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 pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) RURALVISION CENTRAL, INC., ) File Nos. 5-CM-P-92, ) 40-CM-P-92, For Authority to Construct and Operate ) 88-CM-P-92 Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the) H Channels at Brookville, Illinois ) ) RURALVISION SOUTH, INC. ) File No.328-CM-P-92 ) For Authority to Construct and Operate a ) Multipoint Distribution Service Station on the ) H Channels at Knippa, Texas ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 7, 1996 Released: June 11, 1996 By the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Video Services Division has before it two petitions for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a) on delegated authority, of four applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the H channels at transmitter sites at Brookville, Illinois and Knippa, Texas. These applications were filed with the Commission by RuralVision Central, Inc. ("RuralVision Central") and RuralVision South, Inc. ("RuralVision South") on January 2, 1992. We will consider the joint reconsideration petition filed by RuralVision Central for the three Brookville applications and the reconsideration petition filed by RuralVision South for the Knippa application in this single order. II. BACKGROUND 2. To implement the reallocation of the three H channels from the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service ("OFS") to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Commission placed a freeze on the filing of such applications pursuant to Part 94 of the Commission's rules starting September 27, 1991, and ending January 2, 1992. Second Report and Order, Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed Service, and Cable Television Relay Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6792, 6794 n.9 (1991) (hereinafter Second Report and Order). As of January 2, 1992, the date the above-captioned applications were filed, Part 21 of the Commission's rules applied to H channel applications and authorizations. 3. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the above-noted applications were filed, 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) required 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. To demonstrate compliance with this MDS frequency condition and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made, 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c) required an MDS application to include an analysis of the potential for harmful 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 adjacent or 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. The applicant also needed to show the steps taken to comply with 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), which requires, inter alia, MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference with other users and to avoid blocking potential cochannel stations in nearby areas. 4. ITFS Interference Studies. The Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") interference analyses submitted by the applicants were not evaluated on reconsideration as none of the H channel applications had appeared on public notice. ITFS studies are not due to be filed with the Commission or served on ITFS licensees until an H channel application has appeared on public notice. III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 5. The Commission staff returned the RuralVision Central H-1, H-2, and H-3 channel applications proposing the same transmitter site at Brookville, Illinois and the RuralVision South H-1 channel application proposing a transmitter site at Knippa, Texas as defective and unacceptable for filing by individual return notification letters dated February 16, 1994, and September 28, 1994, respectively. Each of the letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1) failed to meet the  21.902 requirements for performance of interference studies, due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MDS stations; (2) failed to specify type-accepted equipment, pursuant to  21.120; (3) failed to submit an updated fully-executed deed, lease, or option agreement, as required by  21.15(a); and (4) failed to submit sufficient, specific maintenance information, pursuant to  21.15(e). 6. In petitions for reconsideration of the returned Brookville and Knippa applications, timely filed with the Commission on March 18, 1994, and October 28, 1994, respectively, RuralVision Central and RuralVision South make arguments concerning the adequacy of submitted interference analyses; the acceptability of the cited transmitters; the adequacy of submitted site availability documentation; the sufficiency of maintenance information; the alleged disparate treatment given these applications; and purported changes in Commission policy. As discussed in detail below, interference analyses are necessary at the time of application filing due to the extensive planning and engineering involved in the MDS licensing process. Also, service upon affected parties, as defined by  21.902(g), is provided for in the Commission's rules so that parties-in-interest have actual notice of the proposed station and sufficient time to respond if desired. Because we find dispositive the failure of RuralVision Central and RuralVision South to submit adequate interference showings with their applications and the additional failure of RuralVision South to give notice by service of required interference studies to the parties required to be studied, it is unnecessary to address petitioners' other arguments. 7. Brookville, Illinois. The Brookville H-1, H-2, and H-3 channel applications proposed a transmitter antenna site that had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service area of or was within 50 miles of previously authorized cochannel stations at Rockford, Illinois. Although RuralVision Central submitted co-channel interference studies for the MDS stations at Rockford, the analyses were inadequate in that the applicant: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service areas of the authorized stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of the authorized stations; (3) indicated that the radio horizon was 30.6 miles distant from its transmitter sites, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) failed to engineer the proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3); and (5) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. 8. Knippa, Texas. The Knippa application proposed a transmitter antenna site that had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service area of or was within 50 miles of previously authorized cochannel stations at Leon Springs, Texas and Carrizo Springs, Texas. RuralVision South failed to submit an interference study for the Carrizo Springs MDS station. The co-channel interference analysis submitted for the MDS station at Leon Springs was inadequate in that the applicant: (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 station, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of the authorized station; (3) indicated that the radio horizon was 60.2 miles distant from its transmitter site, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) failed to engineer the proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3); and (5) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. IV. DISCUSSION 9. 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 . . . ." Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 621 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order). Over 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 596, 606 (1981). It also has 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 to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. 10. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to existing MDS stations. As discussed in  3, supra, applicants for new MDS stations on the H channels are required to submit specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel stations at the time of filing. The interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which demands complete compliance at the time an application is filed for a proposed MDS site. Thus, the Commission has 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." Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order); see also  21.902(b) and (c). Complete and adequate interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made. Without them a logjam would be created, making it more difficult to reach final actions. 11. At the time the RuralVision Central applications for Brookville, Illinois were filed, applicant stated that "any cochannel MDS station more than 30.6 miles from the instant proposal can receive no interference, since no portion of its service area has an unobstructed electrical path from the instant proposal." As MDS cochannel stations in Rockford, Illinois were 31.99 miles away from RuralVision Central's proposed Brookville transmitter site, and thus, beyond the applicant's calculated radio horizon, applicant stated that there was no interference. However, in its reconsideration petition, applicant acknowledges "that there may be small portions of the protected service area of the previously studied and served H-channel facilities at Rockford where the 45 dB D/U ratio may not be met . . . ." Our independent engineering analysis of the applications filed by petitioner shows that the RuralVision Central proposed transmitter antenna site had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service areas of previously authorized MDS stations at Rockford, Illinois. See  7 supra. RuralVision Central failed to adequately demonstrate through calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles that it had provided interference protection to the previously authorized cochannel stations at Rockford. 12. The RuralVision South application for Knippa, Texas stated that "any cochannel MDS station more than 60.2 miles from the instant proposal can receive no interference, since no portion of its service area has an unobstructed electrical path from the instant proposal." The MDS cochannel station in Leon Springs, Texas was 62.60 miles away from the Knippa transmitter site, and the MDS cochannel station in Carrizo Springs, Texas was 65.99 miles away from the Knippa transmitter site. Therefore, RuralVision South stated that there was no interference. On reconsideration RuralVision South further asserted that the stations in Leon Springs and Carrizo Springs were beyond the geographic area that RuralVision was required to study and serve. Our independent engineering analysis of the Knippa application filed by petitioner shows that the returned application proposed a transmitter antenna site that had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service areas of previously authorized MDS stations at both Leon Springs, Texas and Carrizo Springs, Texas. See  8 supra. Thus, these MDS stations should have been studied by the applicant in its initial application, pursuant to  21.902. See  3. RuralVision South failed to adequately demonstrate through calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles that it had provided interference protection to the previously authorized cochannel stations at Leon Springs and Carrizo Springs. 13. Both RuralVision Central and RuralVision South request that the Commission consider any problem regarding their inability to obtain the 45 dB desired to undesired signal ratio for MDS cochannel stations "as though it [the antenna] were offset differently from this proposal for purposes of interference." However, the 45 dB protection demonstration is required, pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), unless the affected MDS station licensee agrees to employ a transmitter frequency offset technique with the subsequently-filed applicant. Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 6770 ("We agree . . . that a 45 dB demonstration should still be required for MDS cochannel stations, unless there is a voluntary agreement between affected MDS station licensees to employ a frequency offset technique."). Petitioners submit no documentation from affected stations demonstrating such consent. Commission staff cannot rely on hypothetical or intended changes in an applicant's engineering proposal; the staff may only review the application based on the properly submitted forms and exhibits which compose an application. Petitioners therefore failed to fulfill the requirements of our rules regarding the use of frequency offset techniques. 14. On reconsideration RuralVision Central notes that it can protect co-channel facilities with which it harmfully interferes by replacing receive antennas. RuralVision South asserts that interference to co-channel stations would be "easily remedied" and it would bear the costs of eliminating that interference. Petitioners' assertions do not excuse their failure to submit interference studies as required by Section 21.902. The mandate that applicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith commandment of Section 21.902(a), which mandates 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 . . . ." See also  21.31. A pledge to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a) by replacing antennas or bearing the costs of eliminating interference does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of  21.902(c). As described in  9-10, supra, the interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. This is not a step that can be skipped, as implied by petitioners. 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 a license. 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 were technically qualified to be MDS licensees as required by 21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 15. Our analysis of the interference studies that were submitted by RuralVision Central and RuralVision South shows that the returned applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by  21.902(f); to use correct methodology in calculating the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations; and to include required demonstrations, such as calculations, shadow maps, or terrain profiles (see  21.902(d)). See also Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5716 ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment."). Thus, in view of all of the above, these applications filed by RuralVision Central and RuralVision South were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 16. Curative Amendments/Disparate Treatment. In their reconsideration petitions, RuralVision Central and RuralVision South argue that their interference analyses were "substantially complete" and that they should be allowed to file minor, curative amendments to resolve any potential conflict with the previously authorized stations. In each reconsideration petition, petitioners claim that they can solve problems regarding their failure to provide adequate interference protection by filing minor, curative amendments. Both RuralVision Central and RuralVision South state that "[i]n every other case to date, the FCC has given MDS applicants the opportunity to submit minor amendments to cure their applications." Petitioners assert that the Commission violated administrative due process by failing to treat RuralVision Central and RuralVision South similarly to other MDS applicants who were given the opportunity to file minor curative amendments. 17. Petitioners argue that if the Commission seeks to prohibit applicants from filing minor, curative amendments in the form of interference studies, it must provide notice of this change in the Commission's processing of MDS applications. We note that only pending applications are amendable as a matter of right. Section 21.23(a)(1) provides that any pending application may be amended as a matter of right if the application has not been designated for the random selection process. 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a)(1). The RuralVision Central and RuralVision South applications reviewed in this order have been returned by return notification letter and thus, by definition, are no longer pending. Therefore, they may not be amended as a matter of right. Although petitioners claim that they were not given an opportunity to file minor curative amendments to their interference analyses, this assertion is incorrect. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South had ample opportunity to amend their applications by filing minor, curative amendments prior to their return by the Commission. Although Commission rules allow applicants to amend their applications prior to return or dismissal by the agency, such rules provide no opportunity for amendment after applications have been returned. Therefore, petitioners are inaccurate in stating that "the FCC has suddenly decided to prohibit applicants from filing minor curative amendments." 18. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South cite several instances where the Commission staff sent deficiency letters to applicants designated as tentative selectees following their participation in the random selection process, and allowed the tentative selectees to cure defects in their applications: Stephen Communications, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 355 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); T/V Communications Associates, 7 FCC Rcd 7647 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992); Stephen C. Bailey, 7 FCC Rcd 7252 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992); and Microwave Video Services, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 7254 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). Petitioners apparently seek to equate their return notification letters with the deficiency letters sent to tentative selectees, and argue that the Commission's refusal to permit them to file curative amendments in response to their return notification letters is a violation of administrative due process. However, returned applicants and tentative selectees are treated differently under Commission rules because returned applicants have been found unacceptable for filing by Commission staff, while tentative selectees have been found acceptable for filing prior to participation in a lottery. "[A]ll applications must be acceptable for filing in order to be included in a lottery." 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, Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service, 57 RR 2d 943, 949 (1985) (hereinafter MMDS Lottery Order). Since tentative selectees have already been found acceptable for filing, only minor clarifications or additions should remain to be made to their applications. Hence, Commission staff may send deficiency letters to a tentative selectee to cure minor problems prior to grant of an application that was otherwise acceptable for filing. However, an application that has been adjudged unacceptable for filing is, by definition, defective and properly returned or dismissed by Commission staff. 19. The cited deficiency letters involved four applicants who filed their applications in 1983, participated in the random selection process, had been selected as tentative selectees for qualification review, and were subsequently notified by Commission staff of deficiencies in their applications. The Commission staff provided an opportunity to cure such deficiencies by amendment within 30 days. The deficiencies referred to in one of the letters appear to be deficiencies which, under the rules applicable at the time the application was filed, did not render the application unacceptable for filing. In the other instances cited, the applications were unacceptable for filing but were nevertheless entered in their respective lotteries. After the applicants were chosen as tentative selectees, they were erroneously given an opportunity to amend their applications to cure the deficiencies which made them unacceptable for filing in contravention of the procedures established in the MMDS Lottery Order. However, 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, Jr., 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). Therefore, the fact that tentative selectees in the cited instances may have been improperly given the opportunity to cure deficiencies in applications, which should have been dismissed as unacceptable for filing, does not compel the Commission to allow petitioners to amend their applications after they have properly been returned as unacceptable for filing, pursuant to established Commission rules and procedures. 20. Notice of Change in Commission Policy. Petitioners also state that the Commission failed to provide prior notice of a purported change in Commission processing of MDS applications which applied a new, strict standard by which RuralVision applications were dismissed due to minor defects. We note that RuralVision Central and RuralVision South applications were defective and unacceptable for filing in that petitioners submitted incomplete interference analyses. Pursuant to  21.20(a)(1), an application is defined as unacceptable for filing if it is "defective with respect to . . . informational showings." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a)(1). Interference analyses are informational showings, and Part 21 rules further state that "[a defective] application will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies." Id. Furthermore, as discussed in  9-15, supra, inadequate interference studies are not "minor defects." 21. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South further contend that the FCC has dismissed RuralVision's applications without providing petitioners an opportunity to cure minor defects in their applications. Petitioners also note that if the Commission wishes to prohibit MDS applicants from filing minor, curative amendments, it must provide prior notice of this change in its MDS application processing policies. Applicants for new MDS stations on the H channels are required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel stations with their applications. While petitioners seek to add additional technical information to the interference analyses submitted with their original applications by including documentation with their reconsideration petitions, the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an application has been returned or dismissed. Indeed, there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such showings at that stage. See note 20, supra. Thus, these petitioners may not amend their applications upon the filing of reconsideration petitions, and their applications should not be reinstated nunc pro tunc. 22. Petitioners argue that the manner of the Commission's enforcement of its rules in effect represents new application policies or standards which required full and explicit notice, but that RuralVision Central and RuralVision South were not provided the requisite notice, citing Radio Athens, Inc., (WATH) v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Petitioners add, referring to McElroy Electronics Corporation v. FCC, 990 F.2d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1993), that the return actions evidence a lack of clarity in application standards. However, the Part 21 standard for acceptability of applications has long been whether an application is "acceptable for filing." See  21.31(b) and 21.914; see also 47 U.S.C.  309(i)(1). In referring to the Domestic Public Radio Services Order, we explicitly stated that "all MDS applicants have been on notice since 1976 of the processing requirements for MDS applications and the requirement that the applications be in a condition acceptable for filing' in order to be entitled to comparative consideration." New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1601 n.3 (1985). Moreover, in finding that inadequate demonstrations of interference protection constituted defects rendering petitioners' applications unacceptable for filing, "the staff was engaged in the interpretation of an existing rule, and consequently, prior notice of the action was not required." Id. Section 21.20(a) of the Commission's rules sets forth the two different tests under either of which an application is determined to be unacceptable for filing, and states that an application deemed unacceptable for filing will be returned to the applicant. 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). See  3, supra. 23. The cited cases are also distinguishable on their facts. In Radio Athens, the application was reinstated in part because the duopoly ownership rule in question did not indicate that an application with a duopoly problem would be dismissed without consideration. Id. at 403. In McElroy, the D.C. Circuit concluded that a careful reader of a Commission order could not have been expected to understand that a further announcement by the Commission was a condition precedent to the filing of an application, where the order seemed to indicate that applications could be filed after a five year period and indications that a further Commission announcement was required were vague at best and not reasonably ascertainable from the context of the order and from normal English language usage, and where the Commission's conduct reinforced petitioners' argument that they had no notice of the staff's interpretation of the order. In contrast,  21.20(a) and 21.914 clearly indicate the criteria for rendering an application unacceptable for filing and depriving it of comparative consideration, and petitioners' applications were returned accordingly. See Florida Cellular Mobile Communications Corporation v. FCC, 28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("The Commission need not supply a separate shopping list' specifying that each separate rule violation may lead to dismissal. It is enough that the FCC rules are clearly spelled out and applicants are on notice that their applications are subject to dismissal for failure to comply with these rules."). Thus, petitioners had full notice of the standard under which their applications were evaluated, and this standard is of sufficient clarity "to apprise an applicant of what is expected." See McElroy, 990 F.2d at 1358. 24. Petitioners further argue, citing Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 852, that when an agency changes its policy, it must articulate its reasons for doing so, but that the Commission has yet to articulate the required "reasoned analysis" for its new policies. However, as discussed above, the Part 21 acceptability standard is long-established and the return of petitioners' applications is not at all indicative of a new policy or approach to evaluating applications. Furthermore, we find that the return notification letters sent to petitioners gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return of the applications. Section 21.20(a), which governs the disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). 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. Although waiver requests were not involved with the return letters, we believe the same principle is determinative as was enunciated by the Court of Appeals in WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1969): "[T]he agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application." As discussed in  5, supra, these petitioning applicants were afforded sufficient information to know that their applications were being returned due to defects specified in the return letters. We have also now further explained, in this order, the deficiencies regarding frequency interference and notice which properly rendered petitioners' applications unacceptable for filing. Thus, the bases for the return actions "may reasonably be discerned." See Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 851. 25. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South failed to file adequate interference studies and thus their applications for Brookville, Illinois and Knippa, Texas were unacceptable for filing. Petitioners' applications were properly returned by return notification letters. Despite petitioners' allegations, no new, strict standard was applied to their applications; rather, they were held to the Part 21 rules which applied to H channel applications and authorizations as of January 2, 1992. 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 of an application assumes the risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1961); see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). V. CONCLUSION 27. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc. applications. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc, ARE HEREBY DENIED. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Charles E. Dziedzic Assistant Chief Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau