an MDS application which would cause harmful interference to previously proposed, but  Y3-subsequently authorized stations. Thus, if we granted petitioners' waiver request, we would effectively strip subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference protection to which they are entitled pursuant to 21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. Petitioners' statements that they are willing to cooperate with the new tentative selectee on problems of harmful interference in the event that any of the lottery losing applicants should become a tentative selectee does not address this underlying purpose, since all applicants are required by 21.902(b) "to cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve interference . . . problems." Nor does it justify our treating these applicants differently from other MMDS applicants which have complied with the interference protection requirements in cases involving pending, lotterylosing applications. Therefore, petitioners' argument that enforcement of the requirement to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference and to serve a copy of the interference analysis on affected parties would be unduly burdensome and expensive is not persuasive. As the D.C. Circuit ruled in 1969, we neither "must or should tolerate evisceration of a rule by waivers."  Y-WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159.  Y- x52. Petitioners assert that the staff's disposition of their waiver requests by "the mere checking of two paragraphs on a form returning the application in question" cannot, on its face, meet the courtimposed requirement to give a "hard look" to waiver requests.  Y-However, the Court in WAIT Radio made clear that: Xx 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"10*((" disposition of each application. (# 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9.  Y-x53. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the filing of the abovereferenced applications, and we had granted a waiver of the interference protection rules as to lotterylosing applicants, in each instance these applications still would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the returned applications were filed, including filing after the relevant cutoff date of mutually exclusive applications and failing to submit adequate interference analyses for authorized stations or applications which could not be classified as "lottery losers." x54. Finally, we disagree with petitioners' argument that we have changed the requirements, rules and standards applied to the returned applications and adopted more  Y -stringent separation standards ex post facto by refusing to grant the waivers and accept these applications for filing. As discussed at length above, petitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they were filed after the relevant cutoff dates established in 21.31 and 21.914 of the rules, and failed to submit and serve the required interference  YO-studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by 21.902. See  Y:-Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992); Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569  Y%-(Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). All of the pertinent rules cited herein were longestablished and applicable at the time the returned  Y-applications were filed.o2= Yr-ԍ For example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking  Y[-order (MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d 616 (1974)) and the initial cutoff provisions of  YF-21.31 were adopted in 1968. See Applications for Common Carrier Facilities, 13 FCC 2d 415 (1968).o All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part 21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the  Y-risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240,  Y-242 (1961); see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd at 1873. Thus, we reject petitioners' claims that the Commission engaged in arbitrary and capricious action and find that "[t]he Division's return of [the abovereferenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or arbitrary, but rather was based on the [applicant's] failure to comply with Commission  YE-rules." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568.  Y-x55. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioners argue 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"!820*(("" 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  Y-relevant rule section or Commission decision. As discussed in Section III, supra, these petitioning applicants were afforded sufficient information to know that their applications  Y-were being returned due to defects specified in the return letters. See Adams Telecom Inc.,  Y-v. FCC, 38 F.3d 576, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (FCC dismissal letters and order providing only brief explanation of why applications failed to satisfy requirements upheld as sufficient  Ye-because parties could understand basis of decision.)  x 56. In particular, we reject petitioners' argument that the return of their applications  Y" -was arbitrary and capricious because the return notification letters did not list which applications established the relevant cutoff date, thereby purportedly depriving petitioners of notice and an opportunity to challenge the qualifications of those previously filed applicants.  Y -For each of these returned applications, the applicant had a duty, prior to the filing of the application, to identify: (1) each cochannel and adjacent channel station within 50 miles or the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of its proposed station and (2) the applicable MSA and its buffer zone, in order to fulfill the mandates of Sections 21.901 and  Y-21.902. See, e.g., 21.902(a) (d), (f), (i) (k). Thus, petitioners should have discovered the authorized stations and previously filed applications with which they were mutually  YU-exclusive in the course of their research.3U= Y-ԍ As the Court of Appeals recognized in Columbia Communications Corp. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 189, 192 (D.C. Cir. 1987), "[t]he Commission staff must process annually thousands of applications. It cannot be expected to do research for applicants. . . . If the Commission staff were required to assume such a burden, little or nothing would be accomplished."  Yt-(citing Rio Grande Family Fellowship v. FCC, 406 F.2d at 666). Given this prefiling requirement to identify authorized and pending stations, petitioners fail to show how their right to challenge the qualifications of the previously proposed stations is somehow connected to the amount of information contained in an application return notification letter.  Y-x57. Notice of Return. The Garnett petitioners allege that they did not receive a return letter for application file no. 62086CMP91 and that this constitutes a denial of due  Y-process. However, as the return was placed on public notice,74!= Y-ԍ June 9, 1993.7 petitioners' counsel obtained copies of the return notification and petitioners were able to petition for reconsideration in a timely manner, there has been no deprivation to which a due process claim might apply.  YX-x58. Specification of Emission Designator. The Garnett petitioners allege that the Commission erred in indicating that they had specified incorrect emission designators. The Garnett applications indicated emission designators 5M75A5C and 250KF8E. The Office of  Y-Engineering and Technology Cumulative Supplement to the Radio Equipment List (August 10, 1990), controlling at the time of the Garnett applications, specifies that the appropriate"40*((" emission designators are 5750A5C and 250F3, respectively. Therefore, the Commission was correct in returning the applications for failure to specify the correct emission designator as required by 47 C.F.R.  21.905.  Y-x59. FAA Notification. The Rainswood applications were properly returned for failure  Y-to submit FAA notification information pursuant to 21.15(d). Lack of FAA notification affects processing of MDS applications and itself renders the applications unacceptable for  Y_-filing pursuant to  21.20. Friendly Community Television Services, 7 FCC Rcd 7892, 7893 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  Y -x60. Site Availability. The Rainswood applications were also properly returned for failure to demonstrate site availability as required by 21.15(a). The Rainswood applications included an assignment of a letter of intent issued by a transmitter tower owner  Y -to another party, International Communications Group.W5 = YP-ԍ The letter of intent itself was not provided.W Petitioner then states that International Communications Group "has been reasonably advised" that the "site . . . is available." Nothing submitted contained any statement of intent from the site owner. This does not constitute an adequate demonstration of site availability for the purposes of  Y{-21.15(a) and renders the application unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20. See, e.g.,  Yf-Genesee Communications, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 3595 (Rev. Bd. 1988). ("Although reasonable assurance may be acquired in numerous ways, there must at least be a meeting of the minds resulting in some firm understanding as to the site's availability.")  Y -x61. Maintenance Information. The Rainswood applications were also properly returned for failure to submit sufficient, specific maintenance information pursuant to 21.15(e). Petitioner's promise "to contact a local vendor to maintain the transmission and program input equipment," to establish a field service office and to establish and publish a telephone number for customers to call in the event of emergency does not meet the requirements of 21.15(e), which requires that an applicant "submit a showing of the general maintenance procedures involved. . . . The showing should include . . . (1) the location and telephone number (if known) of the maintenance center[; and] (2) [t]he manner in which technical personnel are made aware of the malfunction and the appropriate time required for them to reach any of the stations." We specifically affirmed the importance of describing emergency notification procedures when we revised Part 21 of the Commission's rules and eliminated some maintenance requirements but retained the requirement for a  Y-description of emergency repair. See Revision of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5752, n. 53. x 62. In view of all of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. "p$y50*((%"Ԍx63. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Rainswood Wireless Partnership for Rainswood, Virginia; East Bay Wireless 1 for Livermore, California; Dale and Donna Lawrence for Garnett, Kansas; Lexington, Missouri; and Shepherd, Texas ARE HEREBY DENIED. x64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of the decision to counsel for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   x` `  William F. Caton x` `  Acting Secretary