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,>fx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7Xn-6F[w!/DTck{2r ZKf '3|j'c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$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@\@\`L2g%K K K#"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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8??PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:KKs@KB EqJ"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxWashington, D.C. 20554 ă       XA-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#In the Matter of)  X*-)pp  X-RURALVISION CENTRAL, INC.,hhCqpp)ppFile Nos. 5CMP92,  X-)pp 40CMP92,  X-For Authority to Construct and Operate )pp 88CMP92  X-Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the) H Channels at Brookville, Illinois ) )  X -RURALVISION SOUTH, INC.)ppFile No.328CMP92 ) For Authority to Construct and Operate a ) Multipoint Distribution Service Station on the ) H Channels at Knippa, Texas)  X-   X-  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ă  X- Adopted: June 7, 1996 Released: June 11, 1996 By the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division:  X^-yRI. INTRODUCTION  v "1. The Video Services Division has before it two petitions for reconsideration of the  d(#return, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 1.106(a) on delegated authority, of four applications for authority  d(#to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the H channels at  X- d(#transmitter sites at Brookville, Illinois& yOd- d(#ԍ Application File Nos. 5CMP92 for the H1 channel; 40CMP92 for the H2 channel; and 88CMP92 for the H3 channel. and Knippa, Texas._ & yO-ԍ Application File No. 328CMP92 for the H1 channel._ These applications were filed with  d(#the Commission by RuralVision Central, Inc. ("RuralVision Central") and RuralVision South, Inc.  d(#("RuralVision South") on January 2, 1992. We will consider the joint reconsideration petition  d(#filed by RuralVision Central for the three Brookville applications and the reconsideration petition filed by RuralVision South for the Knippa application in this single order. UII. BACKGROUND  v 2. To implement the reallocation of the three H channels from the Private Operational d(#Fixed Microwave Service ("OFS") to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Commission placed  d(#a freeze on the filing of such applications pursuant to Part 94 of the Commission's rules starting"$,))ZZ""  X- d(#/September 27, 1991, and ending January 2, 1992. Second Report and Order, Amendment of  d(#Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in the  d(#=2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service, Multipoint  d(#YDistribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed  X- d(#Service, and Cable Television Relay Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6792, 6794 n.9 (1991) (hereinafter  X- d(#Second Report and Order). As of January 2, 1992, the date the abovecaptioned applications  d(#were filed, Part 21 of the Commission's rules applied to H channel applications and  Xe-authorizations.e& yO- d(#,ԍ Any H channel applicant or licensee who wanted Part 94 rules (OFS rules) to apply in lieu of the Part 21 rules  {O - d(#had to submit a waiver request on or before January 2, 1992. Second Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 6818. None  d(#/of the abovecaptioned H channel applications included such a waiver request; thus, all were evaluated by Commission staff under Part 21 rules.   X7- v |3. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the abovenoted applications were filed, 47  d(#C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) required each MDS applicant to engineer its proposed station to provide  X - d(#-at least 45 dB of interference protection within the protected service areasr z& yO4-ԍ Section 21.902(d) defines the protected service area for MDS stations. r of all other authorized  d(#ior previously proposed cochannel stations. To demonstrate compliance with this MDS frequency  d(#condition and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made, 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)  X - d(#required an MDS application to include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference  & yO- d(#ԍ Section 21.902(f) defines harmful interference as the ratio of desired signal to undesired signal present in the  d(#cochannel channel at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented to receive the maximum desired signal.  d(#xCochannel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation determines that this ratio is less than 45 dB. 47 C.F.R. 21.902(f).  with  d(#any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had  d(#an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized  d(#or previously proposed adjacent or cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter  d(#Kwas within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed  d(#ycochannel station. The applicant also needed to show the steps taken to comply with 47 C.F.R.  X:- d(#y 21.902(a), which requires, inter alia, MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to  d(#make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference with other users and to avoid blocking potential cochannel stations in nearby areas.  X- v 24. ITFS Interference Studies. The Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS")  d(#<interference analyses submitted by the applicants were not evaluated on reconsideration as none  d(#of the H channel applications had appeared on public notice. ITFS studies are not due to be filed  d(#.with the Commission or served on ITFS licensees until an H channel application has appeared  X-on public notice. ~ & yO'&- d(#ԍ For MDS applications filed after December 29, 1991, as the four above referenced applications were, Section  d(#21.902(i) of the Commission's rules requires that an H channel applicant submit an analysis demonstrating that  d(#operation of the applicant's transmitter will not cause harmful interference to any licensed or authorized adjacent d(#channel G channel ITFS station with a transmitter site within 50 miles of the coordinates of the MDS H channel"(,))("  d(#station's proposed transmitter site. Section 21.902(i)(2) notes that the analysis described in that section must be filed  d(#wwith the Commission and served on each affected ITFS licensee and/or construction permittee on or before the 60th  {O - d(#day after the H channel application is placed on public notice. In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78,  d(#and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private  d(#kOperationalFixed Service, Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service,  {Oz- d(#wInstructional Television Fixed Service, & Cable Television Relay Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6764, 6782 (1991) (hereinafter  {OD-Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order); 47 C.F.R.  21.902(i)(2), (3) and (4) (1992).  ",))ZZ"Ԍz III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION  v 5. The Commission staff returned the RuralVision Central H1, H2, and H3 channel  X- d(#applications proposing the same transmitter site at Brookville, Illinois~ yOz - d(#wԍ Application File No. 5CMP92 for the H1 channel; Application File No. 40CMP92 for the H2 channel; and Application File No. 88CMP92 for the H3 channel. and the RuralVision South  X- d(#H1 channel application proposing a transmitter site at Knippa, TexasKf ~ yO-ԍ Application File No. 328CMP92.K as defective and  d(#>unacceptable for filing by individual return notification letters dated February 16, 1994, and  d(#{September 28, 1994, respectively. Each of the letters indicated that the applications were  d(#yreturned because the applicants: (1) failed to meet the  21.902 requirements for performance of  d(#xinterference studies, due to failure to serve all affected parties with interference studies and failure  d(#to consider all authorized or previously proposed MDS stations; (2) failed to specify type d(#Laccepted equipment, pursuant to  21.120; (3) failed to submit an updated fullyexecuted deed,  X - d(#lease, or option agreement, as required by  21.15(a);   yO- d(#ԍ At the time the abovereferenced applications were filed,  21.15(a) required that if an applicant did not own  d(#the location on which it sought to construct its proposed station, the location's "availability for the proposed radio  {O:- d(#site shall be demonstrated." In a 1987 Report and Order, we clarified this requirement as it applied to MDS  d(#;applications: "[W]hen selection between mutuallyexclusive applications is by the random selection process, it shall  {O- d(#be sufficient if the application adequately demonstrates reasonable assurance of the availability of the site." Revision  {O- d(#of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5721 (1987). Upon further examination of the petitioned  d(#applications on reconsideration, we find that the applications did meet the reasonable assurance test. However, it  d(#kwas harmless error, nonetheless, because these Brookville and Knippa applications were still deficient and  {O- d(#unacceptable for filing for other reasons discussed herein. See Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, 444  {O- d(#F.2d 841, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971) (The court will not upset a decision because of errors that are not material, "there being room for the doctrine of harmless error.").  and (4) failed to submit sufficient, specific maintenance information, pursuant to  21.15(e).  v 6. In petitions for reconsideration of the returned Brookville and Knippa applications,  d(#!timely filed with the Commission on March 18, 1994, and October 28, 1994, respectively,  X- d(#]RuralVision Central and RuralVision South make arguments concerning the adequacy of  d(#zsubmitted interference analyses; the acceptability of the cited transmitters; the adequacy of  d(#Zsubmitted site availability documentation; the sufficiency of maintenance information; the alleged  d(#disparate treatment given these applications; and purported changes in Commission policy. As  d(#<discussed in detail below, interference analyses are necessary at the time of application filing due"4` ,N(N(ZZ"  d(#to the extensive planning and engineering involved in the MDS licensing process. Also, service  d(#upon affected parties, as defined by  21.902(g), is provided for in the Commission's rules so that  d(#partiesininterest have actual notice of the proposed station and sufficient time to respond if  d(#desired. Because we find dispositive the failure of RuralVision Central and RuralVision South  d(#to submit adequate interference showings with their applications and the additional failure of  d(#xRuralVision South to give notice by service of required interference studies to the parties required  Xv-to be studied, it is unnecessary to address petitioners' other arguments.  XH- v 7. Brookville, Illinois. The Brookville H1, H2, and H3 channel applications proposed  d(#<a transmitter antenna site that had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service  X - d(#area of or was within 50 miles of previously authorized cochannel stations at Rockford, Illinois. X  yO - d(#ԍ MDS station WNTI207, Application File No. 768819 for the H1 channel; MDS station WNTI343,  d(#Application File No. 768794 for the H2 channel; and MDS station WNTI287, Application File No. 768797 for the H3 channel.  d(#Although RuralVision Central submitted cochannel interference studies for the MDS stations at  d(#/Rockford, the analyses were inadequate in that the applicant: (1) did not include free space  d(#calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within  X - d(#the protected service areas of the authorized stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  X - d(#M 21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of the  d(#authorized stations; (3) indicated that the radio horizon was 30.6 miles distant from its transmitter  d(#sites, but did not submit required demonstrations, such as calculations, shadow maps or terrain  d(#profiles; (4) failed to engineer the proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel  d(#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.  X- v !8. Knippa, Texas. The Knippa application proposed a transmitter antenna site that had  d(#an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service area of or was within 50 miles of  X- d(#previously authorized cochannel stations at Leon Springs, Texas[  yOs-ԍ MDS station WNTA693, Application File No. 752650.[ and Carrizo Springs, Texas.[ x yO-ԍ MDS station WNTL424, Application File No. 776854.[  d(#RuralVision South failed to submit an interference study for the Carrizo Springs MDS station.  d(#The cochannel interference analysis submitted for the MDS station at Leon Springs was  d(#inadequate in that the applicant: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to  d(#Kundesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the  Xg- d(#kauthorized station, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect  d(#-methodology in calculating the protected service area of the authorized station; (3) indicated that  d(#\the radio horizon was 60.2 miles distant from its transmitter site, but did not submit required  d(#demonstrations, such as calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) failed to engineer the  d(#\proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  d(#21.902(b)(3); and (5) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain." ,N(N(ZZ"ԌYIV. DISCUSSION  X- v 9. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established  d(#the principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any  d(#previously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel  d(#sought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference  Xv- d(#kwill not occur with respect to the first MDS channel . . . ." Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21 and  d(#k43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of  XJ- d(#Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 621  X5- d(#N(1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order). Over ten years before the abovereferenced  d(#applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications:  v #XIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause  v Nunacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles. Section  v ]21.90[2](c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an interference  v study containing an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station.(#  Vh-  XQ- d(#zR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981). Q yO- d(#ԍ The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path from the  {O- d(#happlicant's MDS station to the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed station. Amendment  d(#Lof Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements  d(#applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private  {O-OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 8991 (hereinafter MDS Technical Order). It also has been recognized that "the demonstration  d(#lof interference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest  X%- d(#determination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family  X- d(#Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768 n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,  d(#21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference  X- d(#protection| {O- d(#ԍ MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment  yO- d(#case, the Domestic Facilities Division upheld the return, as unacceptable for filing, of an application which  d(#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:  {O - v XWe reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O!- v minimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference  v >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. (# 9 FCC Rcd at 568.  and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ v _10. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to  X- d(#.existing MDS stations. As discussed in  3, supra, applicants for new MDS stations on the H  d(#Kchannels are required to submit specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel  d(#.stations at the time of filing. The interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which  d(#demands complete compliance at the time an application is filed for a proposed MDS site. Thus,  d(#Nthe Commission has stressed that "we expect applicants to address this problem in their  d(#applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to  d(#Mavoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing."  VJ- d(#Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to  d(#frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution  X - d(#Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983)  X - d(#(hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order); see also  21.902(b) and (c). Complete and adequate  d(# interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual  d(#Mexclusivity to be made. Without them a logjam would be created, making it more difficult to  X -reach final actions.  {O=- d(#ԍ See Sioux Valley, 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988) ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS  d(#Kapplications as mutuallyexclusive was determined by a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses . .  d(#. ."). If the Commission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would lack  d(#sufficient technical information for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on many applications until  d(#Mthe studies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants may be tempted to wait as long as possible to submit  d(#-interference studies so as to minimize the number that must be submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would  {O- d(#lead to a stalemate where the Commission could neither grant nor return or dismiss any application. See also Dan  {O- d(#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.").  v @11. At the time the RuralVision Central applications for Brookville, Illinois were filed,  d(#applicant stated that "any cochannel MDS station more than 30.6 miles from the instant proposal  d(#can receive no interference, since no portion of its service area has an unobstructed electrical path  XQ- d(#yfrom the instant proposal." As MDS cochannel stations in Rockford, IllinoisXQ yO- d(#ԍ MDS station WNTI207, Application File No. 768819 for the H1 channel; MDS station WNTI343,  d(#Application File No. 768794 for the H2 channel; and MDS station WNTI287, Application File No. 768797 for the H3 channel. were 31.99 miles  d(#>away from RuralVision Central's proposed Brookville transmitter site, and thus, beyond the  d(#=applicant's calculated radio horizon, applicant stated that there was no interference. However,  d(#yin its reconsideration petition, applicant acknowledges "that there may be small portions of the  d(#protected service area of the previously studied and served Hchannel facilities at Rockford where  d(#the 45 dB D/U ratio may not be met . . . ." Our independent engineering analysis of the  d(#applications filed by petitioner shows that the RuralVision Central proposed transmitter antenna  d(#>site had an unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service areas of previously  X- d(#authorized MDS stations at Rockford, Illinois. See  7 supra. RuralVision Central failed to  d(#adequately demonstrate through calculations, shadow maps or terrain profiles that it had provided interference protection to the previously authorized cochannel stations at Rockford. "V ,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ v m 12. The RuralVision South application for Knippa, Texas stated that "any cochannel  d(#MDS station more than 60.2 miles from the instant proposal can receive no interference, since  d(#-no portion of its service area has an unobstructed electrical path from the instant proposal." The  X- d(#MDS cochannel station in Leon Springs, Texas[ yO4-ԍ MDS station WNTA693, Application File No. 752650.[ was 62.60 miles away from the Knippa  X- d(#transmitter site, and the MDS cochannel station in Carrizo Springs, Texas[X yO-ԍ MDS station WNTL424, Application File No. 776854.[ was 65.99 miles away  d(#!from the Knippa transmitter site. Therefore, RuralVision South stated that there was no  d(#interference. On reconsideration RuralVision South further asserted that the stations in Leon  d(#jSprings and Carrizo Springs were beyond the geographic area that RuralVision was required to  d(#study and serve. Our independent engineering analysis of the Knippa application filed by  d(#petitioner shows that the returned application proposed a transmitter antenna site that had an  d(#unobstructed electrical path to part of the protected service areas of previously authorized MDS  X - d(#stations at both Leon Springs, Texas and Carrizo Springs, Texas. See  8 supra. Thus, these  d(#MDS stations should have been studied by the applicant in its initial application, pursuant to  X - d(#k21.902. See  3. RuralVision South failed to adequately demonstrate through calculations,  d(#shadow maps or terrain profiles that it had provided interference protection to the previously authorized cochannel stations at Leon Springs and Carrizo Springs.  X-   v A13. Both RuralVision Central and RuralVision South request that the Commission  d(#consider any problem regarding their inability to obtain the 45 dB desired to undesired signal  d(#ratio for MDS cochannel stations "as though it [the antenna] were offset differently from this  d(#Kproposal for purposes of interference." However, the 45 dB protection demonstration is required,  d(#0pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), unless the affected MDS station licensee agrees to employ a  X - d(#transmitter frequency offset technique with the subsequentlyfiled applicant.  Wireless Cable  X- d(#Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 6770 ("We agree . . . that a 45 dB demonstration should  d(#still be required for MDS cochannel stations, unless there is a voluntary agreement between  d(#affected MDS station licensees to employ a frequency offset technique."). Petitioners submit no  d(#Zdocumentation from affected stations demonstrating such consent. Commission staff cannot rely  d(#on hypothetical or intended changes in an applicant's engineering proposal; the staff may only  d(#review the application based on the properly submitted forms and exhibits which compose an  d(#application. Petitioners therefore failed to fulfill the requirements of our rules regarding the use of frequency offset techniques.  v l14. On reconsideration RuralVision Central notes that it can protect cochannel facilities  d(#with which it harmfully interferes by replacing receive antennas. RuralVision South asserts that  d(#interference to cochannel stations would be "easily remedied" and it would bear the costs of  d(#]eliminating that interference. Petitioners' assertions do not excuse their failure to submit  d(#interference studies as required by Section 21.902. The mandate that applicants submit  d(#interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith  d(#commandment of Section 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and"",N(N(ZZ!"  d(#licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . . [and] are expected  X- d(#zto cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ." See also  X- d(#21.31. A pledge to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a) by replacing antennas or  d(#bearing the costs of eliminating interference does not exempt any MDS applicant from  X- d(#@compliance with the requirements of  21.902(c). As described in   910, supra, the  d(#interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application  d(#[so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. This is not a step that can be skipped,  d(#=as implied by petitioners. In addition, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that applicants must  d(#demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of a license. Based upon  d(#these considerations, we conclude that petitioners failed to comply with the technical requirements  d(#=set forth in  21.902 regarding interference protection and failed to demonstrate that they were  d(#technically qualified to be MDS licensees as required by 21.900. Thus, these applications were  X -properly returned as unacceptable for filing.   v 15. Our analysis of the interference studies that were submitted by RuralVision Central  X - d(#and RuralVision South shows that the returned applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least  d(#M45 dB of cochannel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); to include free space  d(#calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each reference receiving antenna within  d(#Nthe protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by  d(#21.902(f); to use correct methodology in calculating the protected service area of authorized  d(#or previously proposed stations; and to include required demonstrations, such as calculations,  X#- d(#shadow maps, or terrain profiles (see  21.902(d)). See also Revision of Part 21 of The  X- d(#Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5716 ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on  d(#accurate data about the interference environment."). Thus, in view of all of the above, these  d(#applications filed by RuralVision Central and RuralVision South were properly returned as  X-unacceptable for filing.   X- v 16. Curative Amendments/Disparate Treatment. In their reconsideration petitions,  d(#RuralVision Central and RuralVision South argue that their interference analyses were  d(#"substantially complete" and that they should be allowed to file minor, curative amendments to  d(#Lresolve any potential conflict with the previously authorized stations. In each reconsideration  d(#Zpetition, petitioners claim that they can solve problems regarding their failure to provide adequate  d(#\interference protection by filing minor, curative amendments. Both RuralVision Central and  d(#[RuralVision South state that "[i]n every other case to date, the FCC has given MDS applicants  d(#the opportunity to submit minor amendments to cure their applications." Petitioners assert that  d(#Lthe Commission violated administrative due process by failing to treat RuralVision Central and  d(#kRuralVision South similarly to other MDS applicants who were given the opportunity to file minor curative amendments.  v 17. Petitioners argue that if the Commission seeks to prohibit applicants from filing  d(#minor, curative amendments in the form of interference studies, it must provide notice of this  d(#change in the Commission's processing of MDS applications. We note that only pending  d(#applications are amendable as a matter of right. Section 21.23(a)(1) provides that any pending  d(#application may be amended as a matter of right if the application has not been designated for"-',N(N(ZZ%"  d(#the random selection process. 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a)(1). The RuralVision Central and RuralVision  d(#South applications reviewed in this order have been returned by return notification letter and thus,  d(#Lby definition, are no longer pending. Therefore, they may not be amended as a matter of right.  d(#Although petitioners claim that they were not given an opportunity to file minor curative  d(#=amendments to their interference analyses, this assertion is incorrect. RuralVision Central and  d(#RuralVision South had ample opportunity to amend their applications by filing minor, curative  Xv- d(#amendments prior to their return by the Commission.Dv yO- d(#ԍ Subsequent to petitioners' filing, but prior to return, the Commission imposed a freeze, effective April 9,  {O- d(#1992, on, among other things, the filing of most amendments to pending applications. Notice of Proposed  {O - d(#Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n.35 (1992). Section 21.23(a) which allows, under certain circumstances,  d(#Jamendments as of right was also changed to include "provided, however, that . . . the Commission has not otherwise  d(#Lforbidden the amendment of pending applications." 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a). However, RuralVision Central and  d(#RuralVision South still had slightly over four months, from January 2, 1992, to April 9, 1992, to amend their  d(#japplications to include information, such as interference studies, which should have been submitted with their applications.  Although Commission rules allow  d(#kapplicants to amend their applications prior to return or dismissal by the agency, such rules  XJ- d(#>provide no opportunity for amendment after applications have been returned.J {O- d(#ԍ See, e.g., Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 n.7 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[I]t is no longer possible to  {O- d(#amend an application which has already been dismissed . . . ."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506 (Dom. Fac. Div.  d(#K1993) (curative amendments filed with petition for reconsideration, attempting to supply a missing interference  {O+- d(#showing and other missing information, not allowed); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668, 4669, n.9 (Dom. Fac.  d(#,Div. 1992) ("We reject Benson's contention that she should be permitted to file curative amendments and have her  {O- d(#application reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. We believe that the Division's initial return of the abovereferenced Benson application as unacceptable for filing was correct . . . .").  Therefore,  d(#Lpetitioners are inaccurate in stating that "the FCC has suddenly decided to prohibit applicants from filing minor curative amendments."  X - v  18. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South cite several instances where the  d(#<Commission staff sent deficiency letters to applicants designated as tentative selectees following  d(#.their participation in the random selection process, and allowed the tentative selectees to cure  X - d(#defects in their applications: Stephen Communications, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 355 (Dom. Fac. Div.  X- d(# 1993); T/V Communications Associates, 7 FCC Rcd 7647 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992); Stephen C.  X- d(#jBailey, 7 FCC Rcd 7252 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992); and Microwave Video Services, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd  d(#7254 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). Petitioners apparently seek to equate their return notification letters  d(#with the deficiency letters sent to tentative selectees, and argue that the Commission's refusal to  d(#permit them to file curative amendments in response to their return notification letters is a  d(#Kviolation of administrative due process. However, returned applicants and tentative selectees are  d(#treated differently under Commission rules because returned applicants have been found  d(#xunacceptable for filing by Commission staff, while tentative selectees have been found acceptable  d(#for filing prior to participation in a lottery. "[A]ll applications must be acceptable for filing in  X- d(#order to be included in a lottery." Second Report and Order, Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and  d(#94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in Regard to Frequency Allocation to the  d(#Instructional Television Fixed Service, Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private" ,N(N(ZZ"  X- d(#OperationalFixed Microwave Service, 57 RR 2d 943, 949 (1985) (hereinafter MMDS Lottery  X- d(#>Order). Since tentative selectees have already been found acceptable for filing, only minor  d(#clarifications or additions should remain to be made to their applications. Hence, Commission  d(#ystaff may send deficiency letters to a tentative selectee to cure minor problems prior to grant of  d(#=an application that was otherwise acceptable for filing. However, an application that has been  d(#jadjudged unacceptable for filing is, by definition, defective and properly returned or dismissed  Xz-by Commission staff.   v 19. The cited deficiency letters involved four applicants who filed their applications in  d(#1983, participated in the random selection process, had been selected as tentative selectees for  d(#qualification review, and were subsequently notified by Commission staff of deficiencies in their  d(#applications. The Commission staff provided an opportunity to cure such deficiencies by  X - d(#amendment within 30 days."  yOi - d(#ԍ Section 21.23(a)(2) provides for a 14day period, after an application is put on public notice as being the  d(#lottery tentative selectee, within which the applicant can make amendments to its application as a matter of right.  d(#In the cases cited, the Commission staff provided the tentative selectees 30 days within which to cure deficiencies  {O-identified in the deficiency letters. See 47 C.F.R.  21.13(a)(3). The deficiencies referred to in one of the letters appear to be  d(#deficiencies which, under the rules applicable at the time the application was filed, did not render  d(#the application unacceptable for filing. In the other instances cited, the applications were  d(#Munacceptable for filing but were nevertheless entered in their respective lotteries. After the  d(#applicants were chosen as tentative selectees, they were erroneously given an opportunity to  d(#zamend their applications to cure the deficiencies which made them unacceptable for filing in  Xf- d(#]contravention of the procedures established in the MMDS Lottery Order. However, the  XQ- d(#Commission is not bound by such staff errors. See, e.g., North Texas Media, Inc. v. FCC, 778  d(#F.2d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident grant of a [shortspacing] waiver . . . now  d(#described as an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require future applicants to  X- d(#meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver."); Quinnipiac College , 8 FCC Rcd 6285,  X- d(#l6286 (1993); Walter P. Faber, Jr., 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493 (1989), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd  X- d(#3601 (1991), aff'd mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Therefore, the fact that  d(#Ztentative selectees in the cited instances may have been improperly given the opportunity to cure  d(#deficiencies in applications, which should have been dismissed as unacceptable for filing, does  d(#>not compel the Commission to allow petitioners to amend their applications after they have  d(#properly been returned as unacceptable for filing, pursuant to established Commission rules and  Xs-procedures. s yO - d(#ԍ We note that none of the tentative selectees referred to by the petitioners received the MMDS station licenses sought in the subject applications as they failed to cure the stated deficiencies in a timely manner.   XE- v !20. Notice of Change in Commission Policy. Petitioners also state that the Commission  d(#failed to provide prior notice of a purported change in Commission processing of MDS  d(#applications which applied a new, strict standard by which RuralVision applications were  d(#dismissed due to minor defects. We note that RuralVision Central and RuralVision South  d(#applications were defective and unacceptable for filing in that petitioners submitted incomplete" ,N(N(ZZ"  d(#interference analyses. Pursuant to  21.20(a)(1), an application is defined as unacceptable for  d(#filing if it is "defective with respect to . . . informational showings." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a)(1).  d(#Interference analyses are informational showings, and Part 21 rules further state that "[a defective]  d(#]application will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or  X- d(#discrepancies." Id. Furthermore, as discussed in  915, supra, inadequate interference studies are not "minor defects."  v 21. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South further contend that the FCC has  d(#dismissed RuralVision's applications without providing petitioners an opportunity to cure minor  d(#Kdefects in their applications. Petitioners also note that if the Commission wishes to prohibit MDS  d(#applicants from filing minor, curative amendments, it must provide prior notice of this change  d(#in its MDS application processing policies. Applicants for new MDS stations on the H channels  d(#Zare required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel stations with  d(#their applications. While petitioners seek to add additional technical information to the  d(#interference analyses submitted with their original applications by including documentation with  d(#their reconsideration petitions, the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings  d(#after an application has been returned or dismissed. Indeed, there has been a series of cases  X{- d(#denying attempts to submit such showings at that stage. See note 20, supra. Thus, these  d(#xpetitioners may not amend their applications upon the filing of reconsideration petitions, and their  XO-applications should not be reinstated nunc pro tunc.  v @22. Petitioners argue that the manner of the Commission's enforcement of its rules in  X - d(#-effect represents new application policies or standards which required full and explicit notice, but  d(#that RuralVision Central and RuralVision South were not provided the requisite notice, citing  X- d(#MRadio Athens, Inc., (WATH) v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Petitioners add, referring  X- d(# to McElroy Electronics Corporation v. FCC, 990 F.2d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1993), that the return  d(#actions evidence a lack of clarity in application standards. However, the Part 21 standard for  X- d(#acceptability of applications has long been whether an application is "acceptable for filing." See  X- d(#{ 21.31(b) and 21.914; see also 47 U.S.C.  309(i)(1). In referring to the Domestic Public  Xs- d(#Radio Services Order,S^s {O- d(#,ԍ Amendment of Parts 1 and 21 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Applicable to the Domestic Public  {O- d(#Radio Services (Other Than Maritime Mobile), 60 FCC 2d 549 (1976) (hereinafter Domestic Public Radio Services  {O-Order).S we explicitly stated that "all MDS applicants have been on notice since  d(#1976 of the processing requirements for MDS applications and the requirement that the  d(#applications be in a condition acceptable for filing' in order to be entitled to comparative  X0- d(#?consideration." New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1601 n.3 (1985).s\0 {O"- d(#ԍ Similarly, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking order, see MDS Allocation  {O#- d(#Order, 45 FCC 2d 616 (1974), and it is a longestablished policy that we need not allow minor, curative amendments  yOc$-after return of an application. s  d(#Moreover, in finding that inadequate demonstrations of interference protection constituted defects  d(#?rendering petitioners' applications unacceptable for filing, "the staff was engaged in the  X- d(#interpretation of an existing rule, and consequently, prior notice of the action was not required." " ,N(N(ZZ"  X- d(#.Id. Section 21.20(a) of the Commission's rules sets forth the two different tests under either of  d(#=which an application is determined to be unacceptable for filing, and states that an application  X- d(#/deemed unacceptable for filing will be returned to the applicant. 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). See   X-3, supra.  X- v 23. The cited cases are also distinguishable on their facts. In Radio Athens, the  d(#application was reinstated in part because the duopoly ownership rule in question did not indicate  Xg- d(#<that an application with a duopoly problem would be dismissed without consideration. Id. at 403.  XR- d(#In McElroy, the D.C. Circuit concluded that a careful reader of a Commission order could not  d(#have been expected to understand that a further announcement by the Commission was a  d(#condition precedent to the filing of an application, where the order seemed to indicate that  d(#applications could be filed after a five year period and indications that a further Commission  d(#announcement was required were vague at best and not reasonably ascertainable from the context  d(#kof the order and from normal English language usage, and where the Commission's conduct  d(#reinforced petitioners' argument that they had no notice of the staff's interpretation of the order.  d(#In contrast,  21.20(a) and 21.914 clearly indicate the criteria for rendering an application  d(#xunacceptable for filing and depriving it of comparative consideration, and petitioners' applications  X- d(#were returned accordingly. See Florida Cellular Mobile Communications Corporation v. FCC,  d(#28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("The Commission need not supply a separate shopping list'  d(#Kspecifying that each separate rule violation may lead to dismissal. It is enough that the FCC rules  d(#-are clearly spelled out and applicants are on notice that their applications are subject to dismissal  X+- d(#for failure to comply with these rules.").Z+ {O- d(#ԍ In Florida Cellular, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the Commission's dismissal of Florida Cellular's application  d(#because the regulations clearly provided that multiple ownership interests in competing applicants were prohibited,  d(#and Florida Cellular was on notice that its application was subject to dismissal for noncompliance with FCC  {O-regulations. Id. at 193. The dismissal rule in question was  22.20(a) (1993), which is a verbatim restatement of  d(#- 21.20(a), except that  22.20(a)(2) calls for compliance with the Commission's rules and requirements while   {O- d(#21.20(a)(2) specifies substantial compliance. The Part 22 rules directly descended from rules in Part 21. See 73  {OZ- d(#FCC 2d 830 (1979); Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services and Public Mobile Radio Services, 44 Fed. Reg. 60532  d(#+ (1979). The court stated that "[t]he Commission's rules and orders put the applicants on notice that their applications  d(#Kwould be subject to dismissal for failure to [substantially] comply with the FCC procedural and substantive rules."  {O-Florida Cellular, 28 F.3d at 198. Z Thus, petitioners had full notice of the standard under  d(#jwhich their applications were evaluated, and this standard is of sufficient clarity "to apprise an  X-applicant of what is expected." See McElroy, 990 F.2d at 1358.  X- v 24. Petitioners further argue, citing Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 852, that when an agency  d(#changes its policy, it must articulate its reasons for doing so, but that the Commission has yet to  d(#articulate the required "reasoned analysis" for its new policies. However, as discussed above, the  d(#<Part 21 acceptability standard is longestablished and the return of petitioners' applications is not  d(#at all indicative of a new policy or approach to evaluating applications. Furthermore, we find  d(#ithat the return notification letters sent to petitioners gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for  d(#/the return of the applications. Section 21.20(a), which governs the disposition of defective  d(#applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies." 47 C.F.R."2 j ,N(N(ZZ>"  d(#k 21.20(a). In each case, the return notification letters indicated at least one reason why the  d(#Mapplications were unacceptable for filing, and cited the relevant rule section or Commission  d(#decision. Although waiver requests were not involved with the return letters, we believe the same  X- d(#principle is determinative as was enunciated by the Court of Appeals in WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418  d(#\F.2d 1153, 1157 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1969): "[T]he agency is not required to author an essay for the  X- d(#jdisposition of each application." As discussed in  5, supra, these petitioning applicants were  d(#-afforded sufficient information to know that their applications were being returned due to defects  d(#specified in the return letters. We have also   now further explained, in this order, the deficiencies  d(#regarding frequency interference and notice which properly rendered petitioners' applications  d(#[unacceptable for filing. Thus, the bases for the return actions "may reasonably be discerned."  X -See Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 851.  v 25. RuralVision Central and RuralVision South failed to file adequate interference studies  d(#and thus their applications for Brookville, Illinois and Knippa, Texas were unacceptable for filing.  d(#-Petitioners' applications were properly returned by return notification letters. Despite petitioners'  d(#Kallegations, no new, strict standard was applied to their applications; rather, they were held to the  d(#=Part 21 rules which applied to H channel applications and authorizations as of January 2, 1992.  d(#All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part 21 of the Commission's rules.  d(#Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the Commission  d(#respecting the requirements of an application assumes the risk that the application will not be  X:- d(#zacceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir. 1961); see also Donald E.  X%-Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). XV. CONCLUSION  v 27. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the  d(#<Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc. applications. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted.  v 28. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Ruralvision Central, Inc. and Ruralvision South, Inc, ARE HEREBY DENIED.  v 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  d(#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