WPC_ 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,:Wx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP2'3*4+5+6,7-8-9.:.;/<1=1>2?@3A4B5C5D6E7F8G9H9I:J;K;L<M<2rrK ZK'3|j@"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNKd5K7K9 KE<"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"" f (J U^R[",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx  ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION d  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:defective applications under paragraph (a), such as, the "application does not demonstrate  &compliance with the special requirements applicable to the radio service involved," the  &K"application does not include all necessary exhibits," and the "application is filed after the cutoff  X - &date prescribed in  21.31 or  21.914 of this part." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(b)(4), (8) and (9); see  X -47 C.F.R.  21.13, 21.15, 21.26 and 21.900.  X - (#|3. Mutual Exclusivity. Typically, the first determination made by Commission staff is  &whether an MDS application is mutually exclusive with any authorized station or previously filed  &application. Section 21.31(a) of the Commission's rules provides the following standard for this determination:     (#!XThe 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~- &47 C.F.R.  21.31(a); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c), (d) and (f). In applying this standard, the staff  &evaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an authorized or  XR- &previously proposed MDS station,F6 R? yO- &ԍ MDS applicants must submit interference studies analyzing the potential for harmful cochannel interference  &with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station because "[i]t is possible for co &Ychannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause unacceptable distortion of another station's signal from  {O# - &as far away as 50 miles."  R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981); see 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(c)(1)  {O - &(1991). The 50 mile benchmark for MDS stations was adopted in Amendments 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  {O"- &in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 620621 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order), which  &codified, as a rebuttable presumption, Commission policy as to what constitutes mutually exclusive status for MDS  {O$- &stations. See also Amendment of Parts 1 and 21 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Applicable to the  {O$- &Domestic Public Radio Services (Other Than Maritime Mobile), 60 FCC 2d 549, 559 (1976) (hereinafter Domestic  {O%- &Public Radio Services Order). The Commission adopted this 50 mile benchmark to enhance administrative efficiency  &in processing applications, avoid "gridlock" situations, and permit authorization of stations to proceed expeditiously.  {O7'-See Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). F and (2) within the radio horizon of, with an unobstructed"R ,-(-(ZZ^"  X- &/electrical path to the protected service areap? yOy-ԍ Section 21.902(d) defines the protected service area for MDS stations.p of an authorized or previously proposed MDS  X- &station.X? yO- &ԍ As the Commission noted in the MDS technical rulemaking order, "the mileage between these [MDS] stations  {O- &is not the only factor that determines whether interference will occur... ." Amendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of  &the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements applicable to the Multipoint  {OL- &Distribution Service, the Instructional Fixed Television Service and the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service,  {O-98 FCC 2d 68, 90 (1984) (hereinafter MDS Technical Order).  Applications which are determined to be either within 50 miles, or with an unobstructed  & electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station, are considered to be  &mutually exclusive with the station, unless the applicant demonstrates a lack of harmful  &interference by submission of interference studies with its application pursuant to the standards  X- & specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. 21.902(b)(3) and (4) and text,  7, infra.  &For the abovereferenced MMDS applications, 21.901(d)(5) also defines mutual exclusivity  &Kbased on whether the proposed transmitter site is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA")  XJ-and its 15mile buffer zone for which there is an authorized or previously proposed station.J? {O - &Jԍ See Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency  &allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private  {O- &ZOperational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 126264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS Allocation Order). Section 21.901(d)(5), 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(5) (1991), provides:  (#XNotwithstanding the provisions of  21.31(a) all applications that propose to locate transmission facilities  (#mwithin or within 15 miles of the border of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) will be  (#considered together. In the case of a Standard Consolidated Statistical Area (SCSA) all applications that  (#propose to locate facilities within or within 15 miles of the boundary of any SMSA contained in the SCSA  (#will be considered together. . . . Each application will be entitled to comparative consideration or to be included in a lottery in only one such service area.(#   X - (#@4. Cutoff Rules. In order to be acceptable for filing, MDS applications must be filed  X - &=on or before the applicable cutoff date for mutually exclusive applications. r? {O(- &ԍ In Domestic Public Radio Services Order, 60 FCC 2d at 551, the Commission explained the reasons for the cutoff rule:  (#X[W]hat is commonly called our "cutoff" rule originated in our need for an orderly administrative procedure  {OJ- (#to control the disposition of our caseload.  See 47 U.S.C. 154(j). . . . [T]o provide early consolidation  (#of competing applications and to prevent processing disruption by late filings, we require an application for  yO - (#a frequency, previously applied for, to be filed within a certain date. Competing applications filed after this date are considered to be "cutoff" from comparative consideration.(#  yO4#-(citations omitted). ą The Commission  &initially authorized the filing of MMDS applications on the E or F channels on one filing date,  X - &September 9, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 126266; Establishment of  X - &mMultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983).  &Thereafter, no additional applications for new stations on the E or F channels were accepted for" ,-(-(ZZ "  &filing until April 20, 1988, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(4). Applications for the E or F  &channels which complied with specified restrictions could be filed between April 20, 1988 and  X-April 9, 1992.  See  9, infra and note 1, supra.   (#}5. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 authorized station or  &application, the applicable cutoff date is the oneday filing date designated for these applications,  Xx- &September 9, 1983. Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as  Xc-corrected, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746.  X7- (#O6. Station Design Requirement. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires each MDS applicant to  &>engineer its station to provide at least 45 dB of interference protection within the protected  &service areas of all other authorized or previously proposed cochannel stations. 47 C.F.R.  &l21.902(b)(3). Section 21.902(b)(4) similarly calls for each MDS applicant to engineer its  &station to provide at least 0 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas of all  X - &other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations. 47 C.F.R.    &>21.902(b)(4). Cochannel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of the ratio of  &desired signal to undesired signal is less than 45 dB. Adjacent channel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of the ratio is less than 0 dB. 47 C.F.R. 21.902(f).  XQ-7. MDS Interference Studies. In order to demonstrate compliance with  & 21.902(b), and so that determinations could be made about mutual exclusivity, at the time these  &applications were filed,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant  &include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with  &any authorized or previously proposed station, if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna  &had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other  &authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter was  &within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed  &}cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1991). In addition, 21.902(c)(2) of the  &=Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of  &.the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference if the applicant's proposed transmitting  &Kantenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other  X=- &yauthorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)(1991); see  X(- &47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f).  Section 21.901(d)(7) also requires that each MDS  &Lapplication for the E or F channels include a written statement of the techniques that would be  &=employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent channel  &Lstations. The applicant must also show what steps the applicant has taken to comply with the  &requirements of  21.902(a), which requires each MDS applicant, licensee, and conditional  &licensee to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to others and to avoid blocking  &potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47"",-(-(ZZf!"  X-C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).{Z? {Oy-  ԍ The Commission emphasized in the MDS Technical Order that "[w]e do not intend to accept any new MDS   I applications that do not contain a detailed explanation of how the applicant has complied with this section [21.902(a)] and how it will comply in the future should the need arise." 98 FCC 2d at 91.{  X- (#8. Service Requirement. In addition to submitting the required interference analyses to  &the Commission, an MDS applicant also had to serve each required interference study upon the  &applicant, conditional licensee or licensee of each authorized or previously proposed station  &required to be studied, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  &21.902(g). The same rule required that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee  X_-and licensee served be submitted to the Commission at the time the application was filed.  Id.  X3- (#9. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing  &period for MMDS applications was again designated until April 20, 1988. In accordance with  & 21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, MDS applications for E or F channel stations could  X - &then be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations which were: (1)  &farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application pending on April 19,  &1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a  X - &statistical area for which there was an MDS application pending as of April 19, 1988. Public  &Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution  X- &Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice).  Xj- &xThe 1988 Public Notice also advised potential applicants that all applications had to comply with  &Lthe specified location restrictions, that grants of waivers of the location requirements were not  &anticipated, and that applications failing to meet these location restrictions would be dismissed  X'-as unacceptable for filing. Id. at 26612662.  X- (#]10. Summary. Thus, at the time the abovereferenced applications were filed, applicants  &for new MMDS stations were required to propose a location farther than 50 miles from the  &Llocation of any authorized station or proposed station which was pending as of April 19, 1988,  &and farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more  &pending MMDS applications on April 19, 1988. Applicants were permitted to file: (1) beyond  &N50 miles of a station proposed in an application pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing  Xq- &authorized station, as long as the location was also farther than 15 miles from the boundary of  &a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on April 19, 1988; and (2) within 50 miles of a station proposed in an application filed after April 19, 1988.  (#\11. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that each application was defective because  &the applicant failed to submit and serve the required interference analyses for authorized and  &ipreviously proposed MMDS stations, and failed to demonstrate protection of those stations from  &harmful interference. The applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing  &because they were filed within the geographic area of authorized or previously proposed MMDS  X"- &kstations, in violation of specific filing requirements set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, and"",-(-(ZZ!" presented no grounds justifying the grant of a waiver.  X- (#12. On January 27, 1992, petitioners filed 132 MMDS applications proposing the same  X- &transmitter site at Du Bois, Pennsylvania. ? yO4-  : ԍ Application File Nos. 1058CMP92 through 1084CMP92; 1087CMP92; 1088CMP92; 1090CMP92; 1095CMP92 through 1159CMP92; 1161CMP92 through 1196CMP92; and 4220CMP92. After reviewing the Du Bois applications, the  &Commission staff returned the applications as defective and unacceptable for filing. The letters  X- &indicated that the applications were returned because the applicants: (1)filed past the cutoff  Xv- &period established in 21.31 or 21.914; (2) filed for a transmitter site which made them  X_- &mutually exclusive with an authorized station or previouslyproposed application, see 21.31; (3)  &!filed for an area not open for filing, as they did not meet the 50 mile location restrictions  X3- &established in the 1988 Public Notice; (4) failed to meet the requirements for performance of  & interference analysis as required by 21.902 due to failure to serve all affected parties with  &zinterference studies and failure to consider all authorized or previously proposed MMDS or  &LInstructional Television Fixed Service ("ITFS") stations; (5) failed to provide an updated fully X - &0executed deed, lease or option agreement; D ? yO- &ԍ At the time that the abovereferenced applications were filed, 21.15(a) required that if an applicant did not  &own the location on which it sought to construct its proposed station, the location's "availability for the proposed  {O:- &radio station site shall be demonstrated." 47 C.F.R.  21.15(a). In a 1987 Report and Order, the Commission  &clarified this requirement as it applied to MDS applications: "[W]hen selection between mutuallyexclusive  &applications is by the random selection process, it shall be sufficient if the application adequately demonstrates  {O- &reasonable assurance of the availability of the site." Revision of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd  &5713, 5721 (1987). Upon further examination of the petitioned applications on reconsideration, we find that the applications did meet the reasonable assurance test. (6) failed to provide a written description of  &-emergency repair notification procedures by customers to the local maintenance center or person  &kresponsible for the technical operation, and the average repair response time as required by  X- &.21.15(e); (7) failed to provide control point and/or studio addresses and the means by which  X}- &.they are to be connected to the transmitter, as required by 21.13(a)(3); }, ? yOZ- &ԍ The Commission staff was incorrect in listing violation of control point provisions as a return reason.  &However, it was harmless error as petitioners' applications were deficient and unacceptable for filing for other  {O- &reasons discussed herein. See Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C. Cir. 1970),  {O- &hcert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971) (The court will not upset a decision because of errors that are not material, "there  yO~-being room for the doctrine of harmless error.") İ (8)failed to engineer  &the system to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection within the protected  &[service areas of all authorized or previously proposed stations, pursuant to 21.902(b)(3); and  &.(9) failed to engineer the station for adjacent channel operation and insure that the ratio of the  &signal transmitted to the signal of any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station  &is less than 0 dB, pursuant to 21.902(b)(4). The letters also indicated that the applicants'  &waiver requests did not comply with the requirements of 21.19 for grant of a waiver, and  &without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. A reconsideration petition for the returned applications was filed on April 14, 1995. " ,-(-(ZZ4"Ԍ X- (#l13. The applications proposed a transmitter site that was within 50 miles of : (1) one 1983  X- &previously authorized MMDS station;p ? yOb-ԍ WLK302 at Altoona, Pennsylvania, Application File No. 15219CMP83. p (2) one 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS station;{ X? yO-ԍ WMI366 at State College, Pennsylvania, Application File No. 6723CMP83. {ք  &x(3) ten 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on January 27,  &1992, the filing date of the Du Bois applications; and (4) 73 post1983 previously proposed  X-MMDS stations, ? yO= - &ԍ These include 59 applications proposing a transmitter site at Ridgeway, Pennsylvania, including, but not  &g limited to, Application File Nos. 52257CMP92 through 52278CMP92; 13 applications for Clarion, Pennsylvania,  &including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 51304CMP92 through 51314CMP92; and one application for Indiana, Pennsylvania, Application File No. 51511CMP90.  which had applications pending on January 27, 1992.  (#14. The applications lacked interference studies, required by 21.902(b) and (c), for nine  X_- &\1983 previously proposed MMDS stations_? yO- &ԍ For example, the applicants failed to submit an interference study for Application File No. 8884CMP83, for Altoona, Pennsylvania, placed on public notice September 20, 1987. and 72 post1983 previously proposed MMDS  XH- &stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that the applicants: (1)  &did not include free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference  &.receiving antenna within the protected service areas of the authorized or previously proposed  X - &stations, as required by 21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see 21.902(e)); (2)used incorrect methodology  &in calculating the protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed stations; and (3)  & failed to engineer the station to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection  &[pursuant to 21.902(b)(3), and/or 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to 21.902(b)(4).  X{- (# 15. The applications contained requests for waiver of the fifty mile location restriction  Xd-contained in the 1988 Public Notice.  X8-  zIV. DISCUSSION  (#16. A consolidated petition for reconsideration was filed for these Du Bois, Pennsylvania  &]applications. Petitioners contend that their applications fully complied with all pertinent  &Commission rules, or else presented facts which would compel the grant of any necessary  &waivers. Petitioners assert that the interference analyses submitted with their applications  &demonstrated that there was no harmful interference to existing or proposed stations, and that to  &.the extent the returned applications proposed locations that failed to comply with the location  X- &restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice, Commission precedent supports the grant of a waiver.  Xk- &zPetitioners also argue that the 1988 Public Notice is invalid and cannot be applied to these  &applications because it was promulgated without notice and comment, contrary to the  &requirements of Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 553(b),"?( ,-(-(ZZ"  X-as well as the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.  X- (#17. Mutual Exclusivity and Cutoff Date. Based on our review of the returned  &xapplications and publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending  &applications, we conclude that all of the petitioners' applications were mutually exclusive with  &/and cutoff by authorized stations or previously filed applications. Specifically, each of the  &=returned applications is mutually exclusive with a 1983 authorized station for which the cutoff  Xa- &[date was September 9, 1983.a? yO- &,ԍ Specifically, the Du Bois applications were mutually exclusive with and cutoff by previously authorized 1983 station WLK302 at Altoona, Pennsylvania. Thus, the abovereferenced applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to 21.31(d), which states:  (#XAn 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).  (#18. The Du Bois petitioners contend that their applications are not cutoff since the  &interference studies submitted with their applications show no harmful interference will result  &from the grant of their applications. We note that these petitioners did not include all of the  &necessary interference analyses for the previously proposed stations with which their applications  &{were mutuallyexclusive and which, unless petitioners provided a showing of no harmful  &interference, would cutoff their stations. In addition, where interference studies were submitted,  &they were inadequate and thus failed to show that no harmful interference would result to  X-previously proposed or authorized stations. See 14, supra.  X- (#19. Interference Protection. We also find that the abovereferenced applications were  &<properly returned for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements. At the very  &inception of MDS, the Commission established that subsequently filed applications must not cause  &harmful interference to any authorized or previously proposed 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 .  X - &@. . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. 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."  X - &=Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768 n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,"  ,-(-(ZZ"  X- & 21.902(b) sets certain threshold interference protection levels,? {Oy- &ԍ MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment  yOC- &kcase, the Domestic Facilities Division upheld the return as unacceptable for filing of an application which  &demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, the Division stated:  {Oc- (#XWe 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  yO-45 dB, at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (#  yOO -9 FCC Rcd at 568 (footnote omitted).  see  6, supra, and requires all  &MDS applicants to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.  (#20. Each of petitioners' applications failed to include the required analyses to demonstrate  &ja lack of harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed MDS stations on the E or F  &channels. These interference analyses are a significant requirement because the Commission,  &<inreallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that certain  &adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that some  &authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and require  X - &careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. Thus, the  &Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this problem in their applications.  V - &MThose applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid  X - &cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id.  X - &(emphasis in original). See also 21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there has been a series  &of cases emphasizing that analysis of the potential for harmful interference is an essential  X-technical showing in MDS applications for the E or F channels.2 . ? {Ow- &ԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS  &Japplication which does not contain the important and essential technical showing required by  21.902(c) cannot be  &icharacterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with Commission rules and regulations, as required by the  {O- &criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac. Div.  &1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application an analysis of the potential  &for harmful interference with any authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations within the radio  &ihorizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna. . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with Section  {O- &21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper."); G.C.  {O - &Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008 n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating applications under Part  &Z21 of the rules is not 'substantial completeness' but rather acceptability for filing. . . . Cooper's application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing  {O#- &required."); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . .")   Xj- (# 21. "[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful  &Kinterference, is considered a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application." "S (,-(-(ZZ"  X- &Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567. Because petitioners failed to make the required  &showings regarding interference protection, their applications cannot be characterized as complete  X- &or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules.  "In the processing of MDS station  X- &applications, the interference analyses required by 47 C.F.R. Sec. 21.902 are crucial." Dan S.  X- &Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). All of the applicants failed to file  &xinterference studies for authorized or previously proposed MDS stations which should have been studied.  (#l22. Petitioners argue that their failure to study previously proposed stations which they  &<characterize as "lottery losers," applications that were included in a lottery but not selected, does  &Znot render their applications defective. Petitioners contend that by requiring the applicants to file  &interference studies for these stations the Commission has been arbitrary and capricious. In  &addition, petitioners contend that their engineering studies address the issue of lottery losers in  &[that they state that the applicant would cooperate with any new tentative selectee or selectees chosen from the lottery loser group of applicants.  (#23. We disagree with petitioners' arguments that they should be excused from their  &Zfailure to file interference studies for pending, lotterylosing applications. It has been emphasized  Xh- &that before filing their applications, MMDS applicants must consider all previously proposed  XS- &.andpending applications, including lotterylosing applications. See CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC  X>- &zRcd at 2040; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5443 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Moreover, due  &to the procedures established for MDS lotteries, it was not unusual for an applicant that initially  &lost in a lottery to be selected in a later lottery for qualification review and to be subsequently  X- &=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 applicants' failure to  &file for these pending applications, we would effectively strip subsequently authorized MDS  &stations of the interference protection to which they are entitled pursuant to  21.901(d)(7) and  &M21.902. It is our view that, regardless of the final disposition of these pending applications,  &21.902 of our regulations required that petitioners file interference studies for these pending applications with their applications.  (#]24. In addition, petitioners' assertions that they will protect any lottery loser application  &which becomes authorized as a new tentative selectee does not excuse their failure to submit  &interference studies as required by 21.902. The mandate that applicants submit interference  &janalyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith commandment of  &21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, conditional licensees, and licensees  &Lshall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . [and] are expected to cooperate  X#- &fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ." See also 21.31. A  &pledge to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant  Xa%- & from compliance with the requirements of Sections 21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c). See, e.g., G.C.  XL&- &=Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 ("An applicant's general statement that he would use 'all legitimate  X7'- &engineering techniques' does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS"7' ,-(-(ZZ%"  X- &Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).") We are not persuaded by  &petitioners' "pledg[e] to cease operations, if necessary, should interference be detected." As  X- &described at Section II, supra, the interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of  &processing a particular MDS application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made.  &Part 21 of the rules is structured so that applicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful  X-interference as a prerequisite to the grant of a license.   (#25. Petitioners do not explain why they merit different treatment from other MMDS  &applicants which have complied with the interference protection requirements in cases involving  X5- &pending, lotterylosing applications. As discussed supra at  7, MMDS applicants have  &xconsistently been required to perform interference studies for any pending applications, including  &lottery losers, in order to provide interference protection to subsequently authorized stations as  &well as to further orderly administration of processing applications. Therefore, petitioners'  &argument that enforcement of the requirement to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference and  &to serve a copy of the interference analysis on affected parties is arbitrary and capricious is not  &Npersuasive. To the contrary, to waive enforcement of the rule now regarding only these  &?applications would be arbitrary and capricious. We find that even were we to waive the  &[requirement, however, these applications were still properly returned as unacceptable for filing  &for having failed to file all of the required interference studies or having submitted inadequate  &interference studies for other authorized or pending MDS stations, which were not lotterylosing  X:-applications. See 14, supra.:? yO- &iԍ For example, the Du Bois applications did not include interference studies for pending applications 52230CMP92 through 52279CMP92, which were not lotterylosing applications.  (#"26. Petitioners also argue that they were unable to perform interference analyses for  &applications which had not been listed in the FCC staff internal listing of active applications,  X- &which they characterize as the "FCC inventory list." Each MDS applicant had the burden of  &considering, prior to the filing of an application, each cochannel and adjacent channel station  &ywithin 50 miles or within the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path in order to fulfill  X- &the mandates of  21.902. (See, e.g., 21.902(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (i), (j), and (k).) Each of  &these petitioners failed to file interference studies for applications which had appeared on public  Xo- &notice at the time they submitted their applications and which were, thus, publicly available. See  XZ-note 15, supra.  (#27. Where interference analyses were submitted, petitioners' applications failed to comply  X- &with the requirements of Section 21.902 in various respects. See  14, supra. See also Revision  X- &.of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5716 ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems  X- &. . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment"); MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC  &j2d at 93 ("An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent channel operation and does not  &contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference as described  X"- &herein will not be accepted for filing."). Based upon these considerations, we conclude that  &petitioners failed to comply with the technical requirements set forth in 21.902 regarding"# ,-(-(ZZe""  &interference protection and failed to demonstrate that the applicants are technically qualified to  &Lbe MDS licensees as required by  21.900. Thus, these applications were properly returned as  X- &[unacceptable for filing. New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d at 1602; CNI Wireless,  X-Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 2040.  X- (#28. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve copies of  &required interference analyses, as mandated by  21.902(g), on all applicants, conditional  &licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected  XL- &.parties of notice and an 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):  (#XThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by  (#parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be  (#affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference  (#0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with  (#ma 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, these applications were also properly returned for failure to comply with the requirements of  21.902(g).  X - (#29. Location Restrictions. It was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the 1988  X- &jPublic Notice that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in  X- &zthis Notice. We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988  X- &Public Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. It was emphasized twice that applications filed in violation  X- &<of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear  &>directives, each of the abovereferenced MMDS applications proposed a transmitter site in  X- & violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice. See  9, supra. Therefore,  &<because the location restrictions prohibited the filing of applications for the sites chosen by each  &[of these applicants, the applications were submitted on dates not designated for filing of MDS  XI- &applications for those proposed locations. See 21.901(d)(4). Accordingly, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  (#30. In their applications, the Du Bois applicants requested waivers of the 50 mile location  X- &=restriction contained in the 1988 Public Notice, and they argued on reconsideration that their  X - &waiver requests meet the requirements for waiver. We find that the grant of these waivers would not serve the public interest.  X#- (#31. 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:  (#!X(a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its"9' ,-(-(ZZ%"  (#application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or(#  (#X(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. These regulations establish a difficult burden to meet. "An applicant for  &waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. 'When an applicant seeks a waiver of a  &rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such action."  X1- &WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio  X - &!Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)). As an initial matter,  X - &petitioners here argue that no waiver of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public  X - &<Notice is needed since they contend that the 1988 Public Notice is invalid. As discussed below  &at  36 37, we are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioners further argue that even if the  X - &M1988 Public Notice location restrictions were valid, their request for a waiver of the 50 mile  &Llocation restriction should be granted because the applications identified all stations within 50  &?miles of the applicants' proposed stations, and the interference studies attached to their  &applications demonstrated the lack of harmful interference to those stations. However, as  Xl- &discussed supra at  14, the interference studies provided by these applicants were inadequate and  &ytherefore did not demonstrate the lack of harmful interference. Thus, petitioners' assertion that  &no harm would be caused to authorized stations is unsupported, falling far short of the stringent  X)- &\showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.  X- (#32. Petitioners also assert that by applying the location restrictions of the 1988 Public  X- &Notice, the Commission has chosen to elevate "mere administrative efficiency" above the mandate  &of the Communications Act, as well as the Commission's interest in promoting the wireless cable  &industry. The Commission's interest in encouraging wireless cable services does not override its  &obligation to apply its regulations impartially. The location restrictions minimized the possibility  &for application gridlock, and allowed us to process applications more expeditiously and to utilize  X`- &efficiently scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom.  XK- &jFac. Div. 1994). The expeditious processing of applications ultimately encourages the wireless  &>cable industry's growth. Moreover, the granting of waiver requests to any of this group of  &petitioners would undercut the interference protection guarantees given to earlierfiled MDS  X-licensees or applicants, ultimately discouraging investment in MDS services. xx  X - (#33. Petitioners also claim that a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions  &would be in the public interest because it would result in service to currently unserved  &communities. This argument implies that the proposed communities can only be served from an  &MDS transmitter located within each community's borders. The Commission determined as early  &as 1973 that communities can be served by MDS stations located in nearby areas even when the  Xg%- &transmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community. In Microband Corp.  XR&- &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 cutoff by a"=' ,-(-(ZZ%"  &previously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that  &service to Newark would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so, the  &Commission recognized that "the NewarkElizabethJersey City areas as a whole would be better  &]served through a station located in New York City than through a ... station located in  X-Newark." Id. at 18586.  (#?34. Petitioners also fail to address, as required by Section 21.19(b), the issue of whether  &there was a reasonable alternative site that is located more than 50 miles from the sites of 1983  &previously proposed or authorized stations, from which they could provide acceptable service to  &their specified communities. An applicant must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of a reasonable  X - &Malternative under  21.19(b). See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444 n.6 ("Contrary to the  &assertion in the reconsideration petition that the Gary site... is the only possible site for this  &MMDS station, the [seven transmitter sites studied by the applicant] do not exhaust the numerous  X - &]potential sites in the Chicago ...CMSA and its 15mile buffer zone."). See also Boyd B.  X - &Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570; Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 7049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div.  &1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has been recognized in other services  &regulated by the Commission. "Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking  &waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of  &fullyspaced sites.... [Without such a showing, the applicant's] waiver request died, as it were,  XS- &=at the starting gate." Orange Park Florida T.V., Inc. v. FCC, 811 F.2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).  X- (#^ 35. Petitioners fail to justify why their applications merit different treatment from that  &which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. In view of these  &considerations, we find it would be contrary to the public interest to grant a waiver of the  X- &xlocation restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waiver of the 50 mile location requirements were properly denied.  X- (#36. Having had the requests for waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions of the 1988  Xs- &xPublic Notice included in their applications rejected, petitioners argue on reconsideration that the  X^- &=1988 Public Notice is invalid because the Commission did not follow the notice and comment  &zprovisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C.  553(b), or the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501,  X2- &[et seq., in its promulgation. Petitioners argue that the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions  &are a substantive rule to which the notice and comment provisions of the APA apply. We need  X- &not reach this issue since we find petitioners' procedural challenge to the 1988 Public Notice  &location restrictions untimely at this stage. Section 2344 of the Hobbs Act provides that any  & party aggrieved by a final agency order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to  &review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. 28 U.S.C. 2344. The limitations  &period provided in the Act applies to attacks on the procedural lineage of the promulgation of a rule:  (#   [C]hallenges to the procedural lineage of agency regulations, whether raised by direct  (#appeal, by petition for amendment or rescission of the regulation or as a defense to an  (#nagency enforcement proceeding, will not be entertained outside the 60day period"9',-(-(ZZ%"  (#provided by statute. The policies underlying Congress' adoption of the limitations period  (#zstrongly supports this result. As we have noted before, Congress has "determined that the  (#agency's interest generally lies in prompt review of agency regulations," and "[w]e accord heavy weight to that view."       X- &[JEM Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).  Xx- & In JEM, a license applicant challenged the agency's promulgation of the "hard look" rules as  &Ksubstantive rules requiring notice and comment under the APA. The court denied the applicant's  &petition for review, holding that the 60day limitations period provided by the Hobbs Act was  &.a bar to the challenge. In so holding, the court rejected JEM's argument that it could not have  &/challenged the hard look rules at the time of their promulgation, because it was not then an aggrieved party:  (#   We have held unequivocally that when a party complains of an agency's failure to provide  (#notice and comment prior to acting, it is that failure which causes "injury"; and interested  X - (#^parties are "aggrieved" by the order promulgating the rules. (See Natural Resources  X- (#NDefense Council, 666 F.2d at 601.) Moreover, the failure to provide notice and comment  (#is a ground for complaint that is or should be fully known to all interested parties at the  Xj- (#time the rules are promulgated. See id. at 602603. Accordingly, we hold that any person  XU- (#{or entity within the class affected by the "hard look" rules, i.e. actual or potential license  (#?applicants, would have been "aggrieved" within the meaning of section 2344 at the time  (#Mthe rules were promulgated, and thus would have had standing to challenge the procedural  (#lineage of the "hard look" rules by direct petition for review thereof. And, had such a  (#challenge been raised in a timely fashion, there is no doubt that the matter would have been ripe for review.  V-    X- &\JEM, at 326. The court went on to explain that JEM's challenge could only be timely if JEM  &could show that no potential applicant could challenge the hard look rules at the time of their promulgation:  (#m   [J]EM cannot deny that the FCC's failure to conduct notice and comment rulemaking  (#was an immediately obvious fact that, as we hold, was subject to immediate challenge by  (#@any number of thenexisting wouldbe license applicants. The mere fact that JEM, in  (#particular, had no opportunity to challenge the procedural provenance of the "hard look"  (#rules within the statutory period is of no moment. Accordingly, we reject JEM's arguments and hold that the instant challenge to the "hard look" rules is untimely.  X!- &[  Id.  Thus, petitioners here could only challenge the promulgation of the 1988 Public Notice at  &kthis time if they could prove that neither they nor any other potential applicants could have  X#- &ychallenged the 1988 Public Notice within the statutory limitations period. They make no such  Xz$- &showing that this is the case, nor could they, since the fact that the 1988 Public Notice was  &promulgated without notice and comment was, like the promulgation of the hard look rules in  XN&- &JEM, "immediately obvious," and subject to "immediate challenge." Indeed, any applicant who  X9'- &.filed for an MDS station after April 20, 1988, would have actual knowledge of the 1988 Public"9',-(-(ZZ%"  X- &Notice, since it allowed them to file commencing April 20, 1988, ending the filing freeze which  X- &previously prevented applicants from filing. See  9, supra. Further, the Du Bois applicants here  X- &specifically requested waivers of the 1988 Public Notice at the time they filed their applications,  X- &!demonstrating actual knowledge of the 1988 Public Notice over four years ago. Thus,  X- & petitioners' challenge to the promulgation of the 1988 Public Notice must be dismissed as untimely.  Xi- (#/37. Petitioners also argue that the 1988 Public Notice is invalid because the agency failed  &to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") prior to the issuance of  X=- &the Notice, and such approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C.  X( - &L3501, et. seq. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies to obtain approval from OMB  X - &prior to the collection of information. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (emphasis added). "Collection of  &information" is defined as "the obtaining or soliciting of facts or opinions by an agency through  &the use of written report forms, application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting or  &recordkeeping requirements, or other similar methods calling for . . . (A) answers to identical  &questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more  X- &Mpersons... ." 44 U.S.C.  3502(4). As stated supra, at  9, the 1988 Public Notice allowed  &Napplicants to file for MDS stations on the E or F channels commencing April 20, 1988, in  Xv- &-accordance with certain location restrictions. Petitioners do not explain how the Notice imposed  &an information collection requirement. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that petitioners  &mean to suggest that the application form required by the FCC imposed an information collection  &requirement upon them, they cannot complain here since the application form was not issued as  X- &a result of the 1988 Public Notice, but rather as a result of the 1987 revision to Part 21 of the  X- &Commission's rules. See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5755, n.145.  X- (# 38. Finally, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the  &filing of these applications, in each instance these applications still would have been returned as  &unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the  &returned applications were filed, including failing to provide adequate interference studies for other previously proposed or authorized stations.  X<- (#l39. Statement of Maintenance and Emergency Notification Procedures. Section 21.15(e)  &requires that an applicant "submit a showing of the general maintenance procedures involved. .  &. . The showing should include . . . (2) [t]he manner in which technical personnel are made aware  &=of the malfunction . . . and the appropriate time required for them to reach any of the stations."  &47 C.F.R.  21.15(e). The Commission affirmed the importance of expressly describing  &emergency notification procedures when it revised Part 21 of the Commission's rules and  &?eliminated some of the maintenance information requirements, but retained this required  X#- &.description. See Revision of Part 21 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd at 5752, n.53. The  &return letters for these petitioners stated that the applicants failed to comply with 21.15(e). The  &yapplications stated, at Exhibit J, that "[t]he applicant has not yet selected a Radio Maintenance  &shop to provide routine and emergency maintenance to the proposed facility in order to provide  &quality service and minimize downtime. However, prior to commencing operation, applicant will"A',-(-(ZZ%"  &Nselect a radio maintenance shop and/or hire a fulltime technician to provide routine and  &emergency service." This statement fails to provide the specificity required by 21.15(e)(2).  &LHowever, even if we were to conclude that this information was sufficient to satisfy  21.15(e),  &the applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing for other deficiencies, discussed above.  Xv- (#40. Arbitrary and Capricious Application of Regulations. Finally, we disagree with  &<petitioners' argument that we have been arbitrary and capricious in the application of the relevant  &regulations. As discussed at length above, petitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable  &-because the applicants failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the  X - &applications were initially filed, as specified by  21.902. See Roundtree Communications, 7  X - &FCC Rcd 5456 (1992); Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569; Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd  &5442. All of the pertinent rules cited herein were longestablished and applicable at the time the  X - &returned applications were filed. ? {OR- &<ԍ For example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in 1974 in the MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d 616. All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part  &21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and  &ivalid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that  X- &the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir.  X- &1961); see also Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Thus, we  &reject petitioners' claims that the Commission engaged in arbitrary and capricious action and find  &that "[t]he Division's return of [the abovereferenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or  &arbitrary, but rather was based on the [applicants'] failure to comply with Commission rules."  X%-Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568. yV. CONCLUSION  (#2 41. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the  &Zapplications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement  &yof the applications is not warranted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, THAT the reconsideration petitions for applications listed at note 9 ARE HEREBY DENIED.  XX- 42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT the staff of the Video Services Division shall "X",-(-(ZZ|"  &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