WPCfc 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.$h';U7G;A 7ier<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@2r ZKf '3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$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@\@\`L2o#SK]K$!Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldCG Times BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/g- x/proposed MMDS stations.2X>& yO- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 52703CMP90; 52704CMP90; and 52734CMP90  xJthrough 52736CMP90, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on the FCC internal staff listing by August 7, 1990.2 The RDM application lacked interference studies, required by  X'- xN21.902(b) and (c), for 15 1983 previously authorized MMDS stations'& yO- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 11186CMP83; 439CMP83; and 4983CMP83, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on public notice on October 23, 1986. and 33 post1983  X- xZpreviously proposed MMDS stations.2X` & yO!- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 52703CMP90; 52704CMP90; and 52734CMP90  xJthrough 52736CMP90, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on the FCC internal staff listing by August 7, 1990.2 The Naleszkiewicz application proposed a transmitter site  xthat was within 50 miles or the radio horizon of: (1) 15 1983 previously authorized MMDS  X-stations; & yO$- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 11186CMP83; 439CMP83; and 4983CMP83, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on public notice on October 23, 1986. and (2) 84 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations.2X& yOk&- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 52703CMP90; 52704CMP90; and 52734CMP90  xJthrough 52736CMP90, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on the FCC internal staff listing by August 7, 1990.2 The Naleszkiewicz ",))ZZ"  xapplication lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for 15 1983 previously  X-authorized MMDS stations  yOb- xԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 11186CMP83; 439CMP83; and 4983CMP83, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on public notice on October 23, 1986. and 84 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations.2 X  yO- x;ԍ Including, without limitation, Application File Nos. 52703CMP90; 52704CMP90; and 52734CMP90  xJthrough 52736CMP90, all for stations at Cheyenne, Wyoming and all appearing on the FCC internal staff listing by August 7, 1990.2  X-  0x3. Both applications contained a request for waiver of the Metropolitan Statistical Area  X- x-("MSA") and the fifty mile location restrictions contained in the Public Notice, Common Carrier  X- xBureau Opens Filing Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3  Xz- xyFCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice), as well as requirements for demonstration of lack of harmful interference.   2x4. In both petitions for reconsideration, petitioners maintain the Commission had  xannounced by public notice on April 12, 1989, that the Cheyenne area was open for filing for the  X - xF group channels, although petitioners concede that the 1988 Public Notice applied to their  X - x applications. Petitioners claim there was an exception to the 1988 Public Notice "in cases  xZinvolving MMDS channels associated with forfeited MMDS authorizations." Petitioners cite two  xinstances, and refer to "numerous others," in which they claim licenses were granted under such  X - x[an exception, contending that there is "no difference" between the petitioned applications and  xMgranted applications in Rapid City, South Dakota and Dallas, Texas, where markets were re xllotteried after the forfeiture of authorized 1983 applications. Petitioners contend that the  xapplications contained all required interference studies and otherwise "complied with all relevant written and implied FCC policies in effect at the time of filing." % II. DISCUSSION  X-  x5. Mutual Exclusivity and Cutoff. Based upon our review of the returned applications  xand publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications,  xwe conclude that the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to previously filed  xapplications with which the returned applications were mutually exclusive as they were for a  xtransmitter site within 50 miles of 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which established  X- xa cutoff date of September 9, 1983. See Establishment of Multichannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg.  Xq- x33, 873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34, 746 (1983). The returned applications proposed a  x.transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive with and cutoff by 1983  XE-previously proposed and authorized MMDS stations.H E@ {O6$-ԍ See  2, supra.H See  21.31; and 21.901(d)(5).  Thus,"E ,-(-(ZZ]"  xthe applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to 21.31(d), which states:   XxAn application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed   ^applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this   section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final   ^action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications).(# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d).  X -  x6. Interference Protection. Section 21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees  X - xto provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection   {Oe - xyԍ MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In Family Entertainment  {O/- xNetwork, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 568 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994), the Domestic Facilities Division returned as unacceptable  x;for filing an application which demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that:  {OQ-  >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.  and, whenever possible, at least  x0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, and to demonstrate that protection in  xinterference studies submitted with the applications. Applicants must also demonstrate in their  X - xapplications their efforts to provide adjacent channel interference protection. See  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(a).  Xd-  x7. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to  xpreviously proposed MMDS applicants. Applicants for new MDS stations on the E or F channels  xKare required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel and adjacent  xchannel stations. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the  x"Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the  xunderstanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission  xalso anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than  X- xordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94  x FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this  xproblem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the  xapplicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  Xi- xacceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there has been  xa series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS"T0 ,-(-(ZZ|"  X- xapplications for the E and F channels.  {Oy- xԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS  xJapplication which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by  21.902(c) cannot be  xcharacterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by  {O- xithe criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac.  x Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application analysis of the potential  xfor harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio  xhorizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna . . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section  {O- x,21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper.");  G.C.  {O- xCooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part  xx21 of the rules is not substantial completeness' but rather acceptability for filing'. . . . Cooper's application was  yOQ - xproperly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required .. . . ");  {O - x,Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain an analysis  xxof how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . . ").  See Amendments of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the  xCommission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the Technical Requirements Applicable to  xthe Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Service and the Private  X- xkOperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984) (hereinafter "MMDS  X- xTechnical Order"), 98 FCC 2d at 93 ("An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent  x.channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause  X|- xharmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing."); see also Family  Xg- xjEntertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates  xlack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability  X;- xkof an application."); Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the  xprocessing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are  xZcrucial.") These applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing because RDM and  x<Naleszkiewicz failed to study numerous previously proposed and authorized stations, as required  X -by  21.902(b) and (c). See  2.  X -  x8. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, the applicants failed to serve, as required by  x 21.902(g), all applicants, conditional licensees, and licensees for stations required to be studied  X- xby  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna  Xr- xCornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with 21.902(g):   XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by   parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be   affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference   0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process   ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(# " ,-(-(ZZ"  xThus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on their failure to comply with the service requirements contained in 21.902(g).  X-  `x9. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MDS  X- xapplications on the E or F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that were:  xL(1) farther than 50 miles from the proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April  x19, 1988, or an authorized station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical  xkarea for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first paragraph of the  XL- x Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions  X7- xcontained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement."  X - x[1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was also emphasized twice that applications filed in  X - xviolation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite  xthese directives, the applications proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions  X - xof the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, the applicants submitted applications on a date not  X -designated by the Commission for the filing of MDS applications. See 21.901(d)(4).   x10. Petitioners can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on  xjapplicants to carefully select the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear  Xp- xlanguage in the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission stressed, as early as 1980, the importance  X[- xof compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30  x(1980), the Commission explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these  x[lower more desirable bands . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost,  X- xa cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more  X- xsophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus,  xpetitioners had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because RDM  xKand Naleszkiewicz chose to disregard the Commission's directive, their applications were properly  X-returned as unacceptable for filing. See  2.  X-  {x11. Waiver Requests. Section 21.20(c)(1) states that a defective application may be filed  xand remain pending until a determination is made on the waiver, if the application is  Xf-accompanied by a waiver request.   x 12. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules  xmust contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that:   !Xx(a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its   application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or(#   Xx(b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule   inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative."(#  x47 C.F.R. 21.19. An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When";' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xan applicant seeks a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which  X- xwarrant such action." Wait Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  X- xGrande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see  X- x>also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver  x. . . must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.").   x13. Petitioners requested waivers of the 21.902 interference study requirements and  XN- xthe location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. As shown in  2, supra, the applicants failed  xto submit interference studies, as required by 21.902, for all previously proposed MMDS  xstations within 50 miles of their proposed transmitter sites, and failed to demonstrate that the  x{proposed station would not cause harmful interference. As discussed above, one of the  xunderlying purposes of the 21.902 interference study requirements is to ensure previously  X - xyproposed or authorized stations are protected from impermissible harmful interference. See  7,  X - xsupra. Petitioners' unsupported assertions that the proposed stations would not cause harmful  xLinterference to other existing or proposed stations fail to satisfy the underlying purpose of the  xrule. We therefore decline to grant the requested waivers of 21.902. Petitioners' wholly  X- xunsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the  Xp- xKexistence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying a waiver.,p yO- x,ԍ A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining  {O-whether a proposed station would cause harmful interference. Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987)., The 1988 Public Notice  xlocation restrictions and 21.901(d)(5) serve important administrative purposes which do not  xconcern interference avoidance. The location restrictions were adopted to minimize the possibility  xfor application gridlock, to facilitate the process of applications more expeditiously and to  X- xefficiently allocate scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570  X- x(Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981). Thus, we conclude that granting petitioners' requested waivers would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rules.  X-  | x14. Petitioners fail to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment  xdifferent from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications.  X- xTherefore, we do not find it would be in the public interest to grant a waiver of the 1988 Public  X{- x]Notice location restrictions or \   \ of the requirements for a demonstration of lack of harmful interference. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers were properly denied.  X8-  ^x15. De Facto Policy. Petitioners claim that the Commission had a policy under which  xzapplications for new MMDS stations within 50 miles of pending or authorized stations were  xaccepted for 1983 lottery service areas if they proposed the transmitter site of a previously  xauthorized station whose license was cancelled or forfeited. Petitioners cite two examples of  xstations which they claim were granted pursuant to such a policy. The Commission staff has  xNpreviously upheld the return of an application which filed for a previously licensed 1983  X"- x{transmitter site which included a request for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location  X#- x\restrictions. Fortuna Systems Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 5280 (Video Serv. Div. 1994). The Division"#",-(-(ZZe""  X- xupheld the staff's return of the application for violation of the 1988 Public Notice, failure to file  xadequate interference studies, and failure to show the lack of a reasonable alternative as required  X- xfor a grant of a waiver under 21.19(b). Given that the staff has not previously accepted the  x.rationale that applicants filing for previously licensed 1983 transmitter sites should be allowed  xito file for those transmitter sites without submitting the necessary interference protection studies,  xwe will not do so here. We find that, at a minimum, an applicant filing for a forfeited or  xcancelled 1983 transmitter site must be required to show that the proposed transmitter site would  xKnot cause harmful interference to other previously authorized or proposed stations and otherwise  XJ- xymeets the requirements for a waiver. See Fortuna, 9 FCC Rcd at 5281. RDM and Naleszkiewicz  x<failed to file adequate interference studies for other authorized and previously proposed stations,  xgiving the staff no way in which to evaluate whether their proposals would cause harmful  X - xinterference to the authorized and previously proposed stations. Where waivers of the 1988  X - xPublic Notice were granted in the examples cited by petitioners, the applicants requested a waiver  x.of the restrictions and were required to show that no harmful interference would be caused by  xgrant of their applications. To the extent that any applicants filing for 1983 transmitter sites did  x<not meet the previously stated requirements, grants of those applications were erroneous and are  X- xnot precedent to be followed here. The Commission is not bound by such staff errors. See, e.g.,  X- x{North Texas Media, Inc. v. FCC, 778 F.2d 28, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident  xgrant of a [shortspacing] waiver . . . now described as an error, does not deprive the agency of  xauthority to require future applicants to meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver);  X@- xQuinnipiac College, 8 FCC Rcd 6285, 6286 (1993); Walter Faber, 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493  X+- x>(1989), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3601 (1991), aff'd mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992). "III. CONCLUSION   x20. In view of all of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the  xNancy M. Naleszkiewicz and the Richard D. Morgese Trust applications. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted.   x21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Nancy M. Naleszkiewicz and the Richard D. Morgese Trust ARE HEREBY DENIED.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xcopies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   x` `  Charles E. Dziedzic x` `  Assistant Chief, Video Services Division x` `  Mass Media Bureau