WPCt< 2BJZ Courier3|jix6X@`7X@HP LASER JET 5 P00_3; LPT2onal)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\#K]X@26 ZFK3|jHP LASER JET 5 P00_3; LPT2onal)HL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\#K]XP"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xw PE37XP##X\  P6G;P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;9XP#25 EK)Ktv Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN` ưX "i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""&-requests for additional information, or other requirements. #Xj\  P6G;9XP#(#Ƙ  Specifically, the dismissal letter stated  xthat the applicant failed to meet the requirements for performance of interference analysis under  x47 C.F.R. 21.902 and failed to consider all previously proposed or authorized MDS stations  xypursuant to 47 C.F.R. 21.902(c). Consequently, the Commission staff dismissed the Baltimore"I ,))ZZ" application by letter dated August 31, 1995, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 21.20.  X-  {x3. Petitioners' Arguments on Reconsideration. On September 27, 1995, Ralph DeStefano  xand James Feasel filed a petition for reconsideration of their dismissed application. On  x{reconsideration, petitioners contend that their application satisfied all interference study  xMrequirements. They note that although the staff dismissal letter claims that the interference  x[analysis was inadequate due to failure to consider all cochannel and adjacent channel stations  xwithin 50 miles, the letter did not identify those stations "even though there are blank spaces in  xthe form letter in which this information is to be provided." Petitioners claim that it is, therefore,  xnot possible to respond to this claimed defect without specifications as to errors in the  x?interference analysis provided in the application. Petitioners also argue that the current  xCommission MDS inventory and a Data World search disclose no other previously proposed or  xauthorized stations within 50 miles of Baltimore for which the captioned application should have contained an interference study.   x4. In addition, petitioners argue that even if the application did contain one or more  xdefects in its engineering analysis or other application exhibits, other than those of the most  xcritical nature, the Commission should have given the applicants a reasonable opportunity to  xcorrect the problem before dismissing the application. Therefore, petitioners argue that their  xapplication was improperly dismissed under "an apparent faultfree policy" which is not supported by the Commission's rules. %III. DISCUSSION  X-  x5. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established  xthe principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any  xpreviously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel  xsought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference  X|- xkwill not occur with respect to the first MDS channel. . . ." Report and Order, Amendment of  xParts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and  XP- xRegulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d  X;- x616, 621 (1974), recon. denied, 57 FCC 2d 301 (1975). A few years before the Baltimore  xapplication was filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: x #XxIt is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause  unacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far away as 50 miles.  Section 21.902(c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include  San 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.  "W%,-(-(ZZ $"Ԍ X- xR.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981).&= yOy- xԍ #X\  P6G;P#The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path from the  {OA- xhapplicant's MDS station to the protected service area of the authorized or previously proposed station. Amendment  xLof Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements  xYapplicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed Service and the Private Operational  {O-Fixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 8991 (1984). #Xn4  pG;|X# It has also been recognized that "the demonstration of  xinterference 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- x[Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768 n.10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus, Section  X- x21.902(b) sets certain threshold interference protection levels,C|&= {O - xZԍ #X\  P6G;P#MDS applicants consistently have been required to comply with  21.902(b). In the Family Entertainment  yO - xkcase, the Domestic Facilities Division upheld the return of an application as unacceptable for filing which  xdemonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, it was stated that:  {O-  >Xx[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level of interference . . . is de  {O-  minimis. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires that an applicant demonstrate 45 dB of cochannel interference   >protection. In this rule provision, no reference is made to qualifying terms, degrees or levels, other than 45 dB at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (#  yO-9 FCC Rcd at 568 (footnote omitted). #Xj\  P6G;9XP#C and requires all MDS applicants to demonstrate that protection in interference studies submitted with the applications.   |x6. At the time the Baltimore application was filed, in order to demonstrate compliance  XN- xwith Section 21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made, Section  x21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the  x-application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference with any authorized or previously  xproposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical  xpath to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed  x-cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter was within 50 miles of the transmitter  xcoordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  x21.902(c)(1) (1991). In addition, Section21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include  x{with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful interference if the applicant's  xproposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected  xservice area of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  XQ- x 21.902(c)(2) (1991); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). The applicant was also required  xto show what steps it has taken to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a), which  xrequired MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid  xharmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(7).  X-   x7. These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission  xLunderstands that certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission",-(-(ZZ"  xalso anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than  X- xyordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74  xand 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency allocation to the  xInstructional Television Fixed Service, the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private  X- x?Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983) (hereinafter MMDS  X- x.Allocation Order). Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address this  X|- xproblem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the  xapplicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  XP- x0acceptable for filing."  Id. (emphasis in original). See also 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b) and (c).  xBecause petitioners here failed to make the required showings regarding interference protection,  xlits application cannot be characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the  X - x[Commission's rules. See New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR 2d 1600, 1602 (1985). "In  xthe processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by 47 C.F.R.   X -21.902 are crucial." See also Dan S. Bagley, Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992).  X -    X -  x8. We find that the Baltimore application was properly dismissed for failure to comply  X- xwith our interference protection requirements. Petitioners' application failed to include two of  X- xthe required analyses of the potential for harmful interference to authorized or previously  Xr- xproposed MDS cochannel stations within 50 miles. Specifically, in de novo review on  X]- xreconsideration, we have determined that the Baltimore applicant failed to file required  XF- xZinterference studies for two post1983 authorized or pending MDS applications. Petitioners failed  X1- xto file interference studies for one pending, previously proposed post1983 application,1&= yO- xԍ #X\  P6G;P#Application File No. 50047CMP87 at Baltimore, Maryland, which was placed on public notice on May 27,  yOr-1987. #Xj\  P6G;9XP# and   one  X-previously authorized post1983 MDS station.   b  &= yO- xԍ #X\  P6G;P#The applicant failed to submit an interference study for a previously authorized station, WPF46, Application  xFile No. 07461CMP71, which was placed on public notice on July 6, 1971. While WPF46 was subsequently  xforfeited on May 1, 1991, at the time the Baltimore application was filed, petitioners were required by Section  yOC-21.902(b) and (c) to include an interference analysis for this station in its application. #Xj\  P6G;9XP#b   x9. We note that the Baltimore applicant failed to submit required interference analyses  X- xfor authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public notice.\&= {O- xiԍ #X\  P6G;P#Copies of the Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of issuance. See 47 C.F.R.  x 0.422 and 0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public inspection at the Commission's  {O !-Office of Public Affairs. Id.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# In addition,  xthe interference analysis that was submitted for WHT571 at Baltimore, Maryland, Application  xFile No. 50243CMP84, failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902 in that they  xfailed to demonstrate at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection or at least 0 dB of  xMadjacent channel interference protection as required by Section 21.902(b). The interference  xstudies that were submitted for WOI93 and WHT747, at Washington, D.C., Application File Nos.  x50014CMP74 and 50099CMMP87, respectively, did not comply with the above requirements"K, ,-(-(ZZ"  xof Section 21.902(b). Nor did they include free space calculations for the desired to undesired  xlsignal ratio to each referenced receiving antenna within the protected service area of the  xauthorized or previously proposed stations pursuant to Section 21.902(c), (d), and (f). Although  xthe application indicated terrain blockage, the application did not include the required demonstration using shadow maps or terrain profiles.   x10. Petitioners offer various explanations for their failure to file interference studies for  x[the previously proposed and authorized post1983 MDS applications. We note, however, that  xthey failed to submit required interference analyses for these authorized or previously proposed  xstations even though the stations appeared on FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date  xkof the petitioners' application. For example, WPF46 was included on the November 24, 1982  xFCC staff internal listing, prior to petitioners' application filing date. Given petitioners' failure  xto file interference studies for subsequently authorized and for pending, previously proposed stations, we find that the petitioners' application was properly dismissed.  X -   x11. As for petitioners' use of the independent data base, Data World, which is not  x@affiliated with the Commission, the Commission does not attest to its accuracy. The  xCommission has, over the years, announced in public notices, third party entities which have  xcontracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to the MDS data base.  XK- xSee, e.g., Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases,  xMimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioners did not use the Commission's official online  xcontractor, but rather chose to rely on an unofficial nonCommission affiliated independent data base and did so at the risk that this unofficial data base was not accurate and complete.  X-  _x12. 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  xLupon the applicant, conditional licensee or licensee at each previously proposed or authorized  xstation required to be studied, pursuant to Section 21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47  x/C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional  Xg- xjlicensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application. The petitioners failed to serve  XP- xtwo of the required interference analyses, as mandated by 21.902(g), on two of the applicants,  xxconditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be studied by Section21.902(c), thus  X"- xdepriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be heard."&= yO-ԍ A#X\  P6G;P#pplication File Nos. 50047CMP87 and 07461CMP71, at Baltimore, Maryland.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd  xL5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with Section 21.902(g):   XxxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by   parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be   affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference   0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   a copy of the interference analysis. . . . Due to this lack of service, the orderly process"l$X,-(-(ZZF#"   ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#  xThus, this application was also properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing based on its failure to comply with the service requirements contained in Section21.902(g).  Xv-  !x13. PostAction Curative Showings. Petitioners' attempt to file an amended application  x[with curative interference analyses prior to their petition for reconsideration likewise fails. It is  xwell established that the Commission is under no obligation to accept curative showings after an  xapplication has been returned or dismissed, and there has been a series of cases denying attempts  X - xto submit such showings at that stage.  &= {O - xԍ #X\  P6G;P#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  {O - 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  yOK-Benson application as unacceptable for filing was correct. . . .").#Xn4  pG;|X# Applications which lack complete and necessary  X - xinformation are unacceptable for filing pursuant to Section 21.20. See 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a)(1).   x14. As discussed above, petitioners' application lacked required interference analyses.  xjIt is important that the interference analyses be complete at the time of filing of the application,  xand where they are not, the application is properly returned or dismissed as unacceptable for  xyfiling. The interference analysis requirement demands complete compliance at the time of filing  X{- xKof the application. See  511, supra. See also 101 Applications for Authority to Construct and  Xf- xyOperate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations, 9 FCC Rcd 7886, 7899 (1994), aff'd mem, A/B  XQ- xFinancial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) ("[P]etitioners'  x>applications were returned as unacceptable because they . . . failed to submit and serve the  xrequired interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  X- x21.902."). Z&= {O- xYԍ #X\  P6G;P#As with the attempted cure in Earl V. Levels, the curative interference showing that petitioners seek to submit  xis likewise deficient on its merits. Acceptance of a curative showing is even that much more undeserving where  yOa-petitioners have not persuaded us that the showing should be accepted.#Xj\  P6G;9XP# The acceptance of curative interference showings from applicants on reconsideration is not warranted.  X-  x15. Acceptability for Filing Standard. Petitioners argue that because the Commission did  xKnot give them a reasonable opportunity to correct any problems before dismissing its application,  xthe Commission apparently has a "faultfree" standard with respect to acceptability of  X- x=applications. Petitioner cites two cases, James River Broadcasting v. FCC, 399 F.2d 581 (D.C.  Xo- x_Cir. 1968) and Radio Athens, Inc. v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1968), for the  x.propositions that the Commission's rules must: (1) indicate where extraordinary strictness will  x be required; (2) design strict procedures to achieve a result that is reasonably related to an"C2 ,-(-(ZZ{"  xjefficient processing procedure; and (3) not have unfairly strict acceptability standards so as to  xcontravene the statutory right to consideration. Petitioners contend that the Commission's Part  x[21 rules clearly do not establish a faultfree standard for acceptability of applications. Instead,  xpetitioners argue, the Part 21 standard is at most similar to the "substantially complete" standard  X- xaddressed in James River and Radio Athens. In addition, petitioners maintain that the language  xof Section 21.20(a) confers upon the Commission staff significant leeway in determining whether to allow an applicant to cure defects by submitting amendments or whether to return applications.  XJ-  x 16. James River and Radio Athens do not assist petitioners in this case, and  xpetitioners' reliance on them is misplaced. The decisions in both of those cases primarily rested  X - xupon the "substantially complete" criterion for acceptability of applications. See 47 C.F.R.  X - xM1.227(b)(1). In contrast to the rules governing the James River applications, the standard  X - x\specified by Part 21 is "acceptable for filing." See 47 C.F.R.  21.31(b) and 21.914. Section  x21.20(a) of the Commission's rules sets forth two tests in which one or the other must be met  xin order for an application to be deemed "unacceptable for filing," and states that an application  X - x.deemed unacceptable for filing will be returned to the applicant. See  2, supra. Once the Part  X- x21 rules were changed almost 20 years ago, "James River [was] no longer applicable to  xzapplications filed under Part 21 of the Commission's rules. . . . [T]he standard for evaluating  x-applications under Part 21 of the rules is not substantial completeness,' but rather acceptability  XY- x>for filing.'" G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008 n.9 (1993) (citations omitted). Indeed, it was in  XD- xresponse to James River that the Commission created the Part 21 standard in its present form. The Commission explained the change it adopted for the Part 21 standard:  Xxx[T]he application must be in a condition acceptable for filing, a revised  `requirement which we believe is, in light of case interpretation and past policy,  _less ambiguous than the present requirement of "substantial completeness." The  present terminology has caused some processing confusion because it has been  Pconstrued as establishing different standards for defective applications such that  it is possible for a "skeleton" application to be otherwise unacceptable for filing  and yet be "substantially complete" enough to be entitled to comparative consideration with a competing application.    V2- xAmendment of Parts 1 and 21 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Applicable to the  X- xMDomestic Public Radio Services (Other Than Maritime Mobile), 60 FCC 2d 549, 552 (1976)  X- x(hereinafter Domestic Public Radio Services Order) (referring to James River in footnote).  In  X- xaddition, the acceptable for filing standard is not "fault-free," as petitioner contends.  See In Re  X -Applications of North Florida MMDS Partners, 10 FCC Rcd 11593, 11608 (1995).   x17. The Part 21 acceptability rules meet the "full and explicit notice" test discussed in  X#- xKRadio Athens. In referring to the Domestic Public Radio Services Order, we explicitly stated that  x"all MDS applicants have been on notice since 1976 of the processing requirements for MDS  xapplications and the requirement that the applications be in a condition acceptable for filing' in  XV&- xorder to be entitled to comparative consideration." New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 RR  XA'- x2d at 1601 n.3 (1985). In Radio Athens, the application was reinstated in part because the"A' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xduopoly ownership rule in question did not indicate that an application with a duopoly problem  X- xwould be dismissed without consideration. Id. at 403. In contrast, Sections 21.20(a), 21.31(b)  xand 21.914 clearly indicate the criteria for rendering an application unacceptable for filing and  X- xdepriving it of comparative consideration. See Florida Cellular Mobile Communications  X- x>Corporation v. FCC, 28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("The Commission need not supply a  xyseparate shopping list' specifying that each separate rule violation may lead to dismissal. It is  x!enough that the FCC rules are clearly spelled out and applicants are on notice that their  xjapplications are subject to dismissal for failure to comply with these rules."). Thus, petitioners  xhad full notice of the standard under which their applications were evaluated, and we reject their  xjcontention that the Part 21 acceptability standard is analogous to the "substantially complete" standard.   x18. As discussed above, since petitioners' application lacked interference analyses at the  xtime of filing, the application did not substantially comply with the Commission's rules and was  X - xyproperly dismissed as unacceptable for filing pursuant to Section 21.20(a). See New Channels,  x57 RR 2d at 1602 (an MDS application which does not contain all of the required interference  x=analyses "cannot be characterized as . . . in substantial compliance with Commission rules and  X- xlregulations, as required by the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); 101  Xl- xxApplications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations, 9  XW- xFCC Rcd 7886, 7899 (1994) (hereinafter Multipoint Distribution Service Applications), aff'd, A/B  XB- xFinancial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 95-1027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam) ("[P]etitioners'  xapplications were returned as unacceptable because they failed to submit and serve the required  x>interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as specified by  21.902.")  xLMoreover, because missing interference analyses is such a serious omission, it is unlikely that  X- xpetitioners would even meet the "substantial completeness" standard that they propose.  See  X- x.Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4669 ("Benson's failure to submit the necessary interference protection showing . . . renders its application incomplete . . . .").   ^x19. Petitioners also argue that because the Commission has discretion under Section  x21.20(c)(2) "to not return" an application, Part 21 does not have a fault-free standard with respect  Xb- xto acceptability of applications. As discussed above, the Part 21 rules do not contain a fault-free  x/standard for acceptability of applications; rather, the standard is whether the application is  X4- xacceptable for filing. See  16, supra. While the Part 21 rules do allow for a certain degree of  xdiscretion in reviewing an application, each application is examined under the acceptable for  xKfiling standard. Thus, an applicant who violates Part 21 rules assumes the risk that its application  X- xwill be returned as unacceptable for filing.  See Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (D.C. Cir.  x1961) (any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the  xCommission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that the application  X"- xwill not be acceptable for filing."). See also, e.g., Donald E. Benson, 8 FCC Rcd 1872, 1873  x(Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). Petitioners' application was properly dismissed as unacceptable for filing. "IV. CONCLUSION   x20. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's dismissal of the"=' ,-(-(ZZ%"  xapplication filed by Ralph DeStefano and James Feasel, under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   nx21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition filed by Ralph  X-DeStefano and James Feasel IS HEREBY DENIED.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: