WPCn 2?BJ%<Courier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;XPPX@Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic}XP#2@qK Z CourierCG Times"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`Lc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7 da#96.899t*.* ?/P/P*+,-./0p AxV2rrXKX'3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicP"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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN7KBKhH\J"i~'^:LpddDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppdLd||p|||D8DpdDddXdXDdp88d8pdddLL8pXdXLD,DpD4ppDDD4DDDDDDdDd8dddddXXXXXL8L8L8L8pddddpppp|Xdddd|Xd|ddddXXpXXXXXdddpdppL8LdLDLdpppd|8|h|D|L|8pppddLLLpLpLpLpp|l|8|ppppppp|p|L|L|Ld|DppL|D|d4ddC8CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHddLdddddd48HH"&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""7jC:, Xj\  P6G;XP@y.X80,IX\  P6G;P B7nC:,Xn4  pG;XCy.\80, [\4  pG;\E5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX FW!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hPG8wC;,<=Xw PE37XP HV"G($,<hG PE37hPDI7zC;,EbXz_ pi7XJ6jC:,SLXj9 xOG;XK6uC;,o^Xu&_ x7XXVH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\W{,W80,%?W*f9 xr G;X z-X80,SX9 xOG;@y.X80,IX\  P6G;P B7nC:,Xn4  pG;X2n X- X    X-w  Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 96975 ă  yxdddy v3#X\  P6G;ɓP# Before the  yOFederal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  yOA-T#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#у In re Applications ofR) R)  X-GUADALUPE VALLEY ELECTRICP) hFile No. 51310CMP90 COOPERATIVER) R) For Authority To Construct and OperateR) a Multipoint Distribution Service StationR) on the E Group Channels in Shiner, TexasR) R)  X: -KA5E54 TELEVISION PARTNERSHIPP) hFile No. 51517CMP90 R)  X -For Authority To Construct and Operate R)h  X-a Multipoint Distribution Service StationR)h on the F Group Channels in Shiner, TexasR) T  X-  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION TP  Xk-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:reconsideration in this single order, which has been referred to the Video Services Division pursuant to  1.106(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a).  X"- II. BACKGROUND   Nx2. Each of the returned applications proposed an MMDS station on the E or F channels  xto which Part 21 of the Commission's rules apply. Section 21.20(a) of the rules sets forth the standards for returning MDS applications as unacceptable for filing: "&,))ZZq%"   XxUnless the Commission shall otherwise permit, an application will be unacceptable for   filing and will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies if: (#   Xx(1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, execution, or other matters of a formal character; or(#   Xx(2) The application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements.(#  X1- x 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a). Section 21.20(b) lists examples of common deficiencies which result in  xdefective applications under paragraph (a) such as, the "application does not demonstrate  xcompliance with the special requirements applicable to the radio service involved," the  xK"application does not include all necessary exhibits," and the "application is filed after the cutoff  X - xdate prescribed in  21.31 or  21.914 of this part." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(b)(4), (8) and (9); see 47 C.F.R.  21.13, 21.15, 21.26 and 21.900.  X-  |x3. Mutual Exclusivity. Typically, the first determination made by Commission staff is  xwhether an MDS application is mutually exclusive with any previously filed application or  xauthorized station. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for this determination.   !XxThe Commission will consider applications to be mutually exclusive if their conflicts are   such that the grant of one application would effectively preclude by reason of harmful   1electrical interference, or other practical reason, the grant of one or more of the other   @applications. The Commission will presume "harmful electrical interference" to mean   {interference which would result in a material impairment to service rendered to the public   despite full cooperation in good faith by all applicants or parties to achieve reasonable technical adjustments which would avoid electrical conflict.(#  Xg- x47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). X01Í ÍX01ÍÍIn applying this standard, the staff  xevaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or  X;- xpreviously proposed MDS station,X01ÍÍX01Í Íl ;c yO-  =#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxMDS applicants must submit interference studies analyzing the potential for harmful interference with other  xMDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station because "[i]t is possible for cochannel  xinterference generated by one MDS station to cause unacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far  {O !- xaway as 50 miles."  R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981); see  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(c)(1) and (2) (1991).  {O!- xYThe 50 mile benchmark for MDS stations was adopted in Amendments of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's  xRules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint  {Oh#- xDistribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 62021 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order), which codified, as a  {O2$- xrebuttable presumption, Commission policy as to what constitutes mutually exclusive status. See also Amendment  x-of Parts 1 and 21 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Applicable to the Domestic Public Radio Services  {O%- x(Other Than Maritime Mobile), 60 FCC 2d 549, 559 (1976) (hereinafter Domestic Public Radio Services Order).  xThe Commission adopted this 50 mile benchmark to enhance administrative efficiency in processing applications,  {OV'- xavoid "gridlock" situations, and permit authorization of stations to proceed expeditiously. See R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC"V',-(-('"  {O-2d at 604; Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). X01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í Í and (2) within the radio horizon with an unobstructed";Z,-(-(ZZ?"  X- xelectrical path to the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station. Zc yO -  N#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxAs the Commission noted in the MDS technical rulemaking order, "the mileage between these [MDS]  {O- xJstations is not the only factor that determines whether interference will occur." Amendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94  xof the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements applicable to the Multipoint  xDistribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service  {O-- xK(OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 90 (1984) (hereinafter MDS Technical Order). In a 1990 order, Texas Wired Music, Inc.,Ą  yO- xFile No. 50009CMP90, Call Sign WDU282 (Dom. Fac. Div., released Aug. 27, 1990), we explained the basis for using the radio horizon as a standard for determining mutual exclusivity:   =Xx[T]he latest engineering analysis of the [applicant] demonstrates that a natural phenomenon, radio horizon,   substantially reduces the possibility of interference occurring to any receiver of [the authorized station]   located in [its] protected service area . . . . Underlying this methodology is the premise that once the signal   reaches its radio horizon it is generally blocked or attenuated to such a level that it is not likely to interfere   with a receiver beyond that point. The amount of signal attenuation at this point is dependent upon the type of surface the signal encounters and generally ranges between 6 and 20 dB.(#  xApplications which are determined to be either within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical  xpath to any part of the protected service area of any station, are considered to be mutually  xexclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference by submission  x?of interference studies with their applications pursuant to the standards specified in the  X- x0Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4) and  5 and 6, infra. For MDS  x.applications on the E or F channels,  21.901(d)(5) also defines mutual exclusivity as based on  xwhether the proposed transmitter site is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA") or its 15 XJ-mile buffer zone of an authorized or previously proposed station.Jc {O-  y#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxSee Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency  xallocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private  {O- x-Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 126264 (1983)(hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order). Section 21.901(d)(5), 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5) (1991), provides:   XxNotwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 21.31(a) all applications that propose to locate transmission facilities   within or within 15 miles of the border of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area ("SMSA") will be   considered together. In the case of a Standard Consolidated Statistical Area ("SCSA") all applications that   propose to locate facilities within or within 15 miles of the boundary of any SMSA contained in the SCSA   will be considered together . . . . Each application will be entitled to comparative consideration or to be included in a lottery in only one such area.(#  X -  @x4. Cutoff Rules. In order to be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed  X - xon or before the applicable cutoff date for mutually exclusive applications. zc {O0#-#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxIn Domestic Public Radio Services Order, 60 FCC 2d at 551, we explained the purpose of our cutoff rule:   Xx[W]hat is commonly called our "cutoff" rule originated in our need for an orderly administrative procedure  {O%-to control the disposition of our caseload. See 47 U.S.C. (#   Xx 154(j) . . . . [T]o provide early consolidation of competing applications and to prevent processing   0disruption by late filings, we require an application for a frequency, previously applied for, to be filed"',-(-(Y'"   lwithin a certain date. Competing applications filed after this date are considered to be "cutoff" from comparative consideration.(#  {O- x(citations omitted). See also City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 745 F.2d 656, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The  xcutoff rule basically serves two purposes. First, it advances the interest of administrative finality . . . . Second, it aids timely . . . applicants by granting them a protected status' . . . . ") (citations omitted).  By way of" B,-(-(ZZ "  xbackground, the Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F  X- xMchannels on one filing date, September 9, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at  X- x126266;  Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed.  xReg. 34,746 (1983). Thereafter, no additional applications for new stations were accepted for  xfiling until April 20, 1988, pursuant to  21.901(d)(4). Applications for the E or F channels  xwhich complied with specified restrictions could then be filed between April 20, 1988, and April  Xz- x9, 1992. See  8, infra. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application  xyor authorized station, the applicable cutoff date is the oneday filing date designated for those  XN- xapplications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873,  X9-as corrected.  X -  Ox5. Station Design Requirement. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires each MDS applicant to  x>engineer its proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of interference protection within the  X - x=protected service areas Bc yO-#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxSection 21.902(d) defines the protected service area for MDS stations. of all other authorized or previously proposed cochannel stations. 47  xC.F.R.  21.902(b)(3). Section 21.902(b)(4) requires each MDS applicant to engineer its station  xyto provide at least 0 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas of all other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations. 47 C.F.R.  x 21.902(b)(4). Section 21.902(f) defines harmful interference as the ratio of desired signal to  xundesired signal present in the cochannel or adjacent channel, at the output of a reference  XU-receiving antenna oriented to receive the maximum desired signal.XUc yO-  z#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxCochannel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of the ratio of desired signal to undesired  x,signal is less than 45 dB. Adjacent channel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of this ratio is less than 0 dB. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(f).   X'-  ?x 6. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the abovereferenced applications were filed,  xin order to demonstrate compliance with  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive  xdeterminations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS  x?applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel  xMinterference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed  x<transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area  xof any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed  xtransmitter is within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously  xproposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) (1989). In addition,  21.902(c)(2)  x>required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for  xharmful adjacent channel interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an"A ,-(-(ZZ{"  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) (1989); see 47 C.F.R.  x/ 21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further requires that each MDS application  xfor the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that would be  x=employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel  xstations. The applicant must also show what steps it has taken to comply with the requirements  xof  21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees, to make  xLexceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).  X -  x7. Service Requirement. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses to  x=the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study upon the  xpreviously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee required to  x[be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same  x.rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application.  X{-   Xd-  x8. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing  x[period was designated until 1988. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules,  xthe Commission then designated that MDS applications for E or F channel stations could be  X- xsubmitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations which were: (1) farther  xthan 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the E or F channels pending  x0on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the  xboundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the E or F channels  X- xpending as of April 19, 1988. Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing Period For  X- xyMultichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur.  X- x1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice). The 1988 Public Notice also advised potential applicants  xthat all applications must comply with the specified location restrictions, that grant of waivers of  xthe location restrictions were not anticipated, and that applications failing to meet these location  XX-restrictions would be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. Id. at 26612662. z III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION  X-  x9. On May 3, 1990, and May 7, 1990, certain petitioners filed two MMDS applications  X- xLproposing the same transmitter site at Shiner, Texas.c yO`"-#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxApplication File Nos. 51517CMP90 and 51310CMP90. After reviewing each Shiner application,  xthe Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return  xnotification letter dated February 9, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were  xreturned because the applicants: (1) proposed a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  x 21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS  xstation or a pending MMDS application and thereby failed to meet the criteria established in the"t$X,-(-(ZZF#"  X- x1988 Public Notice;c yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э The cutoff dates for the Shiner applications were established by mutually exclusive applications filed on  x<September 9, 1983, proposing transmitter sites at Victoria, Texas for the F channel group, Application File No.  x01277CMP83, and at San Antonio for the E channel group, Application File No. 12486CMP83. The F channel  xgroup application appeared on public notice November 14, 1986, and the E channel group application appeared on public notice October 25, 1985. Both applications also appeared on the FCC internal staff listing on April 23, 1990. (2) filed in the geographic area of other authorized or pending MMDS  xapplications; (3) failed to demonstrate site availability pursuant to  21.15(a); and (4) failed to  xcomply with the Commission's requirements under 21.19 for grant of a waiver, and without  X- x=a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing.  See 47 C.F.R.  21.19. Reconsideration petitions for the returned applications were timely filed on March 11, 1993.   @x10. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles or the radio  Xc-horizon of : (1) two 1983 previously authorized MMDS stations;  cxc yO - xh#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Call signs WHT705 and WHT706 at Austin, Texas, Application File Nos. 07550CMP83 and 03141CMP83, respectively. (2) four 1983 subsequently "L ,-(-(ZZD"  X- xyauthorized MMDS stations; c yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Call signs WLW774 and WLW927 at Victoria, Texas, Application File Nos. 01277CMP83 and 04681CM x P83, respectively; and call signs WHT693 and WHT694 at San Antonio, Texas, Application File Nos. 12486CMP yO - x83 and 11220CMP83, respectively. While station WLW774 was subsequently forfeited on June 7, 1991, at the  xtime the Shiner applications were filed, the applicants were required to include an interference analysis for this station in the applications as required by 21.902(b) and (c). and (3) 53 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had  X-applications pending on May 3rd and 7th, 1990, the filing dates of the Shiner applications. Xxc yO- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 09144CMP83 for LaGrange, Texas; 02343CM xP83, 02475CMP83, 10724CMP83, and 10931CMP83 for Victoria, Texas; 14708CMP83 for Austin, Texas; 08213CMP83 for San Antonio, Texas; and 09139CMP83 for El Campo, Texas.   x11. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for two  X- xauthorized and 51 previously proposed MMDS station." c yO - x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э For example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for an authorized station in Austin, Texas, Application File No. 03141CMP83, which appeared on public notice November 12, 1985." The interference studies that were  X- xsubmitted Z c yO.- x.#X\  P6G;ɓP#э An Addendum to Interference Analysis was submitted for each application on December 5, 1991, and  xincluded interference analyses for Application File Nos. 02343CMP83; 02475CMP83; 04681CMP83; 10724 {O-CMP83; and 10931CMP83, see n. 10 and 11, supra.  were inadequate in that the applicants: (1) did not include free space calculations for  xthe desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected  x<service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by 21.902(c), (d) and  XH- x (f) (see 21.902(e)); (2) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel  xjinterference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference  xlprotection pursuant to 21.902(b)(4); and (3) used incorrect technical parameters for the  X - xtransmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Thus, these Shiner applicants  xfailed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause  X - xLharmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations.  See  47 C.F.R.  21.902. In  xMaddition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies  X - xstipulated by 21.902(g). Only one of the applications included a request for waiver of the 50  X-mile location restriction contained in the 1988 Public Notice.  \c yOW- xK#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File No. 51517CMP90. Amendments requesting waiver of the 50 mile location restriction  {O- xcontained in the 1988 Public Notice were later filed by both applicants   on December 5, 1991, along with the addenda  {O-to their interference analyses, see n. 13, supra. "6,-(-(ZZ"  X- # IV. DISCUSSION  X-  ] x12. Mutual Exclusivity and Cutoff. Based upon our review of the returned applications  xand publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications,  x we conclude that the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to authorized  xkstations or previously filed applications with which the returned applications were mutually  xNexclusive. The determining factors we used to ascertain if the abovereferenced MMDS  xyapplications were mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) were whether the applications were  XH- xfiled: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station;Hc {O -#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxMDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 62021. (2) within  xthe radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an  X - xjauthorized or previously proposed MMDS station; Zc {O% -#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC at 109111. or (3) within an MSA, or its 15mile buffer  X - xkzone, for which there is an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station. c {O-#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxMMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 126264. Each of the  X - xzreturned applications propose a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually  X - xexclusive, pursuant to  21.31, with authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations. See   X - x34, supra. Specifically, the applications were mutually exclusive and cutoff by previously filed  x]MDS applications, with a cutoff date of September 9, 1983. Thus, the 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). (#   ?x13. Whether an MDS application is cutoff is not determined solely by the date of filing  X- xvisavis applications specifying the same transmitter site and listing the name of the same town,  x=but also by: (1) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.31, granting the application would result in  xharmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date  xis past; or (2) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5), the application proposes a  xtransmitter site that is within or within 15 miles of the borders of an MSA, which has a  X=- xjpreviously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date is past. See  34, supra.  xAs explained above, the applications were cutoff by mutually exclusive, previously proposed or  xauthorized stations which, although they specified towns different than the towns specified by the  xZreturned applications, would have received harmful interference from the stations proposed in the returned applications. " ~,-(-(ZZ"  X-  {x 14. 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. . . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d  xat 621. Almost ten years before the abovereferenced applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications:   #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   ]21.90[2](c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an interference   study containing an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station.(#  X - xR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 606.% c yO9-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#эxThe distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of the  {O-applicant's MDS station. MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 8991. % It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of  xinterference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest  X- xdetermination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family  X- xEntertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768, n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,   xj21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference  XS- xprotection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection,S"c {O&-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#эxMDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment  yO- xcase, the Domestic Facilities Division upheld the return, as unacceptable for filing, of an application which  xdemonstrated 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-  >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 to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.   _x15. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference to  xexisting and previously proposed MMDS licensees and to previously proposed MMDS applicants.  X- xyIn addition, in a de novo review at the time of reconsideration, we have determined that each of  xthese petitioners failed to file required interference studies for authorized or previously proposed  xLstations which had appeared on public notice or the FCC internal staff listing prior to the filing  X- xdate of petitioners' applications.  See n. 12, supra. As discussed in Section II, supra, applicants  xjfor new MDS stations on the E or F channels are required to file specific technical interference  xprotection showings for cochannel and adjacent channel stations. These interference showings"q ,-(-(ZZ"  xare a significant requirement because the Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from  xITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems  xmight arise. The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be  xspaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering.  X- xMMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect  xapplicants to address this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain  x=an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will  Xa- x not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264; see also 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b) and (c).  x Consequently, there has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference  X5-protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. 5c {O -  0#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxSee, 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.  xKDiv. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application an analysis of the  xpotential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the  xradio horizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with  xSection 21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was  {O- xproper."); G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating  xapplications under Part 21 of the rules is not substantial completeness' but rather acceptability for filing'. . . . Cooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing  {OL- xrequired . . . "); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not  xycontain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . .").   X -  } x16. Our analysis of the interference statements submitted shows that the returned  X - x=applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection or  xzat least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); failed to  xsubmit free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each referenced  xreceiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously proposed stations as required  X- xby  21.902(f); and contained incorrect technical specifications for the petitioners' station or the  X- xpreviously proposed station. See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd  x5713, 571617 (1987) ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment.")  X%-  x17. More that two years after filing its reconsideration petition, one petitioner% c yO^!- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Petitioner, Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative, filed these interference analyses for Application File No. 51310CMP90 on April 24, 1995. submitted  xinterference studies for two 1983 previously authorized MMDS stations and four 1983  X- xxsubsequently authorized MMDS stations.Xc yO%- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Two of these interference studies updated information previously filed with the Commission on May 3rd and  x7th, 1990, for Application File No. 01277CMP83 and on December 5, 1995, for Application File No. 04681CM yO'- xZP83. Also after filing its reconsideration petition, Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative filed a "no objection""',-(-(;'"  xletter of Friendly Community Services Television, the licensee of station WLW927, Application File No. 04681CMP83. No other "no objection" letters were filed. See n. 13, supra. However, because we have already" ,-(-(ZZs"  X- xconsidered the interference analyses previously filed for two of these applications, see note 22,  X- xsupra, and because four of these stations were listed as granted or pending applications in a  xpublicly available source of Commission information prior to the filing date of the petitioned  X- xapplications, the studies will not be considered at this juncture.~ c yO- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative had access to the information needed to prepare the required  xinterference studies and, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.23, had the opportunity to file amendments to its applications  xas a matter of right until April 9, 1992, when the Commission imposed a filing freeze for amendments to pending  {O - xapplications. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Amendment of Parts 1, 2, and 21 of the Commission's Rules  {O - xGoverning the Use of Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n.35 (1992). After the  xeffective date of the freeze, petitioner could have requested leave to file amendments up until the time the  {OD -applications were returned, id., but no such requests were made. Furthermore, it is established  xthat the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an application has  xibeen returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such  Xz- xshowings postreturn. See, e.g., Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 n.7 (Dom. Fac. Div.  Xe- x1993)("[It is no longer possible to amend an application which has already been dismissed . . .  XN- x."); Marylan J. Benson,7 FCC Rcd 4668, 4669 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("We reject Benson's  xcontention that she should be permitted to file curative amendments and her applications  X" - x.reinstated nunc pro tunc for further processing. We believe that the Division's initial return of the . . . application as unacceptable for filing was correct . . . .").   0x18. Even if we were to accept these interference studies on reconsideration, the studies  x!are inadequate in that they: (1) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of  xcochannel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel  xinterference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(4); and (2) used incorrect technical parameters for  X- xthe transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. Furthermore, petitioner  xdid not include studies for the additional 49 previously proposed applications which were pending at the time its application was filed.  X'-  ^x19. Both of these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing. See  X- xMDS Technical 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  X- 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  xcrucial."). Based upon these considerations, we conclude that petitioners failed to comply with  xthe technical requirements set forth in  21.902 regarding interference protection and failed to demonstrate that the applicants are technically qualified to be MDS licensees as required by "4 f ,-(-(ZZ>"  X- xi 21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned. New Channels Communications, Inc.,  X-57 RR 2d at 1602; CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040. x  X-  x20. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve copies of  xinterference analyses, as required by  21.902(g), to all applicants, conditional licensees and  xlicensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), thereby depriving affected parties of  Xz- xnotice and an opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac.  xDiv. 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.(#  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#-  Qx21. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS  X- xapplications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are:  xy(1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April  x19, 1988 or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical  xarea for which there are applications pending on April 19, 1988. The first paragraph of the  X- x Notice explicitly stated that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions  xcontained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement."  X- x1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in  Xs- xviolation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite  xthese clear directives, both of the abovereferenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter  XG-site in violation of the location restriction of the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, these applicants "G ,-(-(ZZ?"  xisubmitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E or F channels.   x22. 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  X- xlanguage in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of compliance  Xx- xwith site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), we  xexplained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more desirable  XL- xzbands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in terms of  X7- x<more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated equipment  X" - xthan would be otherwise required." Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioners had full notice  xof the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioners chose to disregard  x=the Commission's clear directive, their applications were properly returned as unacceptable for  X -filing.  Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (1961). x  X -  >x23. Waiver Requests. Petitioners assert that their demonstrations of noninterference and  xpublic interest showings warrant grant of their requests for waiver of the location restrictions  X- xcontained in the 1988 Public Notice. No provision of  21.20 requires that waivers be granted.  x-For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest.   x24. 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. (#  x<"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 - xLaustsen, 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|$-  x25. Petitioners assert that they are entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location  xrequirements because grant of a waiver would not result in harmful interference to authorized or"g% ,-(-(ZZ $"  X- xpreviously proposed MMDS stations.c yOy-  ?#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxPetitioners contend that their applications would not be mutually exclusive with the 1983 previously  x proposed and subsequently authorized Baypoint Television ("Baypoint") application, Application File No. 01277CM xP83, because terrain blockage would prevent harmful interference to Baypoint's protected service area at Victoria,  xTexas. However, contrary to petitioners' assertion, Baypoint's application is within the line of site of petitioners'  x;proposed site at Shiner and, therefore, no terrain blockage exists which prevents harmful interference to Baypoint's protected service area at Victoria. However, as shown in Section III, supra, each of the  xkapplicants failed to submit interference studies, as required by  21.902, for all authorized or  xMpreviously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles or the radio horizon of their proposed  xNtransmitter sites, and to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful  X- x.interference. Indeed, petitioners failed to even identify the authorized or previously proposed  x?stations. Thus, their assertion that each application had demonstrated a lack of harmful  Xz- xinterference to other authorized or proposed stations is unsupported.bZz@c yOk - x;#X\  P6G;ɓP#э A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining  {O3- xwhether a proposed station would cause harmful interference. Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987). b These unsupported  Xc- xassertions fall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of  XN-extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.    x26. To support further their waiver requests, petitioners claim to have demonstrated non X - xinterference to the "only potentially viable MMDS operator within 50 miles." b c yO-#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Call sign WLW927 at Victoria, Texas, Application File No. 04681CMP83. Petitioners also  xclaim to have demonstrated that "their proposed service would not cause harmful interference to  xexisting MMDS applicants, including those whose applications were no longer viable, i.e.,  X - xlottery losers.'" c yOg- x=#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Petitioners refer to their supplemental interference analyses which were filed for both applications on  {O/-December 5, 1991, see n. 13, supra. However, as discussed in Section III, supra, all of the interference studies  xfiled by the applicants, including the supplemental interference studies filed on December 5,  x 1991, and April 24, 1995, were inadequate, and thus failed to demonstrate noninterference.  xPetitioners, moreover, failed to discuss the requirement that all interference studies must be filed  Xj-with the initial application, see  1416, supra.   x27. In addition, we disagree with petitioners' arguments that they should be excused from  x=their failure to file interference studies for pending, lotterylosing applications. It was recently  X- xreiterated that before filing their applications, MMDS applicants must consider all previously  X- xxproposed and pending applications, including lotterylosing applications. See CNI Wireless, Inc.,  X- x29 FCC Rcd at 2040; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5443. Similarly, in Roundtree  X- xCommunications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992), Roundtree argued that the dismissal of its application  xfor a new Hchannel station in the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service, for failure to  x-file the required interference analysis for an application which was pending at the time Roundtree "L ,-(-(ZZ"  xfiled, but which was subsequently dismissed, was arbitrary 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 chance.(#  X - x[Id. at 5456 (citations omitted). Moreover, due to the procedures established for MDS lotteries,  xit is not unusual for an applicant that initially loses in a lottery to be selected in a later lottery  xfor qualification review and to be subsequently granted, because the initial tentative selectee did  X - xnot survive final qualification review. See 47 C.F.R.  1.824(a). One of the underlying purposes  xof the interference analysis filing requirement is to avoid grant of an MDS application which  xwould cause harmful interference to previously proposed, but subsequently authorized stations.  x Thus, if we were to ignore applicants' failure to file interference analyses for these pending  xxapplications, we would effectively strip subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference  xprotection to which they are entitled pursuant to  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. It is our view that,  xregardless of the final disposition of those pending applications, 21.902 required petitioners to file, with their applications, interference studies for the other pending applications.   x28. Petitioners further assert that grant of their waiver requests is warranted because it  xLwill not frustrate the purpose of the location restrictions which, according to petitioners, is the  xprevention of harmful interference to existing or proposed MMDS systems. However, the  xlocation restrictions serve other important administrative purposes which do not concern  xinterference avoidance. The location restrictions also minimize the possibility for application  X- x[gridlock, and allow us to process applications more expeditiously. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9  Xk- xFCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981).  One of the  xmost significant underlying purposes of the location restrictions is to avoid diversion of scarce  xengineering resources from making necessary engineering determinations for 1983 MMDS  xapplications or modification applications to reviewing interference analyses filed with post1983  xapplications. These purposes would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the  xlocation restrictions to each applicant that demonstrated noninterference through the submission  x=of interference studies. Thus, we conclude that granting petitioners' requested waivers would  X -frustrate the underlying purposes of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions.  0   Ox29. Petitioners claim that grant of their waiver request would be in the public interest  x0because it would result in service to unserved communities, implying that the proposed  x/communities can only be served from an MDS transmitter located within each community's"r$,-(-(ZZ(#"  X- xborders.c yOy-#X\  P6G;ɓP#эxPetitioners assert that their proposed community of license is unserved and has various unmet needs. Petitioners further assert that the proposed stations could be moved to comply with  xthe 50 mile requirement, but the costs in moving the site ultimately would be paid by subscribers  xin the form of increased subscription rates. We disagree. The Commission determined as early  xas 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city  X- x<limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in nearby areas. In Microband Corp.  X- xof America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the Commission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS  xapplication proposing a station at Newark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cutoff by a  xpreviously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that  xzservice to New Jersey would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we  x/recognized that "the NewarkElizabethJersey City areas as a whole would be better served  X - xthrough a station located in New York City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id.  X - x[at 18586. Here, petitioners concede that they have a reasonable alternative, thereby failing to  X - xjustify a waiver for lack of a reasonable alternative as required by  21.19(b) and WAIT Radio.  xMoreover, we note that no costs would be incurred in moving a station if the "move" is made  x!prior to construction. The applicants could have avoided such costs for amendment or  x0modification if the required site selection work had been done prior to application filing.  xFurthermore, petitioners offer no documentary support for their assertions and, thus, have failed  X- xto "plead with particularity the facts and circumstances" warranting a waiver. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157.  X>-   x30. In addition, petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit  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 a waiver of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude  X-that petitioners' requests for waivers of the location restrictions were properly denied. 0  X-  x31. Even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the filing of  xthe abovereferenced applications, in each instance these applications still would have been  xreturned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the  xtime the returned applications were filed, including filing after the relevant cutoff date of  xKmutually exclusive applications and failing to submit interference analyses for authorized stations  xor previously filed applications. All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part  x21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and  xivalid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that  X- xthe application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger, 294 F.2d at 242; see also Donald E.  X- xBenson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Because the applications were properly  xireturned for the reasons listed above, we need not address the issue of site availability which was also cited as a reason for return. ""X,-(-(ZZ!"   x32. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the  x-applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted.   Nx33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the abovereferenced applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED.   x34. 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  XK-