WPCp 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` `  CourتֽG}oy:`S b! jofJW" ks0WDD6Wgbv{<@DDzE!n14 4GM0CG TimesCG Times BoldC2r 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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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""A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gCCwh,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,w;w`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``V,,,CC,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC14%CC`CC;;C;C#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCC%`;`;`;`;`;wY[;T;T;T;T;,%,%,%,%cC`C`C`C`CcCcCcCcC`C`;cC`C`C`CcCMC`;`C`;[;[;[C[CcPS;TCTCS;`C`C`C`C`CcCcC,%CCCC,CaJCC^CS%S0TCU(S%cCMcCcC`C`Cw`X0X0YCH3H3H3HCS0S%TCcCcCcCcCcCcC~``CU;U;U;cCTCcCHCTC`CP,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,;66CCuCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,EECw##CCQQeCC`COooJJw,EC~/"``C`E``wwCww&wC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`hV``````````>``````oYQh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QTJQJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`QMCQCCT;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Tc,C```Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`cCCC```Q,MC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``VJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gCCwm,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,wCw`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````Y,,,CC,CJ;J;/CJ%,J%mJCJJ;4,JC`CC;CCCC#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCJ%`C`C`C`C`C``;Y;Y;Y;Y;4%4%4%4%`JhChChChC`J`J`J`J`C`C`KhChC`C`CPJ`C`C`C`;`;`C`C`[X;YCYCX;hChChChChChJhJ3%CJCC4JyLCChJX%X5YCY4Y%`Kj`K`JhChCc`;`;`CK3J4K3JCX5X-YC`J`K`J`J`K`J``CX;Y;X;`JYC`JJCYC`C[,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,C99CCCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,MMCw##CCQQeCC`CTooJJw,MC~/"``C`L``wwCww&wC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`h[``````````@``````tYQh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QYJQJY;Y4Y;h;`;4%h;YJ~J`;YCh;`QQCQCCY;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Yh4Ch``Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`hCCC```Q,QC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````YSSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SSA]_SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSffSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔0S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxx`oYfQoYoYoYhx`A4hoY~x`oYhx`fQfQoYx`oYx`hfQxoASxxfJffffz88SSSSxSSSxxxf8fSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k2{Kf f eh sKy"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxprotection. 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. (#  {O -Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 568. V and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference",-(-(ZZq"  xprotection, and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with their applications.   ?x7. Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to existing  X- xMMDS licensees and to previously proposed MMDS applicants.If {O+ -ԍ See  3 , supra.I Applicants for new MDS  xMstations on the E or F channels are required to file specific technical interference protection  x/showings for cochannel and adjacent channel stations. These interference showings are a  xsignificant requirement because the Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS  x-to MDS, did so with the understanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems might  xarise. The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced  X - x<more closely than ordinarily allowed and would require careful planning and engineering. MMDS  X - xAllocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants  xto address this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis  xof how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be  X - xkconsidered acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also 21.902(b) and (c). In view of these  x-concerns with the potential for harmful interference, there has been a series of cases emphasizing  X-the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. h f {O- 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- x;Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n. 9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part  x21 of the rules is not substantial completeness,' but rather acceptability for filing'. . . . Cooper's application was  {O!- xJproperly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required. . . . "); Marylan  {OQ"- xJ. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain an analysis of how  xthe applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement. . . . ").  "h,,-(-(ZZ"   x8. In addition, petitioner's claim that it was unable to perform interference analyses for  xapplications which had not been placed on public notice because "files for these stations were not  xavailable for public inspection" is factually incorrect. While there have been periods of time  x.when newlyfiled MDS applications have not been available for public inspection through the  xDomestic Facilities Division Public Reference Room, copies of these applications have been  x.available since at least 1988 from the Commission's public record copy contractor, irrespective  Xv- xof whether the applications had been placed on public notice.vf yO- xԍ A printed inventory of active MMDS applications filed with the Commission was available for public  xJinspection. This lists, for each application, the applicant's name, the city proposed to be served, the coordinates of  x: the proposed transmitter site, the public notice date, and the application status. From this listing, a potential applicant  xcould identify proposed stations for which interference studies must be submitted and order copies of the necessary  xapplications from the Commission's copy contractor. Files for authorized stations have always been available for public inspection in the Domestic Facilities Division Public Reference Room. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC  x[Rcd at 2663. In addition, as early as November, 1990, before this Cedar Rapids application was  xfiled, a "readonly" copy of the MDS database was available to the public through a third party  X3- xpublic access contractor.3@f {O$- xԍ  See Public Notice: New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Thus, we reject petitioner's claim that its failure to file interference studies was somehow caused by the Commission's policies regarding access to applications.   x9. In addition, petitioner's assertion that it has committed to make every effort to avoid  x<harmful interference to others and to cooperate in good faith should any interference occur in the  xfuture does not excuse its failure to submit detailed interference studies as required by 21.902.  X - xSee, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use  X- xall legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the  X}- xMMDS Allocation Order and required under 21.901(d)(7).") The requirement of 21.902(c)  xthat an applicant submit interference analyses at the time its application is filed is separate from  xythe requirement in 21.902(a) that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make  xexceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in  x attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ." and is also separate from the  xrequirement in 21.901(d)(7) that applicants submit a showing of how interference will be  X- x avoided and demonstrate what steps they have taken to comply with 21.902(a).  See also  xj21.31. Nor does an applicant's offer to file curative amendments at some later time excuse the  xapplicant from submitting all required interference studies at the time its application is initially  X- xfiled.  See Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4669 n. 9. Based upon these considerations, we  xconclude that petitioner failed to comply with the technical requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R.  x-21.902 regarding interference protection and failed to demonstrate that it is technically qualified  xto be an MDS licensee, as required by 47 C.F.R. 21.900(a). Thus, the Cedar Rapids application  XX- xLwas properly returned as unacceptable for filing. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR  XC-2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. ",-(-(ZZ="   x10. Petitioner's argument that certain previously filed applications had not been accepted  xfor filing and thus were not "entitled to interference protection" is incorrect. Even if these  xapplications were later determined to be unacceptable for filing pursuant to 21.902(c), MMDS  x{applicants must consider all authorized or previously proposed stations. For example, in  X- xRoundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 n.2 (1992), Roundtree had similarly argued that  x the dismissal of its application for a new H channel station in the Private OperationalFixed  xLMicrowave Service for failure to file the required interference analysis for an application which  x[was pending at the time Roundtree filed, but which was subsequently dismissed, was arbitrary  x-and capricious. In upholding the dismissal of Roundtree's application, the Commission explained that:   OXxThe Bureau's longstanding choice of the date of filing for this evaluation provides a   standard that is known, certain, and fair to all interested parties. Roundtree's proposed   alternative the date of Commission action varies from application to application,   depending on staff resources, application backlogs, and other administrative   lconsiderations. To assess applicant rights and obligations under so variable a standard   would indeed be arbitrary and capricious, with decisions made primarily on the basis of   Achance. The date of filing, in contrast, is fixed at the outset and can be applied to   Napplicants on equal terms. Its use is well within the broad discretion permitted agencies in the ordering of their processes.(#  X- xRoundtree Communications, (1992) (citations omitted); See also 4,330 Applications for Authority  X - xto Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10  X- xFCC Rcd 1335 (1994) (hereinafter 4,330 MDS Applications), aff'd mem, A/B Financial, Inc., et  X- xal. v. FCC, No. 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam); Boyd B. Hopkins, 9 FCC Rcd  X- x569 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Family Entertainment Network, 9 FCC Rcd 566; Edna Cornaggia,  X- x=8 FCC Rcd 5442 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d at 1602  x("In our view, an MDS application which does not contain the important and essential technical  xKshowing required by 21.902(c) cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial compliance  xwith the Commission's rules and regulations as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined  X\- xin rule  21.20(a)."). As the Commission noted in Roundtree Communications, a departure from  xthe current requirement that applications include all required interference analyses at the time of  xyfiling could "tempt applicants to expedite, delay or otherwise interfere with the orderly conduct  xof our business, in an effort to obtain action at some moment they deemed advantageous to their  xinterests. Disruption of this nature is clearly contrary to the public interest." 7 FCC Rcd 5456  xln.2. Petitioner's application was therefore unacceptable for filing for failing to include all required interference analyses.  X"-  3 x11. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, petitioner failed to serve copies of  xinterference analyses, as required by 21.902(g), on all applicants, conditional licensees and  xlicensees for stations required to be studied by 21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of  Xa%- xnotice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444, the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with 21.902(g): "5',-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ  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.(#  xTherefore, the Cedar Rapids application was properly returned for failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g).  X -  3x12. Location Restrictions. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MDS  X - xzapplications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that  x[were: (1) farther than 50 miles from the proposed location of an MMDS application pending on  xlApril 19, 1988, or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a  xstatistical area for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first paragraph  X- xof the Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions  X- xcontained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement."  Xh- x[1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was also emphasized twice that applications filed in  XS- xviolation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite  xthese directives, Gazette proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the  X'- x1988 Public Notice. See 2, supra. Therefore, because the location restrictions prohibited the  xfiling of an application for the site chosen by Gazette, the application was submitted on a date  X- xnot designated by the Commission for the filing of MDS applications for the proposed location.  X-See 21.901(d)(4).   x13. Petitioner can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants  xto select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear language in  X- x<the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of compliance  Xu- xwith site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), the  xCommission explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more  XI- xdesirable bands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in  X4- xjterms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated  X- xequipment than would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioner had  xfull notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioner chose to  xdisregard the Commission's clear directive, its application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  X"-  ?x14. Waiver Requests. Section 21.20(c)(1) states that a defective application may still be  X#- x\accepted for filing if the application is accompanied by a waiver request. Gazette requested  X$- xZwaivers of 21.902 requiring the performance of interference studies and the 1988 Public Notice  xlocation restrictions. For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers  xwould serve the public interest, and thus will not grant the requested waivers or on our own"T&,-(-(ZZ$"  X-motion pursuant to 21.20(c)(2).f {Oy-ԍ The Commission may waive any rule or requirement on its own motion. See 21.20(c)(2).   x 15. 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.(#  xi "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks  x\a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such  X - xaction." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family  X- xRadio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see also David  X}- x]Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver . . . must  xjaffirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.").  X#-  Px16. As shown in Section I, supra, Gazette failed to submit interference studies, as  xLrequired by 21.902, for all authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles  x=of its proposed transmitter site, and failed to demonstrate that the proposed station would not  xcause harmful interference. Petitioner asserts in its application that it will propose collocation  x.with an authorized station over 10 miles away, and that "[i]n that manner the FCC prescribed 0  x/dB d/u ratio will be achieved and no interference will be created." However, as Gazette has  x=chosen to propose its own station at a site 10 miles away from the authorized station, the offer  xto collocate to avoid harmful interference would require an amendment of its application. Thus,  xjit is clear that the offer of a future proposal of collocation does not satisfy the requirements for  XV- x|a demonstration of lack of harmful interference for this proposed transmitter site. See  XA- x21.902(c). Petitioner also asserts in its request for a waiver that "contradictory, erroneous and  xchanging information" made proper interference analysis "impossible," and specifically refers to  xdeficiencies regarding information on Application File No. 10197CMP83. As this station was  x0forfeited prior to petitioner's application filing, petitioner was not required to perform an  xinterference analysis for this station. Petitioner makes no specific allegations of "contradictory,  xxerroneous and changing information" regarding the stations it was actually required to study, and  X!- xwhich it failed to study.N!Zf {O%-ԍ See 23, supra.N These wholly unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent  X"- x\showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances"",-(-(ZZ!"  X- xjustifying a waiver.  As discussed above, one of the underlying purposes of the 21.902  xzinterference study requirements is to ensure previously proposed or authorized stations are  X- xkprotected from impermissible harmful interference. See  7, supra. Petitioner's unsupported  xassertions that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference to other existing or  xiproposed stations fail to satisfy the underlying purpose of the rule. We therefore decline to grant the requested waiver of 21.902.  Xa-  x17. The 1988 Public Notice location restrictions serve important administrative purposes  xbeyond those concerning interference avoidance. The location restrictions were adopted to  xminimize the possibility for application gridlock, and to allow the process of applications more  X - xexpeditiously and to efficiently allocate scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr.,  X - x9 FCC Rcd at 570; R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981). These purposes, which petitioner  xdoes not address, would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location  xrestrictions to each and every applicant that demonstrated noninterference through the submission  X - xof interference studies. f {O?-ԍ In any event, this petitioner has not adequately demonstrated lack of harmful interference. See 610, supra. Thus, we conclude that granting petitioner's waiver requests would  X -frustrate the underlying purposes of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions.  X-  n x18. Petitioner further failed to present justification as to why its application merits  xtreatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS  x.applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public interest  X>- xto grant petitioner's request for waivers. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner's request for waivers of the location requirements and 21.902 requirements were properly denied.   x19. Petitioner additionally asserts that the staff's disposition of its waiver request by "the  xmere checking of two paragraphs on a form returning the application in question" cannot, on its  xface, meet the courtimposed requirement to give a "hard look" to waiver requests. However, the  X-Court in WAIT Radio made clear that:   XxThe agency is not bound to process in depth what are only generalized pleas, a   requirement that would condemn it to divert resources of time and personnel to hollow   claims. The applicant for waiver must articulate a specific pleading, and adduce concrete   ]support, preferably documentary. Even when an applicant complies with these rigorous   requirements, the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application. (# 418 F.2d at 1157 n.9.  X!-  x20. Moreover, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the  xfiling of the Cedar Rapids application, and we had granted a waiver of the interference protection rules, petitioner's application still would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to "# Z,-(-(ZZe""  x>violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the returned application was filed, including filing after the relevant cutoff date of mutually exclusive applications.  X-  Ox21. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioner argues that the return  xletter failed to detail the reasons for the application's return. However, 21.20(a), which governs  xthe disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions  x.or discrepancies," not the breadth of detail demanded by the petitioner here. We find that the  xZreturn notification letter sent to petitioner gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return  xof the application. The return notification letter indicated four reasons why the application was  xKunacceptable for filing, and cited the relevant rule section or Commission decision. As discussed  X - x\above, petitioner was afforded sufficient information to know that its application was being  X - x=returned due to defects specified in the return letter. See Adams Telecom Inc., v. FCC, 38 F.3d  xM576, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (FCC dismissal letters and order providing only brief explanation of  xwhy applications failed to satisfy requirements upheld as sufficient because parties could  X -understand basis of decision.).   X-  ^x22. De Facto Policy. Petitioner claims 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. Petitioner cites no examples of such  xa policy. We note that Commission staff has previously upheld the return of an application filed  X!- xfor a previously licensed 1983 transmitter site which included a request for a waiver of the 1988  X - x=Public Notice location restrictions. Fortuna Systems Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 5280 (Video Serv. Div.  X- x1994). The Division upheld the staff's return of the application for violation of the 1988 Public  X- x[Notice, failure to file adequate interference studies and failure to show the lack of a reasonable  xalternative, as required for grant of a waiver under 21.19(b). Given that the staff has not  x[previously accepted the rationale that applicants filing for previously licensed 1983 transmitter  xsites should be allowed to file for those transmitter sites without submitting the necessary  xinterference protection studies, we will not do so here. We find that, at a minimum, an applicant  xfiling for a forfeited or cancelled 1983 transmitter site must be required to show that its proposed  xtransmitter site would not cause harmful interference to other previously authorized or proposed  XC- xstations and would otherwise meet the requirements for a waiver. See Fortuna, 9 FCC Rcd at  xN5281. Petitioner here failed to file adequate interference studies for other authorized and  xpreviously proposed stations, giving the staff no way in which to evaluate whether its proposal  xwould cause harmful interference to the authorized and previously proposed stations. To the  xextent that any applicants filing for 1983 transmitter sites did not meet these requirements, grants  xiof those applications were erroneous and are not precedent to be followed here. The Commission  X!- xis not bound by any such staff errors. See, e.g., North Texas Media, Inc. v. FCC, 778 F.2d 28,  xy33 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("The initial improvident grant of a [shortspacing] waiver . . . now described  xas an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require future applicants to meet certain  Xx$- x[standards in order to obtain such a waiver); Quinnipiac College, 8 FCC Rcd 6285, 6286 (1993);  Xc%- xWalter P. Faber, 4 FCC Rcd 5492, 5493 (1989), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3601 (1991), aff'd  XN&-mem., Faber v. FCC, 962 F.2d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 1992)."N& ,-(-(ZZ$" "III. CONCLUSION   x 23. In view of all of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the  xGazette Company application. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   x24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by Gazette Company IS HEREBY DENIED.   x25. 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: