NOTICE ************************************************************************* NOTICE ************************************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Application of ) ) NEW ENGLAND WIRELESS, INC. ) File No. 01762-CM-P-92 ) For Authority to Construct and Operate) a Multipoint Distribution Service Station) on the F-Group Channels in ) Windsor, Vermont ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: June 19, 1996 Released: June 25, 1996 By the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Video Services Division has before it one petition for reconsideration of the return, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a) on delegated authority, of an application for authority to construct and operate a Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") station on the F channels at Windsor, Vermont. This application was filed with the Commission by New England Wireless, Inc. ("New England Wireless") on February 12, 1992, after the Commission had reopened the filing period for MDS applications on the E or F channels, subject to certain location restrictions. See  5, infra. We will consider this petition for reconsideration in this order. II. BACKGROUND 2. New England Wireless' application for the F-group channels proposed a transmitter site at Windsor, Vermont and was filed with the Commission on February 12, 1992. A preliminary review of the Windsor application, conducted by Commission staff, revealed that the application was unacceptable for filing. Consequently, Commission staff returned the Windsor application pursuant to  21.20 by a return notification letter dated February 9, 1994. This return notification letter specifically stated that: (1) the applicant filed past the cut-off period established in 47 C.F.R.  21.31 or 21.914; (2) the applicant filed in an area not open for filing pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(4) as it does not meet the criteria established in Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice), which specifically states that an applicant may not file in a geographic area of an authorized Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS") station or pending MMDS application; (3) the applicant performed an inadequate interference analysis, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902, due to failure to serve all affected parties, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g), and/or failure to consider all previously proposed or authorized MMDS or Instructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") stations required to be considered; and (4) the applicant's waiver request is denied due to failure to comply with 47 C.F.R.  21.19 requirements, and that without grant of a waiver, the application fails to comply with FCC rules, and thus, is unacceptable for filing. 3. Petitioner's Arguments on Reconsideration. On March 11, 1994, New England Wireless timely filed a petition for reconsideration for the returned Windsor application. On reconsideration, petitioner states that the reasons noted in the return letter are not "sufficient to fully inform the applicant . . . of the basis for determination that the application failed to comply with the [Commission's] rules" and asks for clarification. Moreover, petitioner contends that "there have been problems with the Commission's database, and there are often occasions when review by the Commission staff is at odds with the database available to an applicant's engineer." Without specific identification of the applications and/or stations that the FCC staff concluded that petitioner failed to study and/or serve, petitioner claims it is unable to file a meaningful petition for reconsideration. Petitioner therefore requests that the FCC staff provide a "specific and non-generalized statement of reasons for return" of the Windsor application, and that petitioner be given an opportunity to supplement its reconsideration petition to address the specific factual bases for the application's return. 4. With regard to WMH285 in Keene, New Hampshire, which petitioner admits is less than 50 miles away from petitioner's application site, petitioner argues that it was negotiating for an agreement to locate its transmitter within 50 miles of WMH285 and that a waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice, if necessary, was requested. Petitioner also submits that it had subsequently reached agreement with WMH285 and that WMH285 had cancelled its license and was no longer in existence by the time petitioner's application was processed by FCC staff. Hence, petitioner submits that to the extent that a waiver of the filing requirements was requested, such waiver request would appear to have been justified. Thus, petitioner requests clarification, rather than a "mere notation," as to why its waiver request was denied. III. DISCUSSION 5. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing period for MDS applications was again designated until 1988. See 1988 Public Notice. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, MDS applications for E or F channel stations could then be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations which were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the E or F channels pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the E or F channels pending as of April 19, 1988. See 1988 Public Notice. These location restrictions were announced in the first paragraph of the 1988 Public Notice and twice repeated on the first page. In addition, it was explicitly stated that "[w]e do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, petitioner proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Specifically, petitioner proposed a transmitter site within 50 miles of one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station, WMH285, Application File No. 00180-CM-P-83, at Keene, New Hampshire, and one 1983 MMDS application, Application File No. 01210-CM-P-83 at Manchester, New Hampshire, which were both pending at the time of the Windsor filing. Indeed, petitioner admits on reconsideration to filing an application for a site within 50 miles of this previously authorized MMDS station at Keene, New Hampshire. 6. Because the 1988 Public Notice prohibited the filing of the Windsor application, petitioner's application was properly found to have violated the location restrictions. In addition, because the date for filing applications applied only to applications for sites located more than 50 miles from applications pending on April 19, 1988, or more than 15 miles from the border of a statistical area in which applications were pending on April 19, 1988, the Windsor applicant filed on a date not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E and F channels. See  21.901(d)(4). Petitioner can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station. Because petitioner chose to disregard the clear directive set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, petitioner's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 7. Mutual Exclusivity and Cut-Off. In addition to violating the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions and filing on a date not designated by the Commission, we find that petitioner's application was mutually exclusive with and cut off by applications filed on September 9, 1983. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for the determination of mutual exclusivity: The 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 electrical 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. 47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In applying this standard, the staff evaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station; and (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS station. Applications that are determined to be either within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station are considered to be mutually exclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference by inclusion of interference studies with the application, pursuant to the standards specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4). 8. To be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed on or before the applicable cut-off date for mutually exclusive applications. Based upon our de novo review of the returned Windsor application and the publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and previously filed applications, we conclude that the Windsor application was mutually exclusive with and cut-off by 1983 authorized stations or pending, previously filed applications. See  21.31; see also Establishment of Multichannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33, 873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983). Specifically, the returned Windsor application was mutually exclusive with and cut-off by one previously authorized 1983 station; and one pending, previously proposed 1983 application. Thus, petitioner's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d) which states: An 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) 9. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established the principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel sought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference will not occur with respect to the first MDS channel . . . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. Eleven years before the Windsor application was filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: It is possible for co-channel interference generated by one MDS station to cause unacceptable 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. R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981). It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of interference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest determination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an MDS/MMDS licensee." Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 567-68 n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,  21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications. 10. At the time the Windsor application was filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with its application an analysis of the potential for harmful 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 protected 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 its application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized 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 application for the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel stations. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7) (1991). The applicant was also required to show the steps taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional 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) (1991). 11. These interference showings are a significant requirement because 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 closely than ordinarily allowed and would require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the Commission stressed that "[t]hose applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. (emphasis in original). See also  21.902(b) and (c). In view of these concerns with the potential for harmful interference, the Commission has decided a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. "[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567. Because petitioner here failed to make the required showings regarding interference protection, its application cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985). See also Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by 47 C.F.R.  21.902 are crucial."). 12. Petitioner's application did not include 35 required analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles or to authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel and cochannel stations for which there was an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo review on reconsideration, we have determined that New England Wireless failed to file required interference studies for: (1) one previously authorized 1983 MMDS station; (2) six pending, previously proposed 1983 applications; (3) one pending, previously proposed post-1983 application; and (4) one previously authorized post-1983 MMDS station. Further, the Windsor application's proposed transmitter site was within line of sight and had an unobstructed electrical path to: (1) two previously authorized 1983 MMDS stations; (2) three subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS stations; (3) 17 pending, previously proposed 1983 MMDS stations; and (4) three pending, previously proposed post-1983 MMDS stations. 13. While petitioner attempts to justify its failure to file required interference studies by generally citing "problems with the Commission's database" and differences with the "database available to [its] engineer," petitioner does not even offer an explanation for its failure to file interference analyses for the numerous pending, previously proposed MMDS stations on the E and F channels within line of sight and in an unobstructed electrical path to the applicant's transmitter site that appeared on FCC public notices or FCC staff internal listings. The Commission does not attest to the accuracy of independent data bases not affiliated with the Commission. The Commission has over the years identified, in public notices, the third party entities that have contracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to the MDS database. See Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). If petitioner did not use the Commission's official online contractor, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, non-Commission affiliated databases "available to [its] engineer," it did so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete. 14. We additionally note that New England Wireless failed to submit required interference analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations that had appeared on public notice or on FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's Windsor application. For example, petitioner failed to submit interference studies for five pending, previously proposed 1983 MMDS stations that appeared on public notice September 26, 1986, years prior to petitioner's February 1992 filing date. We also note that six 1983 and two post- 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations were included on the January 24, 1992, FCC staff internal listing, three weeks prior to petitioner's filing date. 15. Moreover, the interference studies that were submitted by New England Wireless with its application were inadequate. Specifically, these interference studies: (1) did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d), and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) failed to show that the station was engineered to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4); and (3) used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain, and did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations. 16. Petitioner's assertion that it would supplement its petition, upon receipt of factual data from the Commission explaining why its application was returned, does not excuse its failure to submit interference studies as required by  21.902. A pledge to supplement its petition to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the requirements of  21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all 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)." Id. As described, the interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. See  9-11, supra. This is a step which cannot be skipped, as implied by petitioner. In addition, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that applicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of an application. Moreover, 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 . . . ." See also 47 C.F.R.  21.31. 17. Since we find petitioner had ample notice, at the time of filing, of pending, previously proposed and authorized stations, we reject petitioner's offer to supplement its petition post-reconsideration. Moreover, as discussed above, this offer by petitioner ignores the purposes behind the interference analysis requirement. Interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made. Without such studies a logjam would be created, making it more difficult to reach final actions on MDS applications. See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd at 7376 ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS applications as mutually-exclusive was determined by a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses . . . ."). If the Commission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would lack sufficient technical information for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on many applications until the studies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants may be tempted to wait as long as possible to submit interference studies so as to minimize the number that must be submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would lead to a stalemate where the Commission could neither grant nor return or dismiss any MMDS application. As noted above, the Windsor application lacked interference studies, as required by  21.902, for authorized and pending, previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed transmitter site and failed to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. See  12, supra. Indeed, petitioner failed to even identify all of the previously proposed and authorized stations. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Windsor application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 18. 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 the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application. New England Wireless failed to serve 35 required interference analyses, as mandated by  21.902(g), on 35 applicants, conditional licensees and/or licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. 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): The 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 analysis 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. Thus, the Windsor application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on its failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g). 19. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. Regarding petitioner's request for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions regarding WMH285 in Keene, New Hampshire, we find that its grant would not serve the public interest. Section 21.19 provides that applications seeking waiver of the Commission's rules must contain a statement of reasons sufficient to justify a waiver. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that: (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. "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (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 rule would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule."). 20. Petitioner's assertion that, at the time of filing, it was negotiating with station WMH285 for permission to locate within 50 miles of WMH285's transmitter site does not excuse its failure to comply with the location restrictions outlined in the 1988 Public Notice. Petitioner also asserts that it is entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location requirements because "by the time the application was reached for processing, station WMH285 was no longer in existence." We note, however, that Commission staff cannot evaluate applications based upon the applicant's stated intentions or promises. The staff must review applications based upon the information provided therein. New England Wireless failed to submit a statement from the licensee of WMH285 agreeing to petitioner's proposal, or even documentary evidence of the existence of negotiations with WMH285. Thus, petitioner's assertion regarding any such agreement with WMH285 is unsupported. This unsupported assertion falls short of the stringent showing in WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary circumstances justifying a waiver. Moreover, even if we were to accept the undocumented existence of an agreement with WMH285, or the eventual cancellation of station WMH285's license, as justifying a waiver of the 50-mile location restriction with regard to WMH285, such grounds cannot justify the grant of a waiver with regard to Application File No. 01210-CM-P-83, a pending application proposing a site at Manchester, New Hampshire, which was within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed Windsor site. See  5, supra. As described above, petitioner had full notice of the necessity to comply with location restrictions. See  6, supra. Because petitioner chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, its application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing. 21. Furthermore, petitioner's request for waiver of the 50-mile location restriction fails to address, as required by  21.19, the issue of whether there was a reasonable alternative site for the proposed station which would have been in compliance with the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. An applicant must demonstrate the lack of a reasonable alternative under  21.19 to justify the grant of a waiver. See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444 n.6 ("Contrary to the assertion in the reconsideration petition that the Gary site . . . is the only possible site for this MMDS station, the [seven transmitter sites studied by the applicant] do not exhaust the numerous potential transmitter sites in the Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has also been recognized in another context. "Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fully-spaced sites . . . . [Without such a showing, the applicant's] waiver request died, as it were, at the stating gate." Orange Park Florida TV, Inc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987). For these reasons, petitioner's assertion that "a waiver request would appear to be justified" is both factually and legally unsupported. 22. Petitioner asserts that the staff's disposition of its waiver request by a "mere notation" that the request is denied for failure to comply with the Commission's rules "is not a sufficient and reasoned basis for denial of waiver." However, the Court in WAIT Radio made clear that: The 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. The application did request a waiver, but the request lacked concrete, documentary support. Under these circumstances, and in light of the thousands of MDS applications the staff was processing, the return notification letter indicating that the request was denied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules was sufficient. Moreover, we have now reviewed the staff's denial of petitioner's waiver request and have fully explained the basis for denying it. 23. In sum, petitioner fails to justify why its application merits different treatment from that which we applied to thousands of other post-1983 MMDS applications. New England Wireless particularly fails to address one of the primary underlying purposes of the location restrictions, namely to prevent the filing of post-1983 applications for which interference studies were required to be submitted, which in turn requires review by engineering staff, who would then be prevented from making necessary engineering determinations for 1983 MMDS applications or processing modification applications. In view of these considerations, we find it would be contrary to the public interest to grant New England Wireless a waiver of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. We therefore conclude that petitioner's waiver request was properly denied. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions were waived, the Windsor application would still have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to failure to include the required interference studies and to serve such studies upon affected parties. See  9-18, supra. 24. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioner argues that the return letter failed to detail the reasons for the return of the Windsor application. However,  21.20(a), which governs the disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to the omissions or discrepancies," not the breadth of detail demanded by petitioner here. See Adams Telecom, Inc v. FCC., 38 F.3d 576, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (FCC dismissal letters and order providing only brief explanations of why applications failed to satisfy requirements upheld as sufficient because parties could understand basis of decision.). We find that the return notification letter sent to petitioner gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return of the application. In this case, the return notification letter indicated several reasons why the application was unacceptable for filing, and cited the relevant rule sections or Commission decision. As discussed above, New England Wireless was afforded sufficient information to know that its application was being returned due to defects specified in the letter. IV. CONCLUSION 25. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the New England Wireless, Inc. application under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted. 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by New England Wireless IS HEREBY DENIED. 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send a copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Charles E. Dziedzic Assistant Chief, Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau