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 Applications of ) ) MAURICE P. O'CONNELL ) File No. 52394-CM-P-90 ) MICHAEL J. CARTER ) File No. 52185-CM-P-90 ) For Authority To Construct and Operate) Multipoint Distribution Service Stations ) on the E and F Group Channels at ) Odessa, Texas ) 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 two petitions for reconsideration, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a) on delegated authority, of the dismissal of two applications for authority to construct and operate Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS") stations on the E and F group channels at Odessa, Texas. These applications were filed with the Commission on May 18, 1990, and June 1, 1990, by Michael J. Carter ("Carter") and Maurice P. O'Connell ("O'Connell"), respectively, after the Commission had reopened the filing period for MDS applications on the E and F channels, subject to certain location restrictions. See  8, infra. We will consider these two petitions for reconsideration in this order. II. BACKGROUND 2. These two applications for the E and F group channels proposed a transmitter site at Odessa, Texas and were filed with the Commission, on May 18, 1990, and June 1, 1990. Following a lottery conducted October 2, 1991, Carter and O'Connell (collectively, "petitioners") became the tentative selectees for Odessa. Post lottery, petitions to deny were filed by competitors challenging the tentative selectee status of Carter and O'Connell; subsequently, petitioners entered into agreements with these competitors to withdraw such petitions to deny. A qualification review of the Odessa applications, conducted by Commission staff, later revealed that the applications were unacceptable for filing. Consequently, the Odessa applications were dismissed by letters dated March 3, 1994, and May 6, 1994, which stated that: (1) the Odessa applicants failed to meet the 47 C.F.R.  21.902 requirements for performance of interference analysis, due to failure to include interference analyses for 18 E-group channels applications pending at Midland, Texas, and failure to serve these affected parties pursuant to  21.902(g); (2) the E-group channels applicant (Carter) filed in violation of the location restrictions 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), because he filed within 50 miles of the site of an authorized Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service ("MMDS") station or pending MMDS application and within 15 miles of the boundary of a statistical area for which MMDS applications were pending on April 19, 1988; and (3) the applicants failed to comply with the Commission's requirements under 47 C.F.R.  21.19 for grant of a waiver. In addition to dismissing petitioners' Odessa applications, the March 3 and May 6, 1994, dismissal letters also dismissed as moot the petitions to deny filed by the petitioners' competitors and the subsequent agreements made by petitioners with those competitors. 3. Petitioners' Arguments on Reconsideration. On April 4, 1994, and June 6, 1994, Carter and O'Connell filed petitions for reconsideration of their dismissed applications. On reconsideration, petitioners contend that at the time of filing of petitioners' Odessa applications on May 18 and June 1, 1990, the Commission's records indicated only two applications were within 50 miles of petitioners' proposed site (Application File Nos. 01129-CM-P-83 and 00061- CM-P-83 for Midland), which petitioners state were dismissed or forfeited on March 23, 1988, and September 8, 1989, respectively. Carter and O'Connell both contend that neither they nor their engineers were aware of E-group channel applications for a transmitter site at Midland, Texas, which had been included in a lottery, but were not selected, and which were still pending at the time of their Odessa application filing dates. Neither the Commission's "inventory" nor the commercially available data bases listed these Midland applications, according to petitioners. Carter and O'Connell also report discovering the existence of the non-selected, pending Midland applications after their applications were filed. 4. On September 24, 1990, O'Connell submitted an amended application acknowledging the existence of these pending Midland applications, pledging to cooperate with any future licensee to remove interference, and requesting a waiver of the interference analysis requirements for these pending applications. Petitioner admits that his request for a waiver could have been more extensive, but assumed that Commission staff was fully aware of the difficulties these Midland applications presented, and that a waiver would be routinely granted given the general state of the Commission's files regarding lottery-losing applicants. Moreover, O'Connell contends the waiver was intended to apply only for an interim period until a successor applicant was granted for Midland. 5. In Carter's request for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions, he claims that a waiver should be granted because Odessa and Midland, Texas, are both Metropolitan Statistical Areas ("MSAs"), and Odessa is within 15 miles of the Midland MSA and within 50 miles of the city of Midland for which the non-winning E-group applications remain pending. Carter also contends that in 1983 the Commission accepted applications for both the Odessa and Midland MSAs and later granted licenses for Odessa. Therefore, to preserve the right of the Odessa area to receive MMDS service as previously recognized in 1983, Carter asks for waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. Given that Odessa and Midland are two close but separate MSAs for which separate applications were filed in 1983, it would be unfair, according to Carter, to deny the citizens of Odessa MMDS service because the 1983 Odessa applicants allowed their conditional licenses to be forfeited. This petitioner contends that although his waiver request did not specifically state that he could not obtain a transmitter site to serve Odessa that would not conflict with the 15/50 mile proscriptions of the 1988 Public Notice, he presumed this would be obvious to the Commission given that Odessa and Midland are only 20 miles apart. 6. Finally, both petitioners argue that when the successor Midland applicant was granted, they were unable to amend their Odessa applications to include an interference study for this station, as the Commission had imposed a freeze on the filing of amendments, effective April 9, 1992, to pending applications. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n.35 (1992). Hence, Carter and O'Connell request that their waiver requests be granted and their applications be reinstated. O'Connell also attached to his petition for reconsideration a copy of a simultaneously filed amendment purporting to demonstrate the lack of interference to the successful Midland applicant, Application File No. 03540-CM-P-83. Moreover, both petitioners assert that, if they lose access to the E and F channel groups at issue, they would be unable to offer viable wireless cable service in Odessa, which would be inconsistent with the Commission's goal of promoting wireless cable as a competitor to cable television. III. DISCUSSION 7. In reviewing Carter's application and O'Connell's amended application de novo, we note that O'Connell submitted an amendment on September 24, 1990, in accordance with 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a) (1990). See Mickelson Media, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 3102 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). See also Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 3 FCC 2851 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). With respect to O'Connell, at the time his amended application was submitted, the application had not been designated for hearing, comparative evaluation, or tentatively selected by the random selection process. Hence, O'Connell's application was amended as a matter of right and has been reviewed accordingly. 8. Location Restrictions. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MDS applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that were: (1) farther than 50 miles from the proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988 or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. It explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Notice that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, Carter proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. Moreover, because the location restrictions prohibited the filing of applications for the site chosen by Carter, the application was submitted on a date not designated by the Commission for the filing of MDS applications for the proposed location. See  21.901(d)(4). Accordingly, Carter's application was properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing. 9. Carter can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), the Commission explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more desirable bands . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required." R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, Carter had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because Carter chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, his application was properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing. 10. Interference Protection. We also find that applications filed for Odessa by Carter and O'Connell were properly dismissed for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements. At the time the Odessa applications were 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 is within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1). 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); 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. The applicant was also to show what steps it had taken to comply with the requirements of  21.902(a), which requires 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). 11. 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 . . . ." Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 621 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order). Nine years before the Odessa applications were 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. 12. We disagree with the arguments made by Carter and O'Connell that they should be excused from their failure to file interference studies for previously proposed stations they characterize as "lottery losers." The Commission has recently reiterated that MDS applicants must consider all previously proposed and pending applications, before filing their applications. CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5443 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Moreover, 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 survive final qualification review. See 47 C.F.R.  1.824(a). One of the underlying purposes of the interference analysis filing requirement is to avoid grant of an MDS application which would cause harmful interference to previously proposed, but subsequently authorized stations. Thus, if we were to ignore the Odessa applicants' failure to submit interference studies for the pending applications of the Midland "lottery losers," we would effectively strip subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference protection to which they are entitled pursuant to  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. It is our view that, regardless of the final disposition of these pending applications, adherence to 47 C.F.R.  21.902 is crucial. Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). 13. The applications filed by Carter and O'Connell failed to include all of the required interference analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and adjacent channel stations for which there was an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo review on reconsideration, we have determined that each of the Odessa applicants failed to file required interference studies for any of the 1983 pending MMDS applications as well as post-1983 previously proposed MMDS stations. For instance, Carter, the Odessa E channels applicant, failed to file interference studies for one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station, and 17 pending, previously proposed 1983 applications. O'Connell, the Odessa F channels applicant, failed to file interference studies for one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station; 17 pending, previously proposed 1983 adjacent channel MMDS stations within line of sight and in an unobstructed electrical path to the applicant's transmitter site; and 43 post-1983 previously proposed applications. 14. Petitioners offer various explanations for their failure to file interference studies for the pending, lottery-loser 1983 MMDS applications and one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station. We note, however, that Carter and O'Connell failed to submit required interference analyses for these authorized or previously proposed stations even though they appeared on FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of their applications. For example, WLW875 was included on the May 3, 1988, and May 17, 1990, FCC staff internal listings, prior to Carter's and O'Connell's filing dates. Furthermore, nine of these pending 1983 MMDS station applications could have been located, for the purpose of filing interference studies, by checking the May 31, 1989, FCC staff internal listing, while all 17 applications could have been located on the May 17, 1990, listing, which were both available prior to petitioners' application filing dates. Given petitioners' failure to file interference studies for subsequently authorized and for pending, previously proposed stations, we find that their applications were properly dismissed. 15. As for petitioners' use of other independent data bases, these are not affiliated with the Commission, and hence, the Commission does not attest to their accuracy. In the 1988 Public Notice, the Commission identified its own listing of pending applications as a resource to be used by applicants. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. Petitioners did not use the Commission's official listings, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, non-Commission affiliated data bases and did so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete. 16. 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. We note that Carter and O'Connell failed to serve copies of the required interference analyses, as mandated by  21.902(g), on any of the required applicants, conditional licensees and 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 at 5444, 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 Odessa applications were also properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing based on their failure to comply with the service requirements contained in  21.902(g). 17. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. We find that the grant of petitioners' requests for waiver 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 rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule."). As discussed in detail below, petitioners' waiver requests do not meet these strict standards. 18. O'Connell argues that he should receive a limited waiver from compliance with the interference analysis requirements in  21.902(c) based upon his inability to obtain the technical information contained in the pending Midland applications. As we have discussed supra, the interference analysis requirements are clearly set forth in  21.902(c) and are a crucial element of the MMDS application review process. We noted previously that the interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which demands complete compliance at the time of filing of the application. In 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 the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order), the Commission emphasized that "we expect applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in their applications." See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); see also Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("[S]tation engineering must be demonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to Section 21.902(c) . . . ."). 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. See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Assn., Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988) ("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 might 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 many MMDS applications. Thus, O'Connell's waiver request falls short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969), of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver. O'Connell's generalized assertion that he had difficulty obtaining the technical information contained in the pending Midland applications fails to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances justifying the grant of a waiver of our rules requiring the filing of interference analyses for such pending applications. Indeed, we note that O'Connell could have obtained copies of pending applications directly from the applicants, or from the Commission's official public record copy contractor, ITS, Inc. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2663. 19. In addressing other contentions made by O'Connell, we further note that he fails to provide many of the factual particulars upon which his allegations are based. See Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987) (holding that a bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value). Here, O'Connell asserts that when he learned of the existence of a number of pending, lottery-loser applications for Midland, his efforts to obtain the necessary technical information about these applications to conduct interference analyses were thwarted. O'Connell claims such information was neither contained in a readily available data base nor could the applications be located. The engineer's declaration, attached to the O'Connell reconsideration petition, merely states that "we were unable to locate these applications from among the thousands of applications stacked in no particular order" in the FCC files. As we have previously discussed, both petitioners could have obtained the applications from the applicants themselves or ITS, Inc. In addition, our review of FCC staff internal listings available at the time O'Connell filed his application revealed numerous pending 1983 and post-1983 previously proposed stations that were within 50 miles or within an unobstructed electrical path to the proposed site at Odessa. 20. Regarding Carter's request for waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice, we note that petitioner fails to demonstrate, as required by  21.19(b), the lack of a reasonable alternative site which is located more than 50 miles from sites of 1983 previously proposed stations. See 47 C.F.R.  21.19(b) (applicants must show lack of a reasonable alternative). See also 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 sites in Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570; Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has also been recognized in other contexts. "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 starting gate." Orange Park Florida TV, Inc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Carter's waiver request is inadequate for failing to show the lack of a reasonable alternative site and is therefore denied. 21. Carter also claims that a waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions would be in the public interest because it would result in service to unserved towns, implying that Odessa can only be served from an MDS transmitter located within Odessa's borders. We disagree. The Commission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in nearby areas. In Microband Corp. of America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the Commission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS application proposing a station at Newark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cut-off by a previously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that service to New Jersey would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we recognized that "the Newark- Elizabeth-Jersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station located in New York City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 185-86. Furthermore, while petitioner asserts that Odessa is unserved and has various unmet needs, he offers no documentary support for this assertion. Thus, Carter has failed to "plead with particularity the facts and circumstances" warranting a waiver of the 50 mile location restriction. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. 22. Carter further requests a waiver of the service requirement as it may apply to the pending E-group applications for Midland. Our rules require that in addition to submitting 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). 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. See  16, supra. We note that the service requirement is significant, because "[c]oordination of MDS . . . systems . . . also relies on accurate data about the interference environment. MDS . . . applicants and licensees are required to serve copies of their interference analyses on any existing users or prior filed applicants . . . ." Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules , 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5716 (1987). Carter's failure to file interference studies does not eliminate the requirement of providing notice and opportunity to be heard for parties required to be studied with an interference analysis. Thus, Carter's request for waiver of the service requirement is not warranted. 23. Post-Action Curative Showings. O'Connell's attempt to file a curative interference analysis simultaneously with his petition for reconsideration likewise fails. It is well established that the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an application has been returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such showings at that stage. Applications which lack complete and necessary information are unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.20. See 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a)(1). 24. As discussed above, O'Connell's application lacked required interference analyses. It is important that the interference analyses be complete at the time of filing of the application, and where they are not, the application is properly returned or dismissed as unacceptable for filing. The interference analysis requirement demands complete compliance at the time of filing of the application. See  10-16, supra. See also 101 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations, 9 FCC Rcd 7886, 7899 (1994), aff'd mem, A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 95-1027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) ("[P]etitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they . . . failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  21.902."). The acceptance of curative interference showings from O'Connell on reconsideration is not warranted. IV. CONCLUSION 25. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's dismissal of the Maurice P. O'Connell and Michael J. Carter applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. 26. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by Maurice P. O'Connell and Michael J. Carter ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Charles E. Dziedzic Assistant Chief, Video Services Division Mass Media Bureau