WPCw 2?BJZECourier3|n#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.$h';U7G;A 7ier<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@2r ZKf '3|nc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2g%K K K#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHeading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left14 Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style 4G Y * Ã  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List*M0 Y XX` ` (#` ",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2vhf If U Kg`b",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddd4dddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxddddXXddXddXdddddooL8ddddLdkdddx8xPxdxDx8ppoddLLdpLpLpLodxLx8xdopoopoxdxLxLxLdxdoodxdxdCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"d~d9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'^#)0<><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""X[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. (#  yO-9 FCC Rcd at 568.  47 C.F.R. 21.902(b)(3) and (4). MDS applicants are required to demonstrate these protections in interference studies submitted with their applications.  4. At the time PJE's application was filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with   21.902(b), applicants were required to include with the application an analysis of the potential   for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the   applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the   Kprotected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the   applicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other   ]authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) (1991). In   addition,  21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis   of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting   Kantenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other  X-  yauthorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)(1991); see   47 C.F.R. 21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required that each MDS   iapplication for the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that   zwould be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with operation of adjacent"P ,-(-(ZZ"   -channel stations. The applicant was also required to show what steps were taken to comply with   /the requirements of 21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional   Llicensees, to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid   yblocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby  X-areas. 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).  ]5. These interference showings are a significant requirement which the Commission has   repeatedly emphasized because of the extensive planning and engineering involved in the MDS   licensing process. The Commission, in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS,   .did so with the understanding that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise.   <The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more  X -  closely than ordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. See Amendment of   Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency   allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service and  X -  lthe Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (MMDS  X -  .Allocation Order). Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this   problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the   applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  Xh-  acceptable for filing." MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. See also 47 C.F.R.  XS-  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance  X<-  [of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. <f {O-  ԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS   Japplication which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by  21.902(c) cannot be   characterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by  {O-  ithe criteria for acceptability outlined in rule 21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac.   KDiv. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application an analysis of the   potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the   radio horizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna . . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with   Section 21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was  {O-  =proper.");  G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n. 9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating   applications under Part 21 of the rules is not 'substantial completeness' but rather 'acceptability for filing'. . . .   JCooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing  {OS-  irequired . . . . "); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not   ycontain 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 . . . .").  Hence, "the   filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered  X-  ja basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application." Family Entertainment,  X-9 FCC at 567.  X-  6. In a de novo review, on reconsideration, we have determined that PJE's application   was properly returned for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements by   failing to demonstrate the lack of harmful interference to proposed and authorized stations   required to be studied pursuant to  21.902(c). Specifically, at the time of PJE's application  Xq-  filing, PJE failed to file interference studies for: (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS"q ,-(-(ZZ"  X-  Zstation;kf yOy-ԍ WHT663, Application File No. 13505CMP83, for Atlanta, Georgia.k (2) two 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS stations;Xf yO -  ԍ WMI338, Application File No. 690CMP83, for Rome Georgia, and WMI898, Application File No. 5181CMP83, for Chattanooga, Tennessee. (2) 65 1983 previously proposed   MMDS stations, which had applications pending on January 2, 1992, the filing date of the  X-  Chatsworth application;f yO3-  hԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 05138CMP83, for Atlanta, Georgia; and 09378CMP83, 04982CMP83, and 07253CMP83 for Chattanooga, Tennessee. and (3) 149 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had  X-applications pending on January 2, 1992.P Xf yOt -  ԍ These included, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 52286CMP92 52295CMP92, for Gasden,   JAlabama; 53494CMP92, for Jasper, Georgia; 60087CMP91, for Rome, Georgia; and 51469CMP91, 51390CMP91, and 51384CMP91 for Crossville, Tennessee.P  17. Petitioner raises several arguments to explain its failure to file some, but not all, of   {these required studies with its application. Specifically, after the return of its application,   -petitioner claims to have spoken with FCC engineering staff who revealed three areas of concern.   MThe first omission, according to petitioner, was petitioner's failure to submit an interference   -study, with its application, for the pending previously proposed cochannel application, Southern   Wireless Cable ("Southern"), Application File No. 53494CMP92, for Jasper, Georgia. With   -respect to the Southern application, which was filed on November 12, 1991, petitioner argues that   prior to its application filing this application did not appear on FCC internal staff listings, which   petitioner characterizes as "inventory," nor on public notice, hence, PJE was unable to know of   the Southern application. The second area of concern, according to petitioner, was petitioner's   Mfailure to submit interference studies, with its application, for pending previously proposed   ;adjacent channel stations for Chattanooga, Tennessee. Regarding these proposed adjacent channel   Chattanooga stations, petitioner claims it was not required to submit interference studies for these   as 21.902(c)(2) requires interference studies for adjacent channels only when there exists an   Zunobstructed electrical path. Here, PJE asserts, there is an obstructed electrical pathway between   PJE's site and these stations. The last omission, according to PJE, was its failure to submit an   interference study, with its application, for a pending previously proposed adjacent channel   Napplication, Greene Communications ("Greene"), Application File No. 5138CMP83, for  X-  yAtlanta, Georgia, located approximately ten miles from PJE's proposed site. ( f yO -  ԍ Although the Greene application is not specifically identified in PJE's application or petition for reconsideration, PJE does identify it in a later supplement to the Commission. As for the Greene   application, petitioner argues that it acknowledged this proposed station in its application; pledged   xcooperation to protect it from interference, including possible collocation; held discussions which   resulted in the applicant agreeing, if granted, "to work with PJE;" and that the application has  X-since been dismissed. pp  Xe- _8. At the time of PJE's application filing, PJE failed to submit required interference"e ,-(-(ZZ"   analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice or   FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's application. For example, PJE   .failed to submit an interference study for an authorized station, WHT663, Application File No.   13505CMP83, for Atlanta, Georgia which was placed on public notice on October 25, 1985,   yalmost seven years prior to the Chatsworth application filing date. Copies of the Commission's  X-  \public notices are available to the public at the time of issuance. See 47 C.F.R.  0.322 and   0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public inspection at the  Xa-  >Commission's Press and News Media Division. Id. Furthermore, in PJE's application it was   [stated that "[a] further search was conducted of the FCC's lists on nonMSA market areas that  X5-  were requested in 1983 and the weekly Public Notices current through December 11, 1991."   =(emphasis added). Therefore, given petitioner's failure to file interference analyses, at the time  X -  Zof its application filing, for numerous pending previously proposed and authorized stations listed  X -  on public notice,  f yOm -  >ԍ In addition to the example cited above, according to Commission records, 205 MMDS stations and   applications for which PJE failed to file required interference studies appeared on prior public notice. For example,   138 pending previously proposed Crossville, Tennessee applications, which include but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 51372CMP91, 51376CMP91, and 51383CMP91, appeared on public notice on September 27, 1991.  which according to PJE's application, it should have been aware of, we find   that even apart from any failure of PJE to file an interference study for the Southern proposed station, petitioner failed to comply with  21.902(c).  X- 9.  Regarding the pending previously proposed Chattanooga stations, we reject   petitioner's claims that interference studies were not required for the proposed adjacent channel   stations, because of an alleged obstructed electrical pathway as factually incorrect. Our own   independent engineering review, conducted on reconsideration, has revealed that PJE's transmitter  X<-  site has an unobstructed electrical pathway to all of the adjacent channel Chattanooga stations.   zHence, pursuant to 21.902(c)(2), PJE was required to submit interference analyses, with its application, for these previously proposed adjacent channel Chattanooga stations.  O10. In addition, the one study that was submitted with PJE's application, for the 1983   subsequently authorized cochannel Chattanooga station, WMI855, Application File No. 10779 X-  jCMP83, was inadequate. Specifically, the interference analysis: (1) did not include free space   calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within  X-  the protected service area of the authorized station, as required by 21.902(c),(d) and (f) (see   M21.902(e)); (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of the  XZ-  \authorized station;b xZf yO!-  ԍ Specifically, PJE based its interference analysis of WMI855 on a hypothetical transmitter site. Our   independent engineering review has determined that this hypothetical site was not the "worst case scenario" of the   : potential for harmful interference. Therefore, since the Chatsworth applicant did not perform its interference analysis   Jof WMI855 on the actual technical parameters listed in WMI855's application or, in the alternative, the worst case   Zscenario, PJE used incorrect methodology in calculating the study. In addition, the interference analysis was not   representative of any other proposed cochannel Chattanooga stations since these proposed different transmitter sites than the hypothetical site.b (3) failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel   interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(3); and (4) used incorrect technical parameters for"C ,-(-(ZZ{"  X-the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain.  X- 11. Lastly, we decline to grant PJE's request, contained in a supplement to its petition  X-  for reconsideration, f yO6-ԍ This request was contained in the June 20, 1994, supplement to its petition for reconsideration. for waiver of its obligation, pursuant to 21.902(c), to submit interference   analyses for all of the pending previously proposed Chattanooga cochannel and adjacent channel  X-stations. Section  21.20(c) allows for the acceptance of applications for filing if:  Xc- X(1) The application is accompanied by a request which sets forth the reasons in support  ^of a waiver of (or an exception to), in whole or in part, any specific rule, regulation, or  -requirement with which the application is in conflict; or  (2) The Commission, upon its own motion, waives (or allows an exception to), in whole or in part, any rule, regulation or requirement.(#  X -  {47 C.F.R. 21.20(c)(1) and (2) (emphasis added). In addition, Section 21.19 provides that   /applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules must contain a statement of reasons  X -sufficient to justify a waiver.  Xf yO-  ԍ "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks a waiver  {O~-  . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC,  {OH-  K418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664  {O-  (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam); see also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A]   request for waiver . . . must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.").  A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that:  !X(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  (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. (#   47 C.F.R. 21.19. Accordingly, as PJE did not submit its request for waiver with its application,  X-  petitioner's request is untimely. See  47 C.F.R. 21.20(c)(1). Nor will we grant a waiver upon   our own motion. We find that grant of a waiver of these required studies would not be in the  X-  public interest. As discussed previously, the interference analysis requirement is an imperative   one which demands compliance at the time of the application. In addition, we do not believe the   facts and circumstances of the Chatsworth application are sufficiently unique so as to warrant a   [waiver of this requirement. Also, due to the procedures established for MDS lotteries, it is not   ]unusual for an applicant that initially loses in a lottery to be selected in a later lottery for   qualification review and to be subsequently granted because the initial tentative selectee did not  X-  >survive qualification review. See 47 C.F.R. 1.824(a). Thus, we will not grant a waiver sua  X-sponte.",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- ԙ 12. With respect to PJE's failure to submit an interference study for the closely located   [adjacent channel 1983 Greene application, we find petitioner's arguments unpersuasive. While   PJE's application does recognize the existence of this proposed station, this acknowledgment does   not substitute for the required interference study. Nor does PJE's proposal of collocation suffice  X-  as this is technically impossible based on the sites as proposed in the applications.  According   to Commission records, the Greene station is 10.16 miles from PJE's proposed site. In order to   collocate with an adjacent channel station the applicants must be located at the same transmitter  Xa-  site.iaf yO-  ԍ In addition, if PJE changed the geographic coordinates of its proposed site to correspond with the Greene  {O -  station, this would constitute a major amendment and would be deemed a new application. See  21.23; 21.31(e).   [Moreover, we note that the Greene application is within the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA").  {O4 -  xTherefore, PJE would also be within the Atlanta MSA and, hence, subject to the additional MSA regulations. SeeĄ  21.901(d)(5) i As for PJE's application pledge to cooperate to protect the Greene proposed station from   yinterference, this does not excuse petitioner's failure to submit an interference study. A pledge   [to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from  X -  compliance with the requirements of Sections 21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c).k\ |f {OI-  ԍ See e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all  {O-  legitimate engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7)."k The mandate that   applicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the   good faith commandment of 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants,   permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and .   . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference .  X -  . . ." As noted earlier, interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing MDS   applications; cannot be skipped; and are a prerequisite to the grant of a license. We also reject   petitioner's unsupported assertion that Greene agreed "to work with PJE" if Greene's application  Xd-  was granted as petitioner provides no evidence of this "agreement." See Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd   >3207 ( Comm. Car. Bur. 1987) (a bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary   Ksupport, has no probative value). Finally, petitioner's statement concerning the probability of the   isubsequently dismissed Greene application receiving a license does not excuse petitioner's failure  X -  .to file a required interference study for the application which was thenpending. See 47 C.F.R. 21.902(c).  `13. Thus, due to PJE's failure to file required interference analyses for pending   Zpreviously proposed and authorized 1983 and post1983 stations as well as the deficiencies of the   one interference study submitted, we find that the Chatsworth applicant failed to comply with   x21.902(c). "An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent channel operation and does not   contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference as described  XT-  herein will not be accepted for filing." Amendments of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's   Rules and Regulations with regard to Technical Requirements Applicable to the Multipoint   YDistribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private OperationalFixed  X-  0Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984). Accordingly, PJE's application was",-(-(ZZ=" unacceptable for filing and properly returned.  X- ?14. PostReturn Interference Analyses. On reconsideration and in several supplements   thereto, petitioner seeks to submit interference analyses which were required at the time of PJE's  X-  application filing. f yO-  ԍ On March 1, 1993, April 23, 1993, April 26, 1994, June 20, 1994, and February 3, 1995, petitioner submitted,  yO-  on reconsideration, documents or correspondence attaching interference showings. In addition, on December 15,   z1993, and January 13, 1994, petitioner filed erratums correcting certain interference studies submitted on reconsideration.  Applications which lack complete and necessary information are unacceptable   >for filing pursuant to 21.20. In addition, at the time of PJE's application filing, pursuant to  Xv-  21.23(a), the applicant could have amended,as a matter of right, its application prior to return.}|vf yO -  ԍ Subsequent to PJE's application filing, but prior to return, the Commission imposed a freeze, effective April  {O -  9, 1992, on, among other things, the filing of most amendments to pending applications. Notice of Proposed  {Oi -  Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n. 35 (1992). Section 21.23(a) which allows, under certain circumstances,   amendments as of right was also later changed to include "provided, however, that . . . the Commission has not   otherwise forbidden the amendment of pending applications. 47 C.F.R. 21.23(a). However, PJE still had over three   Ymonths, from January 2, 1992, to April 9, 1992, to amend its application to include information which should have been submitted with its application. }  XH- {15. As noted above, we find that the Chatsworth applicant was required to submit these  X1-  interference showings and had access to the information necessary to prepare required interference  X -  >analyses prior to filing. See supra  6, 8. However, PJE failed to make virtually any of the   xrequired interference showings with its application. In addition, the one study that was submitted   with PJE's application was premised, by PJE's own admission, on a hypothetical transmitter site.  X -  See supra note 12. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we decline to accept, on reconsideration,  X -  petitioner's interference showings. See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444, n.7 (Dom. Fac.   Div. 1993) ("[I]t is no longer possible to amend an application which has already been dismissed.  X-  \. . ."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) (curative amendments filed with   \petition for reconsideration, attempting to supply a missing interference showing and other  Xj-  missing information, not allowed); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4699 n.9 ("We reject   zBenson's contention that she should be permitted to file curative amendments and have her  X>-  Kapplication reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. We believe that the Division's initial   yreturn of the abovereferenced Benson application as unacceptable for filing was correct. . . .").  X-Thus, acceptance of petitioner's interference studies on reconsideration is not warranted.  D f yO -  xԍ Moreover, even if we were to accept these untimely interference studies, the studies were still unacceptable  {O!-  due to their numerous inadequacies. For example, contrary to PJE's February 1995 postreturn interference study,   our own independent engineering review has revealed that PJE's proposed station causes harmful interference to six   Chattanooga cochannel applications (Application File Nos. 01109CMP83, 03518CMP83, 04982CMP83,   .05788CMP83, 07253CMP83, and 16052CMP83). Specifically, we found that PJE's study for these   applications was inadequate due to use of incorrect technical parameters and incorrect methodology, and failure to   -engineer the station to provide 45 dB protection. In addition, PJE's February 1995 study for the pending 1983   hadjacent channel Chattanooga applications did not cover all of these applications because the proposed stations used   different technical parameters which were not studied by PJE. As another example, PJE's June 1994 interference"&,-(-(V'"   study for the then Crossville tentative selectee, Application File No. 51360CMP90, was deficient due to use of   incorrect technical parameters and incorrect methodology, and failure to engineer the station to provide 45 dB   protection. In addition, while PJE proposed using a frequency offset antenna, PJE did not submit the required  {O-  consent letter from the Crossville applicant. See In the Matter of Amendments of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78 and 94 of the   Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting: Private   kOperationalFixed Service, Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service,  {OB-  Instructional Television Fixed Service, & Cable Television Relay Service, 6 FCC Rcd 6764, 6770 (1991). Finally, this study did not cover numerous other Crossville applications which proposed different locations or frequencies. """,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- _ԙ16. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference   analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study   upon all previously proposed or authorized station applicants, conditional licensees or licensees   Mrequired to be studied and submit a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee and  X-  licensee served. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The Chatsworth applicant failed to serve copies of the  X-  required interference analyses, as mandated by 21.902(g), on all applicants, conditional   licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by 21.902(c), thus depriving affected  Xa-  parties of notice and opportunity to be heard.saf yO-  ԍ Although PJE claims in its reconsideration petition to have served the Greene applicant, PJE admits its   application did not show, as required by 21.902(g), that service had in fact occurred. Moreover, even if we were   wto assume that service to the Greene applicant had occurred, PJE still did not satisfy the requirements of 21.902(g)  {O>-  Las PJE failed to serve copies of the required interference analyses on all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees required to be studied. s In Edna Cornaggia, 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):  XThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by  parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be  affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference  0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with  a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service the orderly process  ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after opposition are filed, was negated.(#   Thus, PJE's application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on its failure to comply with the service requirements contained in 21.902(g).  X -:IV. CONCLUSION  ^17. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the Paul   xJackson Enterprises application under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.  18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by Paul Jackson  Xi-Enterprises IS HEREBY DENIED."i ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ ԙ19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send   a copy of the decision to the authorized representative for petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: