WPCw 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.$h';U7G;A 7Xn-6F[w!/DTck{2r ZKf '3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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""E??PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxm Km"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%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNwere within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed site.Zxf yO - xԍ While the return letter cited, for illustrative purposes, petitioner's failure to perform interference studies for  xadjacent channels (F channels) Pueblo lottery losers, petitioner also failed to perform required analyses for pending  {OF -previously proposed and authorized cochannels (E channels) stations. See infra  11.  Consequently, the Commission staff returned  x the Pueblo application by a return notification letter dated January 26, 1993, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 21.20.  X1-  x3. Petitioner's Arguments on Reconsideration. On February 25, 1993, the Pueblo  xapplicant filed a petition for reconsideration for the returned application. On reconsideration,  xpetitioner claims to have checked the FCC Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") "inventory"  xLlist twice; once at the time of filing, and, again, on reconsideration review. Petitioner contends  xthat the review conducted after the Pueblo application was returned indicated eight pending,  xypreviously proposed applications for the F channels at Pueblo, Colorado, which were within 50  X - xmiles f yO- x,ԍ  Petitioner is silent about the duty to file interference analyses for previously proposed and authorized stations within the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path. of petitioner's proposed site.;X f yOJ- x;ԍ Petitioner fails to mention pending previously proposed and authorized cochannel stations which were located  xwithin the Pueblo Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") with petitioner, as well being located within 50 miles of petitioner's site.; However, petitioner argues, at the time of petitioner's  xapplication filing, petitioner had no way of knowing about the above applications due to the  Xy-reasons discussed below.  XM-  x4. In an attached declaration to the reconsideration petition, the engineer who performed  xthe engineering work for petitioner's application purports to have relied on the thencurrent FCC  xMDS "inventory" list and a printout from the online computer service Dataworld, to search for  xexisting and previously proposed stations, but that neither source revealed the eight pending  xpreviously proposed applications. Thus, petitioner's failure to perform and serve interference  xstudies for these applications was due to their omission from the Commission's "inventory" and  xLDataworld lists. Petitioner argues that it would be unfair to dismiss its application under these circumstances. ",-(-(ZZ"   Mx5. Moreover, after discovering the eight pending previously proposed Pueblo applications  xafter petitioner's application was returned, the engineer then purportedly attempted to obtain  x>copies of these applications from a records search firm, Fair Press Washington Information  xGroup, Ltd. Petitioner's engineer was allegedly informed by Fair Press, however, that the  xapplications were not available from the Commission. Without access to copies of these filings,  xpetitioner's engineer states, petitioner could not revise its interference analysis to include these  xapplications. Petitioner promises that should the Commission make these applications available, petitioner will, at that time, provide interference analyses for these applicants.  X1-   x6. In addition, petitioner claims, without providing evidentiary support, that where, as  x>here, a substantial number of pending applications were awaiting relottery, it had been the  xDomestic Facilities Division's ("Division") practice not to enforce  21.902 with respect to the  X - xpending lottery losers, f yOe - xԍ Section 21.902 requires an applicant for a new MMDS facility to consider, by performing an interference analysis, each such pending previous proposal and to serve a copy of this analysis upon these applicants. if the new MMDS applicant agreed to protect the ultimately selected  xpreviously proposed applicant from objectionable interference. Petitioner states that in the Pueblo  xapplication it expressly provided such protection, in that it pledged to "cooperate fully and in  xigood faith in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference." Petitioner alleges that this  xpolicy was adopted by the Division to avoid the time and expense of requiring an applicant to  xanalyze a substantial number of pending applications, only one of which the applicant would  xactually be required to protect from interference, and to save Commission staff from having to review such lengthy analyses.  X-   x7. Finally, petitioner commits to providing adequate interference protection as necessary,  xand claims to have made extensive efforts to provide MMDS service to Pueblo including  xMexpending substantial monies. Moreover, petitioner argues, a significant demand exists for  xMMDS service at Pueblo. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, petitioner contends, it was improper to return petitioner's application. III. DISCUSSION " Xe-  "x8. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established  xthe principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any  xpreviously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel  xsought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference  X - xwill not occur with respect to the first MDS channel . . . ." Report and Order, Amendment of  xParts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and  X- xRegulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d  X - xk616, 621 (1974), recon. denied, 57 FCC 2d 301 (1975). More than a decade before the Pueblo  xapplication was filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: "# ,-(-(ZZe""Ԍ  #XxIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause   Nunacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles. Section   21.902(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.(#  Xv- xR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981).vf yO- xԍ The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path from the  {O-  happlicant's MDS station to the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed station. Amendment   Lof Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements   Yapplicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private Operational  {O -Fixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 8991 (1984). #Xn4  pG;Xx[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O-  minimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference   >protection. In this rule provision, no reference is made to qualifying terms, degrees or levels, other than 45 dB at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (# 9 FCC Rcd at 568 (footnote omitted).  and requires all MDS applicants to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.   ?x9. At the time the Pueblo application was filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with  X - x. 21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the  x=Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of  xLthe potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the  xapplicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the  xKprotected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the  xapplicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other  x]authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) (1991). In  xaddition, 21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis  xof the potential for harmful interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an  xunobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or  X- xMpreviously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2) (1991); see 47 C.F.R.  x> 21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required that each MDS application  xfor the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that would be",-(-(ZZ"  x=employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel  xstations. The applicant was also required to show what steps it has taken to comply with the  xrequirements of  21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees  xto make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking  xpotential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).  X_-  N x10. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission,  x in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that  xKcertain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that  xjsome authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and  X - xrequire careful planning and engineering. Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the  xCommission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional  xTelevision Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed  X - x[Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order). Thus,  x-the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this problem in their applications.  V- xMThose applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid  X}- xcochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing."  Id.  Xh- x(emphasis in original). See also  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there has been a series of  xcases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for  X<- x/the E or F channels.      <f {O- xiԍ See, e.g., CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires  xithat an applicant initially file with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any  xiauthorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio horizon of the applicant's proposed  xxtransmitting antenna. . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section 21.902, the Division's finding, that  {O- xCNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper."); G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9  xi(Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part 21 of the rules is not substantial  xcompleteness' but rather acceptability for filing. . . .' Cooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable  {O1- xZfor filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required."); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("This interference protection showing is a significant requirement. . . .").  Because petitioner here failed to make the required showings regarding  xzinterference protection, its application cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial  X- xcompliance with the Commission's rules. See New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d  X- xz1600, 1602 (1985). "In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses  X- xrequired by 47 C.F.R.  21.902 are crucial." See also Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  X-     X-  Nx11. We find that the Pueblo application was properly returned for failure to comply with  X- xzour interference protection requirements. Petitioner's application failed to include any of the  Xs- xrequired analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed  xMMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and adjacent channel stations for which there was an  XE- xunobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in de novo review on reconsideration, we have  X0- xdetermined that the Pueblo applicant failed to file required interference studies for any of the  x1983 authorized or pending MMDS applications. Petitioner failed to file interference studies for",-(-(ZZ"  xM12 pending previously proposed 1983 applications,   one previously authorized 1983 MMDS  X- xstation, and one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station.   f yOb-  ԍ For example, the applicant failed to submit an interference study for a previously authorized station, WMH393,   Application File No. 11000CMP83, which was placed on public notice on March 8, 1990. While WMH393 was   subsequently forfeited on May 16, 1992, at the time the Pueblo application was filed, petitioner was required by  21.902(b) and (c) to include an interference analysis for this station in its application.   We note that while petitioner  xoffers various explanations for its failure to file interference studies for the eight 1983 pending  xapplications for the F channels at Pueblo and for the one 1983 previously authorized MMDS  x[station, petitioner does not attempt to provide any explanation for its failure to file interference  xanalyses for the one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station and four 1983 pending,  Xv-previously proposed MMDS stations for the E channels at Pueblo.   vf yO -  ԍ WLW883 at Pueblo, Colorado and Application File Nos. 00676CMP83, 06495CMP83, 14819CMP83, and 16607CMP83.   {x12. We note that the Pueblo applicant failed to submit required interference analyses for  X1- xauthorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public noticew \1f {O- xԍ Copies of the Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of issuance. See 47 C.F.R.  x 0.422 and 0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public inspection at the Commission's  {O|-Press and News Media Division. Id.w or FCC staff  x.internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's applications. For instance, all of the 1983  X - xkproposed and authorized MMDS stations were listed on the most current FCC internal staff  xlisting, January 24, 1992, prior to petitioner's application filing date. In addition, we note that  xfive of the 1983 previously proposed and authorized MMDS stations were placed on public notice  X -as early as four and one half years prior to the Pueblo applicant's filing date.  X , f yO- xZԍ Application File No. 02994CMP83 appeared on public notice on October 5, 1988, while WMH393 and  x;Application File Nos. 00676CMP83, 06495CMP83 and 14819CMP83 appeared on public notice on March 8, 1990.   X -    x13. As for petitioner's use of Dataworld, an independent data base, this data base is not  xaffiliated with the Commission, and hence, the Commission does not attest to its accuracy. The  xCommission has over the years announced, in public notices, third party entities which have  xcontracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to the MDS data base.  X4- xSee, e.g., Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases,  x?Mimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioner did not use the Commission's official online  xycontractor, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, nonCommission affiliated data bases and did  x?so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete. Similarly,  xpetitioner's argument that its engineer had, subsequent to the application's return, attempted to  xobtain copies of pending applications from Fair Press, but was told these were unavailable, is  xunpersuasive for the same reason. Where applicants choose to rely on unofficial, nonCommission affiliated contractors and data bases, they do so at their own risk. "~L ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  P x14. Petitioner claims that it failed to include an interference study for WMH393 at  xPueblo, because it assumed that WMH393 had been forfeited at the time of petitioner's  xapplication filing. While it is true that WMH393's authorization was eventually forfeited on May  xz16, 1992, this was three months after petitioner's February 20, 1992, filing date. Therefore, at  xthe time of petitioner's filing, WMH393 still had a valid authorization and time to complete its  xylicense requirements. Hence, petitioner was responsible for filing an interference study for this  Xv-station. See  21.902(c)(1).  XJ-  |x15. Petitioner's allegation that it was the Domestic Facilities Division's practice not to  xenforce  21.902 with respect to pending applications awaiting relottery is unsupported.  xMPetitioner fails to state from what source or sources petitioner bases its allegation. "A bald  xconclusion without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value. . . ."  V - x4,330 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service  X - xStations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335, 1470 n.361 (1994), aff'd mem, A/B  X - xFinancial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) (citing Jim  X - xBolton, FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987)). MDS applicants must consider all previously  X- xproposed and pending applications, before filing their applications. CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC  X- xRcd at 2040. Moreover, due to the procedures established for MDS lotteries, it is not unusual  xfor an applicant that initially loses a lottery to be selected in a later lottery for qualification  x[review and to be subsequently granted; this is exactly what happened here. After subsequent  xlotteries of 1983 Pueblo applications, petitioner's application lacked a required interference  X'- xanalysis for a lottery winning application which then became an authorized station.   X'f yO-ԍ WLW883 for the F channels at Pueblo, Colorado.X One of the  xunderlying purposes of the interference analysis filing requirement is to avoid grant of an MDS  xMapplication which would cause harmful interference to previously proposed, subsequently authorized stations.   ]x16. Petitioner's assertions, contained in its application, that it would cooperate fully and  xin good faith to resolve any harmful electrical interference, should there be an application which  xwas pending or granted which the Pueblo applicant did not locate, does not excuse its failure to  x[submit interference studies as required by  21.902. A pledge to comply with the requirements  xof  21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of  XA- x 21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's  xgeneral statement that he would use all legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute  X- xthe kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  X- x21.901(d)(7)."). As described,  supra, the interference analyses are necessary at the beginning  xof processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be  xmade. This is a step which cannot be skipped, as implied by petitioner. The requirement that  xapplicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the  xgood faith commandment of 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants,  xpermittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other  x/users and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential"x$X,-(-(ZZF#"  X- xinterference . . . . "  See also 47 C.F.R.  21.31. Thus, in light of all of the foregoing, the Pueblo application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing.   x17. Since we find petitioner had ample notice, at the time of filing, of pending,  xpreviously proposed stations and authorized stations, we reject petitioner's offer to file required  x.interference analyses postreconsideration. Moreover, as discussed above, this statement by  xpetitioner ignores the purposes behind the interference analysis requirement. Interference studies  xare necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made,  xand without such studies a logjam would be created making it more difficult to reach final  X3- xactions. See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Assn., Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div.  x1988) ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS applications as mutuallyexclusive was  xdetermined by a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses. . . ."). If the  xCommission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would  x.lack sufficient technical information for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on  xmany applications until the studies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants may be tempted to  xwait as long as possible to submit interference studies so as to minimize the number that must  xbe submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would lead to a stalemate where the Commission  X}- x[could neither grant nor return or dismiss any MMDS application. As noted, supra, the Pueblo  xapplication lacked interference studies required by  21.902 for pending, previously proposed  xKMMDS stations within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed transmitter site and failed to demonstrate  xthat the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. Indeed, petitioner failed to even  X#-identify all of the previously proposed stations.  X-    X-  _ x18. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference  xanalyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study  xLupon the applicant, conditional licensee or licensee at each previously proposed or authorized  xstation required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.   x21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and  X- x=licensee served be submitted with the application. The Pueblo applicant failed to serve any of  Xo- x<the required interference analyses, as mandated by 21.902(g), on any of the required applicants,  xconditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by 21.902(c), thus  XC- x<depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd  xL5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g):   XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by   parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be   affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference   0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process   ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after opposition are filed, was negated.(# "1',-(-(ZZ%"  xjThus, this application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on its failure to comply with the service requirements contained in 21.902(g). "IV. CONCLUSION   x19. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of American  x!Telecasting, Inc., under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   x20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by American  X -Telecasting, Inc., IS HEREBY DENIED.   x21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: