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/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applicatio n of) ) WYSE WIRELESS PARTNERSHIP ) File No. 53037-CM-P-90 ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) a Multipoint Distribution Service Station) on the E Group Channels at ) Emporia, Kansas ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 6, 1996 Released: June 6, 1996 By the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Video Services Division has before it one petition for reconsideration of the dismissal, pursuant to delegated authority, of an application for authority to construct and operate a Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") station on the E channels at Emporia, Kansas. This application was filed with the Commission by Wyse Wireless Partnership ("Wyse") on July 2, 1990, after the Commission had reopened the filing period for MDS applications on the E or F channels, subject to certain location restrictions. See  6, infra. This petition for reconsideration has been referred to the Video Services Division pursuant to 1.106(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106(a). II. BACKGROUND 2. The Wyse application for the E group channels, proposing a transmitter site at Emporia, Kansas, was filed with the Commission on July 2, 1990, and was accepted for filing and placed on public notice on September 27, 1991. Following a lottery conducted October 30, 1991, Wyse became the tentative selectee for the E group channels at Emporia. A further review of Wyse's application, subsequently conducted by Commission staff, revealed that the application was, in fact, unacceptable for filing. In a letter dated September 20, 1993, the Commission staff consequently dismissed Wyse's application, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.20, 21.26, 21.28, and 21.32. This letter dismissed Wyse's Emporia application because: (1) the applicant filed past the cut-off period established in 47 C.F.R.  21.31 or 21.914; (2) the applicant filed for a transmitter site which made it mutually exclusive with an authorized station or previously proposed application; (3) the applicant filed on a date not designated by the Commission, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(4); (4) the applicant submitted an inadequate interference analysis, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902, due to failure to serve all affected parties and/or failure to consider all previously proposed or authorized Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS") or Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") stations; and (5) the applicant failed to provide an updated, fully-executed deed, lease or option agreement as required by 47 C.F.R.  21.15(a). 3. Petitioner's Arguments on Reconsideration. On October 20, 1993, Wyse filed a petition for reconsideration of the dismissed Emporia application. Petitioner contends on reconsideration that a review of the March 20, 1992, FCC MDS "inventory" list indicated that August 29, 1990, was the earliest acceptance date for any application for the E channels in Emporia. Hence, petitioner submits that August 29, 1990, began the cut-off period for all Emporia applications on the E channels, and petitioner's E channel application (filed July 2, 1990) was not cut-off by any previously filed applications, as the Commission contends. 4. Petitioner also claims that the interference study submitted with its original application demonstrated that there were no cochannel or adjacent channel MMDS or ITFS stations orpending applications within 50 miles of the proposed Emporia facility. Although petitioner admits that there were other mutually exclusive cochannel applications and adjacent channel applications for Emporia then pending with the Commission, petitioner claims that none had appeared on public notice before its July 2, 1990, application filing date. Moreover, petitioner contends that all such cochannel and adjacent channel pending applications proposed transmitter sites the same as that proposed by Wyse, precluding the necessity for filing any interference study in its application or for serving any study on competing applicants. Petitioner also contends that there were no pending, previously filed cochannel or adjacent channel applications proposing facilities located within the direct line of sight of petitioner's proposed Emporia station. For these reasons, petitioner argues that the Commission erred in stating that the Emporia area was not open for filing and the petitioner had submitted an inadequate interference analysis. 5. In addition, petitioner claims it properly supplied a fully-executed lease-option agreement as part of its application, contrary to the Commission's statement in the dismissal letter. In sum, petitioner asserts that the Commission's reasons for dismissing its Emporia application are erroneous, particularly given that the application had previously been found acceptable for filing and eligible for lottery. According to Wyse, the erroneous dismissal of its application has resulted in an undue financial hardship on petitioner, and that the Commission should restore Wyse's status as tentative selectee and expedite the issuance of a conditional license. III. DISCUSSION 6. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing period for MDS applications was again designated until 1988. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. 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. Id. These location restrictions were announced in the first paragraph of the 1988 Public Notice and twice repeated on the first page. In addition, it was explicitly stated that "[w]e do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, petitioner proposed a transmitter site at Emporia in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Specifically, petitioner filed an application for a site within 50 miles of another pending, previously proposed MMDS application. Moreover, petitioner did not request a waiver of the location requirements set forth in the 1988 Public Notice. 7. Because the 1988 Public Notice prohibited the filing of the Emporia application, petitioner's application was properly found to have violated these location restrictions. In addition, because the date for filing applications applied only to applications for sites located more than 50 miles from applications pending on April 19, 1988, or more than 15 miles from the border of a statistical area in which applications were pending on April 19, 1988, the Emporia application filed on a date not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E and F channels. See  21.901(d)(4). Petitioner can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission 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), the Commission 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, petitioner had full notice of the necessity to comply with the relevant location restrictions. Because petitioner chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, petitioner's application was properly dismissed. 8. Mutual Exclusivity and Cut-Off. In addition to violating the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions and filing on a date not designated by the Commission, we find that petitioner's application was mutually exclusive with and cut-off by applications filed on September 9, 1983. 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; or (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station. Applications that 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 the application, pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4). 9. To be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed on or before the applicable cut-off date for mutually exclusive applications. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application or authorized station, the applicable cut-off date is the one-day filing date designated for those applications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746. Based upon our de novo review of the dismissed Emporia application and the publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and previously filed applications, we conclude that the Emporia application was mutually exclusive with and cut-off by a 1983 pending, previously filed application. See  21.31(b); see also Establishment of Multi-Channel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746. Specifically, the dismissed application was mutually exclusive with and cut-off by one previously proposed 1983 application. Thus, petitioner's application was properly dismissed pursuant to  21.31(d). 10. Interference Protection. In addition to being mutually exclusive with and cut-off by a pending, previously filed application, we find that the Emporia application was properly dismissed for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements. 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. Nine years before the Emporia application was 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 596, 606 (1981). Thus,  21.902(b) sets certain threshold interference protection levels and requires all MDS applicants to demonstrate protection in interference studies submitted with their applications. 11. At the time the Emporia application was 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 interference with any authorized or previously proposed cochannel station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) (1989). In addition,  21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful 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); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required that each MDS application for the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel stations. The applicant was also required to show the steps taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7). 12. 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 would require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "[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 for filing." Id. (emphasis in original). See also  21.902(b) and (c). In view of these concerns with the potential for harmful interference, the Commission has decided a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. "[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." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567. Because petitioner here failed to make the required showings regarding interference protection, its application cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985). See also 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."). 13. In our de novo review on reconsideration, we have determined that petitioner's Emporia application did not include any analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and adjacent channel stations for which there was an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, we have found that Wyse failed to file a required interference study for one pending, previously proposed MMDS station. 14. Although Wyse's engineer states in the application that he consulted "the official on- line FCC data base provider (A.T.A. Services)" and did not find any other applicants within the 50-mile search distance, we note, nevertheless, that Wyse failed to submit the required interference analysis for a previously proposed station which had appeared on public notice and FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's application. As described in  13, supra, Wyse failed to submit an interference study for the pending, previously proposed 1983 MMDS cochannel station in Topeka, Kansas, Application File No. 13280-CM-P-83, which was included on the May 17, 1990, FCC internal staff listing, prior to petitioner's application filing date. In addition, we note that this same 1983 previously proposed MMDS station also appeared on public notice as early as four years prior to Wyse's filing date. Thus, petitioner erred in asserting that no other pending E or F channel applications had appeared on public notice. Even if petitioner was correct, we reject such assertions as a basis for justifying a failure to file interference analyses. Section 21.902(c) does not excuse an applicant from submitting interference studies even if the previously proposed applications have not been placed on public notice. See 4,330 MDS Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335, 1468 (1994), aff'd mem., A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 95-1027, (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam). 15. Petitioner also argues that the dismissal of its application was erroneous because the application had been found eligible for lottery and, indeed, became the tentative selectee following a lottery held for the Emporia area. Petitioner fails to acknowledge that its application had not been granted, but merely identified as a tentative selectee on a public notice. Section 21.26 specifically states that "[n]either the assignment of a file number nor the listing of the application on public notice as accepted for filing indicates that the application has been found acceptable for filing or precludes the subsequent return or dismissal of the application if it is found to be defective or not in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules." 47 C.F.R.  21.26 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the entering of Wyse's unacceptable application into the lottery for Emporia was in contravention of the procedures established for MDS lotteries. Second Report and Order, Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in Regard to Frequency Allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, 57 RR 2d 943, 949 (1985). The Commission is not bound by such staff errors. See, e.g., North Texas Media, Inc. v. FCC, 778 F.2d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident grant of a [short-spacing] waiver . . . now described as an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require future applicants to meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver."); Quinnipiac College, 8 FCC Rcd 6285, 6286 (1993); Walter P. Faber, 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493 (1989), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3601 (1991), aff'd mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The fact that Wyse's application, which should have been returned prior to lottery as unacceptable for filing, was instead included in the Emporia lottery, does not now compel the Commission to reinstate and accept the application for filing after the application has been properly dismissed pursuant to established Commission rules and procedures. 6. Petitioner's assertions, contained in its application, that it would cooperate fully and in good faith to resolve any harmful electrical interference detected with nearby system operators does not excuse its failure to submit interference studies as required by  21.902. A pledge to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of  21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use all legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7)."). As described above, the interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. See  11, supra. This is a step which cannot be skipped, as implied by petitioner. In addition, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that applicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of an application. The Commission must be bound by its regulations pertaining to interference protection requirements and cannot waive them on the basis of promises made by a petitioner. Moreover, the mandate that applicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith commandment of  21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a). See also 47 C.F.R.  21.31. In light of all of the foregoing, the Emporia application was properly dismissed. 17. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting required interference analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicants, conditional licensees or licensees 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. Wyse failed to serve the requisite interference analyses, as mandated by  21.902(g), on the required applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and 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 Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated. Thus, Wyse's application was also properly dismissed for failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g). 18. Site Availability. An MDS applicant must demonstrate site availability pursuant to  21.15(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.15(a). Although the rules state that in lottery situations it is unreasonable to expect all applicants to have a lease or written option for a proposed site, and thus reasonable assurance of site availability is sufficient, the same rule also states that a license will not be granted until "concrete evidence" of site availability is submitted. See Revisions of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5721 (1987). Here, the dismissal letter stated that the Emporia applicant failed to submit an updated, fully-executed deed, lease, or option agreement after the lottery as required by  21.15(a). Petitioner's option to lease agreement terminated on April 5, 1991, unless renewed (petitioner's application does not contain a renewal agreement). The lottery in which petitioner was named a tentative selectee was held October 30, 1991. In Fortuna Systems Corporation, 3 FCC Rcd 5122 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter Fortuna), it was noted: Although Fortuna alludes to a new site, it provides no details as to the location of the new site, or an estimate of when, if ever, a signed lease, or other concrete evidence to demonstrate the availability of a site will be forthcoming. Furthermore, where an applicant does not provide either a lease or lease option agreement as evidence of site availability, and subsequently the proposed site becomes unavailable, the applicant generally will not be allowed to select an alternate site for its transmitter. Fortuna, 3 FCC Rcd at 5123; see also Heritage Broadcasting Company of North Carolina, DA 86-278 (released Dec. 3, 1986). Wyse, lacking a renewal agreement, does not provide "concrete evidence" of site availability in its application. Petitioner's plan is, therefore, in clear contravention of Commission rules requiring site availability before a license is granted so that "evaluation of [petitioner's] qualifications to be an MMDS licensee [can be made]." See Fortuna, 3 FCC Rcd at 5123. Thus, petitioner's application was also properly dismissed for failure to comply with  21.15(a). 19. Post-Action Curative Showings. The attempt of petitioner to file a curative showing simultaneously with its petition for reconsideration likewise fails. It is well established that the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an application has been returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such showings at that stage. Applications which lack complete and necessary information are unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20. 20. Petitioner on reconsideration seeks to file curative showings which demonstrate non- interference. As discussed above, the Emporia application lacked a required interference analysis. See  13, supra. The interference analysis requirement is an important one that demands complete compliance at the time of filing of an MDS application. Where this requirement is not met, the application is properly returned or dismissed as unacceptable for filing. See  10-16, supra. In the MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264, the Commission emphasized that "we expect applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in their applications." See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("[S]tation engineering must be demonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to Section 21.902(c) . . . ."). We have also 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, 9 FCC Rcd at 567-68 n.10. Without the requirement that interference studies be complete at the time of filing, determinations of mutual exclusivity would be hampered, and a logjam would be created making it more difficult to reach final actions. Thus, where as here, an application lacks interference analyses at the time of filing, such application does not substantially comply with the Commission rules, and the application will accordingly be returned or dismissed as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20(a). See New Channels, 57 RR 2d at 1602 (an MDS application which does not contain all of the required interference analyses "cannot be characterized as . . . in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."). Moreover, as noted above, petitioner failed to serve the necessary parties with requisite interference analyses. See n.15 and  17, supra. See also 101 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations, 9 FCC Rcd 7886, 7899 (1994), aff'd mem., A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 95-1027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) ("[P]etitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  21.902."). 21. For the reasons stated above, acceptance of curative interference showings on reconsideration is not warranted. This conclusion is consistent with past Commission treatment of such showings. In G.C. Cooper, the Domestic Facilities Division stated: [T]o the extent that Cooper seeks to meet the requirements of Section 21.901(d)(7) by filing a new Exhibit H, we reject the argument that he should be permitted to file a curative amendment and have his application reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. As discussed below, we find that the Division's initial return of Cooper's application as unacceptable for filing was correct . . . . G.C.Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 n.8. See also 4,330 MDS Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335, 1470 (1994), aff'd mem., A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 95-1027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) ("Nor do the applicants' offers to file curative amendments at some later time excuse them from submitting all required interference studies at the time the applications are initially filed."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506. IV. CONCLUSION 22. In view of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's dismissal of the Wyse Wireless Partnership application under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted. 23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by Wyse Wireless Partnership IS HEREBY DENIED. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send a copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Charles E. Dziedzic Assistant Chief, Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau