WPC] 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\PX@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP#2@qf X CourierCG Times",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<?xxx,:Wx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP+6,7-8-9.:.;/<1=1>2?3@3A4B5D6E7F8G9H9I:J;K;L<M<N>O?P?Q2r ZKf '3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2o#SK]K$!Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldCG Times BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""transmitter site which made the proposed station mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31 or  X=-  21.901(d)(5), with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations.R =n f {O\'-ԍ See  2 and 3, supra.R Thus, the application"= ,-(-(ZZ" was properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to 21.31(d), which states:  XAn application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed  ^applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this  section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final  ^action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications).(# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d).  X - 7. Interference Protection. Section 21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees  X -  to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection,  f {O| -  yԍ MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In Family Entertainment  {OF -  Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 568 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994), the Domestic Facilities Division returned as unacceptable   ;for filing an application which demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that:  {Oh- >X[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O2- minimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference  >protection. In this rule provision, no reference is made to qualifying terms, degrees or levels, other than 45 dB at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (#  {OT-Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 568., and, whenever possible, at least   0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, and to demonstrate that protection in   interference studies submitted with the applications. Applicants must also demonstrate in their  X -  Zapplications their efforts to provide adjacent channel interference protection. See  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(a).  8. Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to   authorized MMDS licensees and to previously proposed MMDS applicants. Applicants for new   lMMDS 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.  X-  MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect   applicants to address this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain   =an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will  X-not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also  21.902(b) and (c). "2 ,-(-(ZZ"   Consequently, there has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference  X-protection showings in MMDS applications for the E and F channels. f {Ob-  ԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS   Japplication which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by  21.902(c) cannot be   characterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by  {O-  ithe criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac.    Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application analysis of the potential   for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio   horizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna . . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section  {O-  ,21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper.");  G.C.  {O -  Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part   x21 of the rules is not substantial completeness' but rather acceptability for filing'. . . . Cooper's application was  {O: -  Jproperly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required. . . . "); Marylan  {O -  J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain an analysis of how   the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . . ").    9. Our evaluation of the interference statements actually submitted shows that petitioner's  X-  zapplication failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as required by 21.902. See  X-  supra  4. See also Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 571617   (1987) ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference  Xc-  \environment.") Thus, the application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See  XN-  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  X" -  harmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing."); see also Family  X -  jEntertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates  xlack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability  X - xkof an application."); Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the  xprocessing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are crucial.").   x10. In addition, petitioner's commitments to avoid harmful interference to others and to  xcooperate in good faith should any interference occur in the future does not excuse its failure to  XY- xysubmit detailed interference studies as required by 21.902. See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd  x!at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use all legitimate engineering  X-- xtechniques does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and  xrequired under 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).") The requirement of  21.902(c) that an applicant  x=submit interference analyses at the time its application is filed is separate from the requirement  x in  21.902(a) that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional  xefforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in  xattempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ," and is separate from the  xrequirement in 21.901(d)(7) that applicants submit a showing of how interference will be  X- x[avoided and statements as to what steps they have taken to comply with 21.902(a).  See also  x 21.31. Based upon these considerations, we conclude that petitioner failed to comply with the"y ,-(-(ZZ"  xtechnical requirements set forth in 21.902 regarding interference protection and failed to  x[demonstrate that the applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS licensee as required by 47  X- xC.F.R.  21.900. Thus, this application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See  X-New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040.  X-  ?x11. Notice to Affected Parties. The applicant failed to serve, as required by 21.902(g),  xall applicants, conditional licensees, and licensees for stations required to be studied by   Xc- x21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna  XN- xCornaggia, 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   0analysis 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 TTCommission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#  xThus, this application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on applicant's failure to comply with the service requirements contained in 21.902(g).  X-  x12. Location Restrictions. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MMDS  X- xapplications on the E or F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that were:  xL(1) farther than 50 miles from the proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April  x19, 1988, or an authorized station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical  xkarea for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first paragraph of the  X- x Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions  X- xcontained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement."  Xs- x1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in  X^- xviolation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite  xthese directives, this application proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions  X2- xMof the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, the applicant submitted an application on a date not  X- xdesignated by the Commission for the filing of MDS applications. See 21.901(d)(4). Petitioner  X- xfiled within 15 miles of the Ft. Myers MSA, in which there was an authorized cochannel station.rf yO!-ԍ Station WHK973 at Ft. Myers, Florida, Application File No. 3158CMP83.r  X- xPetitioner argues that he did not violate the 1988 Public Notice, as stated in the return letter,  x-because there were no pending applications in the Fort Myers MSA. Although the applicant did  X!- xnot violate the second location restriction he did violate the first part of the 1988 Public Notice by filing within 50 miles of authorized MMDS station within the Ft. Myers MSA.""X,-(-(ZZ!"    !N x13. Petitioner can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants  xto carefully select the proposed location of an MMDS station. In addition to the clear language  X- xNin the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of  X- xcompliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30  x(1980), the Commission explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these  x[lower more desirable bands . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost,  Xz- xa cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more  Xe- xsophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus,  xMpetitioner had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because  xjpetitioner chose to disregard the Commission's directive, his application was properly returned  X" -as unacceptable for filing. See Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240 (1961).  X -  Px14. Waiver Requests. Petitioner also in his application requested a waiver of the  X - xlocation restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice, noting that the proposed transmitter site would  xnot cause harmful interference to other existing or proposed stations. We do not find that grant  X - xof waiver for the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice would serve the public interest, and thus will not grant the requested waiver.   x 15. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules  xmust contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 21.19, 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.(#  x<"An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks  x\a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such  XE- x\action." Wait Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family  X0- xRadio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see also David  X- x]Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver . . . must  xjaffirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.")   x16. Petitioner's assertion that the proposed stations would not cause harmful interference  xto other existing or proposed stations is unsupported. As already discussed, the returned  xapplication did not contain interference studies, as required by 21.902, for all authorized or  xZpreviously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of the proposed transmitter site, and did not  xdemonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. The wholly  XN&- xunsupported assertion falls far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the"N&,-(-(ZZ$"  X- xexistence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying a waiver.,f yOy- x,ԍ A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining  {OA-whether a proposed station would cause harmful interference. Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987)., Moreover, the 1988  X- x=Public Notice location restrictions and 21.901(d)(5) serve important administrative purposes  xKwhich do not concern interference avoidance. The location restrictions were imposed to minimize  xZthe possibility for application gridlock, to facilitate the expeditious processing of applications and  X- x.to efficiently allocate scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569,  X- x{570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981). Thus, we conclude that granting petitioner's requested waiver would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rules.  XP-  m x17. Petitioner failed to present justification as to why his application merits treatment  xdifferent from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. In  xjview of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public interest to grant a waiver  X - xjof the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner's request for waiver of the location requirements was properly denied.  X -  x18. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited  xythe filing of the abovereferenced application, the application still would have been returned as  x=unacceptable for filing. The applicant violated other Commission rules in effect at the time the  xreturned application was filed such as failing to submit adequate interference analyses for  Xn-authorized stations or applications. See supra  4.  XB-  ^x19. De Facto Policy. Petitioner claims that the Commission had a policy under which  xzapplications for new MMDS stations within 50 miles of pending or authorized stations were  xaccepted for 1983 lottery service areas if they proposed the transmitter site of a previously  xauthorized station whose license was cancelled or forfeited. Petitioner cites two examples of  xstations which it claims were granted pursuant to such a policy. However, Commission staff  xpreviously has upheld the return of an application which filed for a previously licensed 1983  X- x{transmitter site which included a request for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location  X- x\restrictions. Fortuna Systems Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 5280 (Video Serv. Div. 1994). The Division  X- xupheld the staff's return of the application for violation of the 1988 Public Notice, failure to file  xadequate interference studies, and failure to show the lack of a reasonable alternative as required  x/for grant of a waiver under 21.19(b). Given that the staff has not previously accepted the  x.rationale that applicants filing for previously licensed 1983 transmitter sites should be allowed  xito file for those transmitter sites without submitting the necessary interference protection studies,  xwe will not do so here. We find that, at a minimum, an applicant filing for a forfeited or  xxcancelled 1983 transmitter site must be required to show that their proposed transmitter site would  xKnot cause harmful interference to other previously authorized or proposed stations and otherwise  X - xkmeet the requirements for a waiver. See Fortuna, 9 FCC Rcd at 5281. Petitioner failed to file  xadequate interference studies for other authorized and previously proposed stations, giving the  xstaff no way in which to evaluate whether his proposal would cause harmful interference to the  X#- x=authorized and previously proposed stations. Where waivers of the 1988 Public Notice were"#",-(-(ZZe""  xgranted in the examples cited by petitioner, the applicants requested a waiver of the restrictions  xand were required to show that no harmful interference would be caused by grant of their  xapplications. To the extent that any applicants filing for 1983 transmitter sites did not meet these  xrequirements, grants of those applications were erroneous and are not precedent to be followed  X- xLhere. The Commission is not bound by such staff errors. See, e.g., North Texas Media, Inc. v.  X- x!FCC, 778 F.2d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident grant of a [shortspacing]  xwaiver . . . now described as an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require future  Xc- xxapplicants to meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver); Quinnipiac College, 8 FCC  XN- xRcd 6285, 6286 (1993); Walter Faber, 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493 (1989), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd  X9-3601 (1991), aff'd mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992).T "III. CONCLUSION   x20. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the staff's return of the application under  xconsideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   "x21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by James J. Murtaugh IS HEREBY DENIED.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: