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.$h';U7G;A 7ier<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@2r ZKf '3|jc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$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^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""- xԍ Specifically, the dismissal letters stated that the applicants failed to provide sufficient justification for grant of a waiver and failed to show the lack of a reasonable alternative site. In addition to dismissing  xjpetitioners' Odessa applications, the March 3 and May 6, 1994, dismissal letters also dismissed  xxas moot the petitions to deny filed by the petitioners' competitors and the subsequent agreements made by petitioners with those competitors. x  Xh-  nx3. Petitioners' Arguments on Reconsideration. On April 4, 1994, and June 6, 1994,  x Carter and O'Connell filed petitions for reconsideration of their dismissed applications. On  xreconsideration, petitioners contend that at the time of filing of petitioners' Odessa applications  xon May 18 and June 1, 1990, the Commission's records indicated only two applications were  xwithin 50 miles of petitioners' proposed site (Application File Nos. 01129CMP83 and 00061 xCMP83 for Midland), which petitioners state were dismissed or forfeited on March 23, 1988,  X- xLand September 8, 1989, respectively. f yO- xԍ In support, petitioners attached a copy of the relevant page of the FCC staff internal listing dated April 11, 1990, to the petitions for reconsideration. Carter and O'Connell both contend that neither they nor  xtheir engineers were aware of Egroup channel applications for a transmitter site at Midland,  xTexas, which had been included in a lottery, but were not selected, and which were still pending  xat the time of their Odessa application filing dates. Neither the Commission's "inventory" nor  X- xithe commercially available data bases listed these Midland applications, according to petitioners. b f yO$- xԍ In support, O'Connell attached to his reconsideration petition two declarations of individuals retained by the  xapplicant to complete his application. One of these declarations states that the FCC "inventory" and the commercial  xdata base Dataworld were consulted, but that these sources listed only the two Egroup channels applications at Midland which had been dismissed or forfeited prior to O'Connell's filing.  "J ,-(-(ZZ"  xCarter and O'Connell also report discovering the existence of the nonselected, pending Midland  X-applications after their applications were filed.~xf yOb- xhԍ Carter contends that by the time he had discovered the pending lottery loser applications, the Commission had  x;imposed a freeze on the filing of amendments. As a consequence, he was unable to amend his application to include  xthe required interference studies or to request a waiver of such requirement. O'Connell evidently discovered the  xpending lottery loser applications at an earlier date, but he claims that he was unable to obtain the technical  x;information on these applications necessary to conduct interference analyses. Declarations attached to O'Connell's  xpetition state that such technical information was not available on any data base and that a search of FCC files in "mid1990" failed to discover these pending applications.~   x4. On September 24, 1990, O'Connell submitted an amended application acknowledging  xkthe existence of these pending Midland applications, pledging to cooperate with any future  xKlicensee to remove interference, and requesting a waiver of the interference analysis requirements  xjfor these pending applications. Petitioner admits that his request for a waiver could have been  x>more extensive, but assumed that Commission staff was fully aware of the difficulties these  xMidland applications presented, and that a waiver would be routinely granted given the general  X1- xstate of the Commission's files regarding lotterylosing applicants.aX1f yO- xZԍ Notwithstanding checking "No" in response to question 19 of the application, which asks whether a waiver  yO- xis required for the application, O'Connell requested a waiver of "any detailed interference analysis at this time" at Exhibit E of the amended application.a Moreover, O'Connell  xcontends the waiver was intended to apply only for an interim period until a successor applicant was granted for Midland. x  X -  @x5. In Carter's request for a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions, he  xclaims that a waiver should be granted because Odessa and Midland, Texas, are both Metropolitan  xStatistical Areas ("MSAs"), and Odessa is within 15 miles of the Midland MSA and within 50  xmiles of the city of Midland for which the nonwinning Egroup applications remain pending.  xCarter also contends that in 1983 the Commission accepted applications for both the Odessa and  xMidland MSAs and later granted licenses for Odessa. Therefore, to preserve the right of the  x[Odessa area to receive MMDS service as previously recognized in 1983, Carter asks for waiver  X6- xof the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions. Given that Odessa and Midland are two close but  xseparate MSAs for which separate applications were filed in 1983, it would be unfair, according  xto Carter, to deny the citizens of Odessa MMDS service because the 1983 Odessa applicants  xallowed their conditional licenses to be forfeited. This petitioner contends that although his  xwaiver request did not specifically state that he could not obtain a transmitter site to serve Odessa  X- xthat would not conflict with the 15/50 mile proscriptions of the 1988 Public Notice, he presumed  xMthis would be obvious to the Commission given that Odessa and Midland are only 20 miles  X-apart.( f yOr$- xZԍ In his application, Carter also requested a waiver of the  21.902(g) interference study service requirement, but does not address this waiver request in his petition. x" ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  \x6. Finally, both petitioners argue that when the successor Midland applicant was granted, f yOy- xԍ Application File No. 03540CMP83 for the Egroup channels at Midland, Texas, was granted on April 15, 1993.  xthey were unable to amend their Odessa applications to include an interference study for this  xjstation, as the Commission had imposed a freeze on the filing of amendments, effective April 9,  X- x1992, to pending applications. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n.35  x>(1992). Hence, Carter and O'Connell request that their waiver requests be granted and their  xapplications be reinstated. O'Connell also attached to his petition for reconsideration a copy of  x/a simultaneously filed amendment purporting to demonstrate the lack of interference to the  xsuccessful Midland applicant, Application File No. 03540CMP83. Moreover, both petitioners  xjassert that, if they lose access to the E and F channel groups at issue, they would be unable to  x-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  X -  |Ԋx7. In reviewing Carter's application and O'Connell's amended application de novo, we  x/note that O'Connell submitted an amendment on September 24, 1990, in accordance with 47  X- xNC.F.R.  21.23(a) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a) (1990).    f( yOe- xiԍ Subsequent to the filing of O'Connell's amendment, 47 C.F.R.  21.23(a) was changed to include "provided,  x;however, that . . . the Commission has not otherwise forbidden the amendment of pending applications." Over two  xyears after the amended Odessa application was filed, the Commission imposed a freeze effective April 9, 1992, on  {O- xthe filing of most amendments to pending applications. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd at 3270 n.35.  xIn reviewing O'Connell's amendment, however, we applied the regulation in effect at the time of submission of the amended Odessa application.  See Mickelson  X- xjMedia, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 3102 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). See also Kansas City Southern Industries,  Xj- xInc., 3 FCC 2851 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). With respect to O'Connell, at the time his amended  xapplication was submitted, the application had not been designated for hearing, comparative  x?evaluation, or tentatively selected by the random selection process. Hence, O'Connell's  X'-application was amended as a matter of right and has been reviewed accordingly. 'f( yOr- xԍ Unless otherwise noted, whenever we refer to O'Connell's application, we are referring to the application as amended.  X-  x8. Location Restrictions. The 1988 Public Notice allowed the filing of MDS applications  X- xon the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that were: (1) farther  xthan 50 miles from the proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988  xor an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for  xwhich there were applications pending on April 19, 1988. It explicitly stated in the first  X- xkparagraph of the Notice that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions  Xu- xcontained in this Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement."  X`- x1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It also emphasized twice that applications filed in  XK- xviolation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite"K ,-(-(ZZ"  x[these clear directives, Carter proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions  X- xyof the 1988 Public Notice. Moreover, because the location restrictions prohibited the filing of  xiapplications for the site chosen by Carter, the application was submitted on a date not designated  X- xOby the Commission for the filing of MDS applications for the proposed location.  See  X- x21.901(d)(4). Accordingly, Carter's application was properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing.   ]x9. Carter can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to  x-select carefully the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to the clear language in the  X5- x1988 Public Notice, the Commission stressed, as early as 1980, the importance of compliance  X - xwith site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), the  xCommission explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more  X - xdesirable bands . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies [for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in  X - xjterms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated  X - xequipment than would be otherwise required." R.L. Mohr, 77 FCC 2d at 37 (emphasis added).  x.Thus, Carter had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because  xiCarter chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, his application was properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing.  Xp-  XY-  x10. Interference Protection. We also find that applications filed for Odessa by Carter and  XB- x?O'Connell were properly dismissed for failure to comply with our interference protection  X+- x-requirements. At the time the Odessa applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance  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 is 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). In addition,  x\21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include with its application an analysis of the  xpotential 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  X.- x3previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2); see 47  x|C.F.R.21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further required that each MDS  xiapplication for the E or F channels include the applicant's written statement of the techniques that  xwould be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent  xchannel stations. The applicant was also to show what steps it had taken to comply with the  xrequirements of  21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees  xto make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking  xpotential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).   x11. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established the principle that  xsubsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed"3' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xzor authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel sought will be  xZexpected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference will not occur  X- xwith respect to the first MDS channel . . . ." Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the  xCommission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier  X- xRadio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 621 (1974) (hereinafter  X- xMDS Allocation Order). Nine years before the Odessa applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications:   #XxIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause   Nunacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles. Section   ]21.90[2](c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an interference   study containing an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station.(#  V -  X - xzR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981).    f( yO=- xԍ 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.  {M- xAmendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical  xxrequirements applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed Service and the  {O]- xPrivate OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 8991 (1984) (hereinafter MDS Technical  {O'-Order).  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  XW- xprotection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, WDf( {OL- x;ԍ MDS applicants consistently have been required comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment case,  xhthe 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:  {On-  XxWe reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O8-  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. (#  yOZ -9 FCC Rcd at 568. #Xn4  pG;interference studies for the pending applications of the Midland "lottery losers," we would  xjeffectively strip subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference protection to which  xthey are entitled pursuant to  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. It is our view that, regardless of the  X - xLfinal disposition of these pending applications, adherence to 47 C.F.R.  21.902 is crucial. Dan  X -S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  X -  ^x13. The applications filed by Carter and O'Connell failed to include all of the required  xinterference analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously  xproposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles and adjacent channel stations for which there  X- xwas an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo review on reconsideration, we  X- xhave determined that each of the Odessa applicants failed to file required interference studies for  Xj- xany of the 1983 pending MMDS applications as well as post1983 previously proposed MMDS  xstations. For instance, Carter, the Odessa E channels applicant, failed to file interference studies  X>- xfor one subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station,    >f( yO- x\ԍ WLW875 at Midland, Texas, Application File No. 03540CMP83. While station WLW875 was  xKsubsequently forfeited on July 15, 1993, at the time the application was filed, Carter was required by  21.902(b)  x,and (c) to include an interference analysis for this station in his application. This application appeared on the FCC staff internal listing as early as May 3, 1988, as well as the May 17, 1990, listing.  and 17 pending, previously proposed 1983  X'- xapplications.X'f( yO- xwԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 04942CMP83; 00191CMP83; 14515CMP xJ83; 05021CMP83; and 05811CMP83 at Midland, Texas. Nine of these applications appeared on the May 31, 1989, FCC staff internal listing, while all 17 applications appeared on the May 17, 1990, listing. O'Connell, the Odessa F channels applicant, failed to file interference studies for  X- xMone subsequently authorized 1983 MMDS station;f( {O- x=ԍ See n.14, supra. WLW875 is within line of sight and in an unobstructed electrical path to O'Connell's proposed transmitter site. 17 pending, previously proposed 1983  xiadjacent channel MMDS stations within line of sight and in an unobstructed electrical path to the  X-applicant's transmitter site;eX* f( yO!- xwԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 04942CMP83; 00191CMP83; 14515CMP x83; and 16074CMP83 at Midland, Texas. Nine of these applications appeared on the May 31, 1989, FCC staff internal listing, while all 17 appeared on the May 17, 1990, listing. e and 43 post1983 previously proposed applications.J f( yO$- xԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 51916CMP90 through 51930CMP90 at  yO%-Odessa, Texas. #Xn4  pG;station. We note, however, that Carter and O'Connell failed to submit required interference  xanalyses for these authorized or previously proposed stations even though they appeared on FCC  xstaff internal listings prior to the filing date of their applications. For example, WLW875 was  x[included on the May 3, 1988, and May 17, 1990, FCC staff internal listings, prior to Carter's and  xO'Connell's filing dates. Furthermore, nine of these pending 1983 MMDS station applications  xcould have been located, for the purpose of filing interference studies, by checking the May 31,  x1989, FCC staff internal listing, while all 17 applications could have been located on the May  x17, 1990, listing, which were both available prior to petitioners' application filing dates. Given  x petitioners' failure to file interference studies for subsequently authorized and for pending, previously proposed stations, we find that their applications were properly dismissed.  X -   0x15. As for petitioners' use of other independent data bases, these are not affiliated with  X - xthe Commission, and hence, the Commission does not attest to their accuracy. In the 1988 Public  X - xiNotice, the Commission identified its own listing of pending applications as a resource to be used  X- xby applicants. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. Petitioners did not use the  x=Commission's official listings, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, nonCommission affiliated  xdata bases and did so at the risk that these unofficial data bases were not accurate and complete.  X:-  _x16. 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  xLlicensee served be submitted with the application. We note that Carter and O'Connell failed to  X- xserve copies of the required interference analyses, as mandated by 21.902(g), on any of the  X- xrequired applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by  X- x/21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. In Edna  Xq- xCornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444, 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  X-  0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   a copy of the interference analysis . . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process   ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#  xThus, 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). "H&,-(-(ZZ$"Ԍ X-  Px17. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. We find that the grant of petitioners'  X- xirequests for waiver would not serve the public interest."f( yOb- xԍ Carter's application requests a waiver of the 15 and 50 mile location restrictions contained in the  {O*- xzCommission's 1988 Public Notice and a waiver of the interference study service requirement. O'Connell's  xwapplication requests a waiver of "any detailed interference analysis at this time," and he reiterates this waiver request in his reconsideration petition. 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  Z '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.(#  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  X - xwarrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  X - xGrande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam));  X- x]see also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for  xwaiver . . . must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the  xunderlying purposes of the rule."). As discussed in detail below, petitioners' waiver requests do not meet these strict standards.   x18. O'Connell argues that he should receive a limited waiver from compliance with the  X - xinterference analysis requirements in  21.902(c) based upon his inability to obtain the technical  X- xinformation contained in the pending Midland applications. f( yOX- xԍ As support, O'Connell's application contains a declaration from the firm the applicant hired to complete his  xapplication asserting that, because O'Connell's representative had been in contact in mid1990 with FCC staff and  xwas unable to locate pending Midland applications, O'Connell believed that an "extensive justification for such waiver requests would not be required." As we have discussed supra, the  xinterference analysis requirements are clearly set forth in  21.902(c) and are a crucial element  x.of the MMDS application review process. We noted previously that the interference analysis  xrequirement is an imperative one which demands complete compliance at the time of filing of  X- xlthe application. In Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and  xKRegulations in regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the  Xo- xKMultipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC  XZ- x2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order), the Commission emphasized that  x="we expect applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in their applications."  X.- x@See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993); see also Boyd B.  X- xHopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("[S]tation engineering must be" ,-(-(ZZ="  xdemonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to Section 21.902(c) . . . .").  x/Interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for determinations of mutual  xexclusivity to be made. Without such studies a logjam would be created making it more difficult  X- xto reach final actions. See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Assn., Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom.  xFac. Div. 1988) ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS applications as mutuallyexclusive was  x"determined by a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses . . . ."). If the  xCommission allowed an indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would  x.lack sufficient technical information for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on  xLmany applications until the studies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants might be tempted  xto wait as long as possible to submit interference studies so as to minimize the number that must  xbe submitted. Widespread abuse of this tactic would lead to a stalemate where the Commission  x.could neither grant nor return or dismiss many MMDS applications. Thus, O'Connell's waiver  X - xrequest falls short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C.  X - xCir. 1969), of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.  xO'Connell's generalized assertion that he had difficulty obtaining the technical information  x.contained in the pending Midland applications fails to establish the existence of extraordinary  xcircumstances justifying the grant of a waiver of our rules requiring the filing of interference  xanalyses for such pending applications. Indeed, we note that O'Connell could have obtained  Xf- x=copies of pending applications directly from the applicants,ff( yO- xԍ A listing of applications and their associated addresses has always been available for public inspection in the MDS Public Reference Room, and is periodically updated. or from the Commission's official  XO-public record copy contractor, ITS, Inc. See 1988 Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2663.   x19. In addressing other contentions made by O'Connell, we further note that he fails to  X - x.provide many of the factual particulars upon which his allegations are based. See Jim Bolton,  X- x2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987) (holding that a bald conclusion, without any offer of  x.proof or documentary support, has no probative value). Here, O'Connell asserts that when he  x>learned of the existence of a number of pending, lotteryloser applications for Midland, his  xefforts to obtain the necessary technical information about these applications to conduct  x[interference analyses were thwarted. O'Connell claims such information was neither contained  xin a readily available data base nor could the applications be located. The engineer's declaration,  xattached to the O'Connell reconsideration petition, merely states that "we were unable to locate  xthese applications from among the thousands of applications stacked in no particular order" in the  xFCC files. As we have previously discussed, both petitioners could have obtained the  xapplications from the applicants themselves or ITS, Inc. In addition, our review of FCC staff  xyinternal listings available at the time O'Connell filed his application revealed numerous pending  x1983 and post1983 previously proposed stations that were within 50 miles or within an unobstructed electrical path to the proposed site at Odessa.   x20. Regarding Carter's request for waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions contained  X"- xin the 1988 Public Notice, we note that petitioner fails to demonstrate, as required by 21.19(b),  xthe lack of a reasonable alternative site which is located more than 50 miles from sites of 1983"# ,-(-(ZZe""  X- xpreviously proposed stations. See 47 C.F.R.  21.19(b) (applicants must show lack of a  X- xkreasonable alternative). See also 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 sites in Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also Boyd B. Hopkins,  X- xSr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570; Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). The  xnecessity of eliminating alternative sites has also been recognized in other contexts. "Commission  xprecedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as  xan initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fullyspaced sites .... [Without such a showing,  X9- xjthe applicant's] waiver request died, as it were, at the starting gate." Orange Park Florida TV,  X$ - xInc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Carter's waiver request  xis inadequate for failing to show the lack of a reasonable alternative site and is therefore denied.   |x21. Carter also claims that a waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions would be in the  xLpublic interest because it would result in service to unserved towns, implying that Odessa can  xonly be served from an MDS transmitter located within Odessa's borders. We disagree. The  xlCommission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the  xztransmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community, by MDS stations  Xn- xlocated in nearby areas. In Microband Corp. of America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the  xCommission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS application proposing a station at  xNewark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cutoff by a previously proposed New York City  xMMDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that service to New Jersey would be  xprecluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we recognized that "the Newark xyElizabethJersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station located in New  X- xYork City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 18586. Furthermore, while  xpetitioner asserts that Odessa is unserved and has various unmet needs, he offers no documentary  x/support for this assertion. Thus, Carter has failed to "plead with particularity the facts and  X- xcircumstances" warranting a waiver of the 50 mile location restriction. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157.   "x22. Carter further requests a waiver of the service requirement as it may apply to the  x pending Egroup applications for Midland. Our rules require that in addition to submitting  xinterference analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required  xinterference study upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional  x=licensee or licensee required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g). 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The  xsame rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served  X - x\be submitted with the application. See  16, supra . We note that the service requirement is  xLsignificant, because "[c]oordination of MDS . . . systems . . . also relies on accurate data about  xthe interference environment. MDS . . . applicants and licensees are required to serve copies of  X#- xtheir interference analyses on any existing users or prior filed applicants . . . ." Revision of Part  X~$- x}21 of The Commission's Rules , 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5716 (1987). Carter's failure to file  x<interference studies does not eliminate the requirement of providing notice and opportunity to be  xheard for parties required to be studied with an interference analysis. Thus, Carter's request for waiver of the service requirement is not warranted. ";' ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-  ԙx23. PostAction Curative Showings. O'Connell's attempt to file a curative interference  xanalysis simultaneously with his petition for reconsideration likewise fails. It is well established  xthat the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an application has  xibeen returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts to submit such  X- x>showings at that stage.f( {O- x;ԍ See, e.g., Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444 n.7 ("[I]t is no longer possible to amend an application which  {O- xhas already been dismissed. . . ."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) (holding that curative  xamendments filed with petition for reconsideration, attempting to supply a missing interference showing and other  {Oy- ximissing information, not allowed);  Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668, 4669 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("We  xreject Benson's contention that she should be permitted to file curative amendments and have her application  {O - xreinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. We believe that the Division's initial return of the abovereferenced  yO -Benson application as unacceptable for filing was correct. . . .").#Xn4  pG;