WPCk 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\PX@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP#2@qf X CourierCG Times",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7./0( mHP LaserJet 4Si$/21.901 Frequencies/$ $2r ZKf '3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`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@\@\`L2]If JU KD[Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""cancelled its license and was no longer in existence by the time petitioner's application was  x.processed by FCC staff. Hence, petitioner submits that to the extent that a waiver of the filing  xrequirements was requested, such waiver request would appear to have been justified. Thus,  xpetitioner requests clarification, rather than a "mere notation," as to why its waiver request was denied. "n$X,-(-(ZZ(#" #III. DISCUSSION  X-  x5. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983,\&f {OK- xԍ See 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- xiOperational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 126266 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order);  {O-Establishment of Multichannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed Reg. 34,746 (1983). \ no filing  X- x period for MDS applications was again designated until 1988. See 1988 Public Notice. In  xLaccordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, MDS applications for E or F channel  X- xstations could then be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations  xwhich were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the  xE or F channels pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than  xL15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the  X5- xE or F channels pending as of April 19, 1988. See 1988 Public Notice. These location  X - xrestrictions were announced in the first paragraph of the 1988 Public Notice and twice repeated  X - xon the first page. In addition, it was explicitly stated that "[w]e do not anticipate granting any  X - xwaivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was also  xemphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be  X - xreturned as unacceptable for filing. Id.  Despite these clear directives, petitioner proposed a  X - x[transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Specifically,  xypetitioner proposed a transmitter site within 50 miles of one 1983 previously authorized MMDS  x\station, WMH285, Application File No. 00180CMP83, at Keene, New Hampshire, and one  x=1983 MMDS application, Application File No. 01210CMP83 at Manchester, New Hampshire,  XY- xwhich were both pending at the time of the Windsor filing.Yf yO- xjԍ These applications were 35.89 miles and 48.65 miles, respectively, from petitioner's proposed Windsor transmitter site. Indeed, petitioner admits on  xreconsideration to filing an application for a site within 50 miles of this previously authorized MMDS station at Keene, New Hampshire.  X-  "x6. Because the 1988 Public Notice prohibited the filing of the Windsor application,  x<petitioner's application was properly found to have violated the location restrictions. In addition,  x[because the date for filing applications applied only to applications for sites located more than  x50 miles from applications pending on April 19, 1988, or more than 15 miles from the border  xof a statistical area in which applications were pending on April 19, 1988, the Windsor applicant  xfiled on a date not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications for the E and  Xu- xF channels. See  21.901(d)(4). Petitioner can claim no surprise concerning the important  X`- xburden placed on applicants to select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station.3&`f {O$- xwԍ In addition to the clear language concerning the location of proposed MDS facilities in the 1988 Public Notice,  xCommission decisions issued prior to the filing of petitioner's application emphasized the important role that site  {O%- xselection plays in the processing of MDS applications. See, e.g., Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd  {O{&-7375, 737677 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 604 (1981). 3 "` ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xBecause petitioner chose to disregard the clear directive set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, petitioner's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  X-  1x7. Mutual Exclusivity and CutOff.  In addition to violating the 1988 Public Notice  xllocation restrictions and filing on a date not designated by the Commission, we find that  xpetitioner's application was mutually exclusive with and cut off by applications filed on  xkSeptember 9, 1983. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the standard for the determination of mutual exclusivity:      !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.(#  X}- 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  XQ- x/previously proposed MDS station;Q {O- x#X\  P6G;ɓP# The 50 mile benchmark for MDS stations was adopted in Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the  xCommission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations  {O\- xin the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 62021 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order), which  yO&- xcodified, as a rebuttable presumption, Commission policy as to what constitutes mutually exclusive status. The  x;Commission adopted this 50 mile benchmark to enhance administrative efficiency in processing applications, avoid  {O- x"gridlock" situations, and permit authorization of stations to proceed expeditiously. See R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at  {O-604; Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n., Inc., 3 FCC Rcd at 7376. X01ÍÍX01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í Í and (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed  x electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or previously proposed MDS  X#- x=station.  #a yO- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э As the Commission noted in the MDS technical rulemaking order, "the mileage between these [MDS] stations  {O- xis not the only factor that determines whether interference will occur." Amendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the  xCommission'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-(OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 90 (1984) (hereinafter MDS Technical Order).  Applications that are determined to be either within 50 miles or with an unobstructed  xelectrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station are considered to be  xmutually exclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference by  xinclusion of interference studies with the application, pursuant to the standards specified in the  X-Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4).  X-  x8. To be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed on or before the applicable" ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xcutoff date for mutually exclusive applications.\a yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э By way of background, the Commission initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F  {OA- xchannels on the one filing date designated for these applications, September 9, 1983. Establishment of MultiChannel  {O -Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983).  Based upon our de novo review of the returned  xWindsor application and the publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations  xand previously filed applications, we conclude that the Windsor application was mutually  xexclusive with and cutoff by 1983 authorized stations or pending, previously filed applications.  X- xSee 21.31; see also Establishment of Multichannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33, 873, as corrected,  x48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983). Specifically, the returned Windsor application was mutually  Xz- xlexclusive with and cutoff by one previously authorized 1983 station; za yO - xz#X\  P6G;ɓP# WMH285 at Keene, New Hampshire, Application File No. 00180CMP83. While WMH285 was  xKsubsequently cancelled on March 12, 1992, at the time the Windsor application was filed, New England Wireless  xwas required by  21.902(b) and (c) to include an interference analysis for this station in the application. Although  xNew England Wireless did include an interference study in its application for WMH285, this study was inadequate  {O7-for several reasons. See  15, infra.  and one pending,  Xc- xpreviously proposed 1983 application. ca yO-#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File No. 01210CMP83 at Manchester, New Hampshire. Thus, petitioner's application was 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)     Xf-  x9. 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. Eleven years before the Windsor application was 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.(#  V=-"=. ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X- x\R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981). Za yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path from the  xiapplicant's proposed MDS station to the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed station.  {O -MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 111.  It has also been recognized that "the demonstration  xlof interference 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- xlEntertainment 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  X- xprotection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection,        Fa {O. - x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment  yO - xhcase, the Domestic Facilities Division returned as unacceptable for filing an application which demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that:  {OP -  XxWe 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. (#ƿ and to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.   x10. At the time the Windsor application was filed, in order to demonstrate compliance  X7- xwith  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1)  x-of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with its application an analysis  xof the potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the  xapplicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the  xKprotected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the  xapplicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other  x]authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) (1991). In  xLaddition, 21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with its application an analysis  xof the potential for harmful interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an  xunobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or  XQ- xMpreviously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2) (1991); see 47 C.F.R.  x> 21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required 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  xkstations. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7) (1991). The applicant was also required to show the steps  xtaken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which required MDS applicants, licensees,  xand conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users  xxand 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).  X-   Nx11. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission,  x in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that  xKcertain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that"? ,-(-(ZZ{"  xjsome authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and  X- xwould require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264.  X- xThus, the Commission stressed that "[t]hose applications that do not contain an analysis of how  xthe applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  X- xacceptable for filing."  Id. (emphasis in original). See also  21.902(b) and (c). In view of these  xxconcerns with the potential for harmful interference, the Commission has decided a series of cases  x[emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E  Xe- xor F channels.        ea {O- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э See, e.g., CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires  xithat an applicant initially file with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any  xiauthorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio horizon of the applicant's proposed  xxtransmitting antenna. . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section 21.902, the Division's finding, that  {O - xCNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper."); G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9  xi(Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part 21 of the rules is not substantial  xcompleteness' but rather acceptability for filing. . . .' Cooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable  {OZ- xZfor filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required."); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("This interference protection showing is a significant requirement. . . .").  "[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful  xKinterference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application."  X7- xFamily Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567. Because petitioner here failed to make the required  xshowings regarding interference protection, its application cannot be characterized as complete  X - xor in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules. New Channels Communications, Inc.,  X - x57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985). See also Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac.  X - x-Div. 1992) ("In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by  X -47 C.F.R.  21.902 are crucial.").     X-  x12. Petitioner's application did not include 35 required analyses of the potential for  xharmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50  x-miles or to authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel and cochannel stations for which  XY- x<there was an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo review on reconsideration,  XD- xwe have determined that New England Wireless failed to file required interference studies for:  X-- xy(1) one previously authorized 1983 MMDS station; -a yO|- xY#X\  P6G;ɓP#э WLW890 at Baltimore/White River junction, Vermont, Application File No. 13102CMP83. This licensee  xfiled a modification application, Application File No. 53156CMP92, on January 28, 1992, prior to applicant's  xapplication filing date. Therefore, New England Wireless was also technically responsible for submitting an  xinterference study for WLW890's modified application. However, we must note that Application File No. 53156 xYCMP92 did not appear on an FCC staff internal listing or public notice prior to New England Wireless' application filing. (2) six pending, previously proposed 1983  X- xapplications;a yO#- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File Nos. 01210CMP83; 02102CMP83; 16010CMP83; 09966CMP83; 08566CMP83 at Manchester, New Hampshire; and 16634CMP83 at Lebanon, New Hampshire.  (3) one pending, previously proposed post1983 application;na yO5&-#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File No. 61414CMP91 at Montpelier, Vermont. and (4) one",-(-(ZZ"  X- xtpreviously authorized post1983 MMDS station.za yOy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э WLK341 at Rutland, Vermont, Application File No. 51613CMP91. In its application, New England  x,Wireless asserted that it had an agreement with the licensee of WLK341, empowering New England Wireless to file  xan application for the Fgroup channels notwithstanding any potential interference. However, no evidence of such  xagreement, or the terms thereof, or WLK341's alleged acceptance of potential interference was included with the  {O- xapplication. For the reasons stated in  20, infra, this bare assertion of the existence of an agreement with the  xlicensee of WLK341 is insufficient to excuse New England Wireless from the requirement of filing an interference study for WLK341.  Further, the  x<Windsor application's proposed transmitter site was within line of sight and had an unobstructed  X- x[electrical path to: (1) two previously authorized 1983 MMDS stations; a yO - x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э WLW866 at Mt. Washington, New Hampshire, Application File No. 03889CMP83 and WMH308 at Cornwall, Vermont, Application File No. 13105CMP83. (2) three subsequently  X- xauthorized 1983 MMDS stations;NXb a yO - x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э WMH560 at Lyndonville, Vermont, Application File No. 13108CMP83; WMI360 at Mt. Washington, New  xHampshire, Application File No. 07465CMP83; and WMH752 at Worcester, Massachusetts, Application File No. 03109CMP83. N (3) 17 pending, previously proposed 1983 MMDS stations; a yO- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 08762CMP83; 00335CMP83; 14923CMP83; 02217CMP83; and 00601CMP83 at Manchester, New Hampshire.   X-and (4) three pending, previously proposed post1983 MMDS stations.a yO/- xJ#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File Nos. 62081CMP91 and 61412CMP91 at Burlington, Vermont; and 04224CMP92 at Greenfield, Massachusetts.   0x13. While petitioner attempts to justify its failure to file required interference studies by  xgenerally citing "problems with the Commission's database" and differences with the "database  xavailable to [its] engineer," petitioner does not even offer an explanation for its failure to file  xinterference analyses for the numerous pending, previously proposed MMDS stations on the E  x/and F channels within line of sight and in an unobstructed electrical path to the applicant's  xtransmitter site that appeared on FCC public notices or FCC staff internal listings. The  xCommission does not attest to the accuracy of independent data bases not affiliated with the  xCommission. The Commission has over the years identified, in public notices, the third party  xyentities that have contracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to the  X - xMDS database. See Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data  X- xBases, Mimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). If petitioner did not use the Commission's official  xonline contractor, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, nonCommission affiliated databases  x<"available to [its] engineer," it did so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete.   3x14. We additionally note that New England Wireless failed to submit required  x<interference analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations that had appeared on public" 2,-(-(ZZ"  X- xnotice\a {Oy- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Copies of the Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of issuance. See 47  xC.F.R.0.422 and 0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public inspection in the  {O -Commission's Press and News Media Division. Id.  or on FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's Windsor  xapplication. For example, petitioner failed to submit interference studies for five pending,  x=previously proposed 1983 MMDS stations that appeared on public notice September 26, 1986,  X- xjyears prior to petitioner's February 1992 filing date.a yOX- xX #X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File Nos. 01210CMP83; 02102CMP83; 16010CMP83; 09966CMP83; and 08566CMP83 at Manchester, New Hampshire. We also note that six 1983 and two post x1983 previously proposed MMDS stations were included on the January 24, 1992, FCC staff  X-internal listing, three weeks prior to petitioner's filing date.Da yO - x #X\  P6G;ɓP#э Application File Nos. 02102CMP83; 08566CMP83; 09966CMP83; 16010CMP83; 01210CMP83; 16023CMP83; 61414CMP91; and 52286CMP91.     x15. Moreover, the interference studies that were submitted by New England Wireless with  xits application were inadequate. Specifically, these interference studies: (1) did not include free  xjspace calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna  xwithin the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations, as required  X - xby  21.902(c), (d), and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) failed to show that the station was engineered  xyto provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3) and/or  xl0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4); and (3) used  xMincorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving  xantenna gain, and did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio  xto each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed stations.   x16. Petitioner's assertion that it would supplement its petition, upon receipt of factual data  xyfrom the Commission explaining why its application was returned, does not excuse its failure to  x submit interference studies as required by  21.902. A pledge to supplement its petition to  xcomply with the requirements of  21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from  X- xcompliance with the requirements of  21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8  xOFCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all legitimate  X- xengineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS  X- xmAllocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7)." Id. As described, the  X- xinterference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS application  X- xso that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. See  911, supra. This is a step which  xcannot be skipped, as implied by petitioner. In addition, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that  xapplicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of an  x>application. Moreover, the mandate that applicants submit interference analyses with their  xapplications is a separate requirement from the good faith commandment of 21.902(a), which  x=mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts" ,-(-(ZZ["  xto avoid harmful interference . . . and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve  X-problems of potential interference . . . ."  See also 47 C.F.R.  21.31.   Bx 17. Since we find petitioner had ample notice, at the time of filing, of pending,  xpreviously proposed and authorized stations, we reject petitioner's offer to supplement its petition  xpostreconsideration. Moreover, as discussed above, this offer by petitioner ignores the purposes  x=behind the interference analysis requirement. Interference studies are necessary at the time of  xfiling in order for determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made. Without such studies a  xlogjam would be created, making it more difficult to reach final actions on MDS applications.  X3- x=See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd at 7376 ("Traditionally, the classification  xof MDS applications as mutuallyexclusive was determined by a review of each of the applicants'  xinterference analyses . . . ."). If the Commission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting  xinterference studies, the staff would lack sufficient technical information for evaluating  xapplications and would be unable to act on many applications until the studies were submitted.  xZFurthermore, applicants may be tempted to wait as long as possible to submit interference studies  xKso as to minimize the number that must be submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would lead  xto a stalemate where the Commission could neither grant nor return or dismiss any MMDS  X}- x<application. As noted above, the Windsor application lacked interference studies, as required by  x 21.902, for authorized and pending, previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of  xpetitioner's proposed transmitter site and failed to demonstrate that the proposed station would  X:- x[not cause harmful interference. See  12, supra. Indeed, petitioner failed to even identify all of  X%- xthe previously proposed and authorized stations. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the  X-Windsor application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing.   X-  _ x18. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference  xanalyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study  x=upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee  xmrequired to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.   x21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and  Xm- xklicensee served be submitted with the application. New England Wireless failed to serve 35  XX- xrequired interference analyses, as mandated by 21.902(g), on 35 applicants, conditional  xlicensees and/or licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by 21.902(c), thus depriving  X*- xaffected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442,  x\5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with  21.902(g):   XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by   parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be   affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference   0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process   ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(# "/' ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ xThus, 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).  X-  !x19. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. Regarding petitioner's request for a waiver  X- xof the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions regarding WMH285 in Keene, New Hampshire,jZa yO- x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Notwithstanding checking "No" in response to question 19 of the application, which asks whether a waiver  {O- xiis required for the application, New England Wireless requested a waiver of the Commission's 1988 Public Notice at Exhibit E.j  xiwe find that its grant would not serve the public interest. Section 21.19 provides that applications  xKseeking 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:   !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   (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. (# xApplicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative.  x47 C.F.R. 21.19. "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When  xan applicant seeks a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which  Xd- xwarrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  XO- x=Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam). See  X:- x>also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver  x. . . must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rule would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.").   x20. Petitioner's assertion that, at the time of filing, it was negotiating with station  xWMH285 for permission to locate within 50 miles of WMH285's transmitter site does not excuse  X- xits failure to comply with the location restrictions outlined in the 1988 Public Notice. Petitioner  X- xalso asserts that it is entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location requirements because  xk"by the time the application was reached for processing, station WMH285 was no longer in  xexistence." We note, however, that Commission staff cannot evaluate applications based upon  xthe applicant's stated intentions or promises. The staff must review applications based upon the  xinformation provided therein. New England Wireless failed to submit a statement from the  xlicensee of WMH285 agreeing to petitioner's proposal, or even documentary evidence of the  xexistence of negotiations with WMH285. Thus, petitioner's assertion regarding any such  xZagreement with WMH285 is unsupported. This unsupported assertion falls short of the stringent  X- x/showing in WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary circumstances justifying a waiver.  xMoreover, even if we were to accept the undocumented existence of an agreement with  xWMH285, or the eventual cancellation of station WMH285's license, as justifying a waiver of  xLthe 50mile location restriction with regard to WMH285, such grounds cannot justify the grant"" ,-(-(ZZ!"  xof a waiver with regard to Application File No. 01210CMP83, a pending application proposing  xa site at Manchester, New Hampshire, which was within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed  X- xWindsor site. See  5, supra. As described above, petitioner had full notice of the necessity to  X- xcomply with location restrictions. See  6, supra. Because petitioner chose to disregard the  xCommission's clear directive, its application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing.   |x21. Furthermore, petitioner's request for waiver of the 50mile location restriction fails  x-to address, as required by 21.19, the issue of whether there was a reasonable alternative site for  XL- xKthe proposed station which would have been in compliance with the 1988 Public Notice location  xrestrictions. An applicant must demonstrate the lack of a reasonable alternative under 21.19  X - x.to justify the grant of a waiver. See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444 n.6 ("Contrary to the  xassertion in the reconsideration petition that the Gary site . . . is the only possible site for this  xMMDS station, the [seven transmitter sites studied by the applicant] do not exhaust the numerous  X - x/potential transmitter sites in the Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also  X - xBoyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd  x6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has also been  xrecognized in another context. "Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking  xwaiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of  xfullyspaced sites.... [Without such a showing, the applicant's] waiver request died, as it were,  XW- xat the stating gate." Orange Park Florida TV, Inc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir.  x1987). For these reasons, petitioner's assertion that "a waiver request would appear to be  X+-justified" is both factually and legally unsupported.    x22. Petitioner asserts that the staff's disposition of its waiver request by a "mere notation"  xthat the request is denied for failure to comply with the Commission's rules "is not a sufficient  X-and reasoned basis for denial of waiver." However, the Court in WAIT Radio made clear that:   XxThe agency is not bound to process in depth what are only generalized pleas, a    requirement that would condemn it to divert resources of time and personnel to hollow   claims. The applicant for waiver must articulate a specific pleading, and adduce concrete   ]support, preferably documentary. Even when an applicant complies with these rigorous   requirements, the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application.(#  X- x/418 F.2d at 1157 n.9. The application did request a waiver, but the request lacked concrete,  xdocumentary support. Under these circumstances, and in light of the thousands of MDS  xKapplications the staff was processing, the return notification letter indicating that the request was  xdenied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules was sufficient. Moreover,  xLwe have now reviewed the staff's denial of petitioner's waiver request and have fully explained the basis for denying it.  Xa%-   x23. In sum, petitioner fails to justify why its application merits different treatment from  x\that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. New England  xWireless particularly fails to address one of the primary underlying purposes of the location"3' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xrestrictions, namely to prevent the filing of post1983 applications for which interference studies  xwere required to be submitted, which in turn requires review by engineering staff, who would  xthen be prevented from making necessary engineering determinations for 1983 MMDS  xapplications or processing modification applications. In view of these considerations, we find it  xwould be contrary to the public interest to grant New England Wireless a waiver of the location  X- xrestrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. We therefore conclude that petitioner's waiver request was  Xx- xyproperly denied. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions were waived,  xythe Windsor application would still have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to failure  XL- xto include the required interference studies and to serve such studies upon affected parties. SeeĄ  X7- 918, supra.  X -  |x24. Sufficiency of Statement of Reasons for Return. Petitioner argues that the return  xyletter failed to detail the reasons for the return of the Windsor application. However,& &  21.20(a),  xwhich governs the disposition of defective applications, merely requires "a brief statement as to  X - xthe omissions or discrepancies," not the breadth of detail demanded by petitioner here. See  X - xAdams Telecom, Inc v. FCC., 38 F.3d 576, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (FCC dismissal letters and order  xproviding only brief explanations of why applications failed to satisfy requirements upheld as  x0sufficient because parties could understand basis of decision.). We find that the return  xKnotification letter sent to petitioner gave sufficient explanation of the reasons for the return of the  x?application. In this case, the return notification letter indicated several reasons why the  xapplication was unacceptable for filing, and cited the relevant rule sections or Commission  X)- xdecision. 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   mx25. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the New  xEngland Wireless, Inc. application under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   x26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by New England Wireless IS HEREBY DENIED.   x27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: