WPC6K 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\#I^X@ 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,x6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7Xn-6F[w!/DTck{2lrK ZE'3|j"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\#I^XPTimes New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2a#f KOK!",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~'^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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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""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. (# 47 C.F.R. 21.902(b)(3) and (4). MDS applicants are required to demonstrate these protections in interference studies submitted with their applications. "K  ,-(-(ZZ "Ԍ {4. At the time the La Grange applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance   with Section 21.902(b), applicants were required to 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.    k21.902(c)(1) (1990). In addition, Section 21.902(c)(2) required that an MDS applicant include   jwith the application an analysis of the potential for harmful adjacent channel interference if the   applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the   protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station.  X -  47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)(1990); see 47 C.F.R. 21.902(a), (b), (d), (f). Section 21.901(d)(7)   further required that each MDS application for the E or F channels include the applicant's written   istatement of the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference   -with operation of adjacent channel stations. The applicant was also required to show what steps   were taken to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a), which required MDS   zapplicants, licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful   interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same  Xd-area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).  ]5. These interference showings are a significant requirement which the Commission has   \repeatedly emphasized. The Commission, in reallocating 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  X-  more closely than ordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. See   yAmendment 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  X-  Service and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983)  X-  x(MMDS Allocation Order). Thus, the Commission stressed that "we expect applicants to address   this problem in their applications. Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the   applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered  X?-  acceptable for filing." MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. See also 47 C.F.R.  X*-  21.902(b)(c). There has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference  X-  $protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels. f {O -  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   characterized as complete, or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, as required by  {O"-  the criteria for acceptability outlined in rule  21.20(a)."); CNI Wireless, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2039, 2040 (Dom. Fac.   KDiv. 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 horizon of the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna. . . . [B]ased upon CNI's failure to comply with   Section 21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was defective and unacceptable for filing, was  {O&-  =proper.");  G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd 7007, 7008, n.9 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[T]he standard for evaluating"& ,-(-(+'"   applications under Part 21 of the rules is not 'substantial completeness' but rather 'acceptability for filing'. . . .   JCooper'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) ("[T]hose applications that do not   ycontain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable . . . . This interference protection showing is a significant requirement . . . .").  "[T]he filing of an"z ,-(-(ZZ"   interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered a basic  X-  requirement in determining the acceptability of an application." Family Entertainment, 9 FCC  X-Rcd at 567.  X-  6. In a de novo review, on reconsideration, we have determined that the La Grange   applications were properly returned for failure to comply with our interference protection   Lrequirements by failing to demonstrate the lack of harmful interference to previously proposed  Xc-  and authorized stations required to be studied pursuant to Section 21.902(c). Specifically, all  XL-  !of the La Grange applicants failed to file interference studies for one 1983 subsequently  X5-  authorized MMDS station. X5zf yO`-  -ԍ WLW844, Application File No. 15924CMP83, for Deanville, Texas. While WLW844 was granted on   October 8, 1991, and subsequently forfeited on October 8, 1992, at the time the La Grange applications were filed, the applicants were required, pursuant to 21.902(b), to include an interference analysis for this station.  In addition, the October 15, 1990, La Grange applicants failed to  X -  file interference analyses for 32 thenpending post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations.[ X f yOi-  ԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 50342CMP90; 52814CMP90; and 53054CM  + P90 for Brenham, Texas; 54603CMP90; 54606CMP90; and 54609CMP90; for Gonzales, Texas; 51310CMP90 for Shiner, Texas; and 53052CMP90 at Warrenton, Texas. [   The remaining La Grange applicants also failed to file interference studies for 31 post1983   previously proposed MMDS stations, which had applications pending on the filing dates of these  X -La Grange applicants.  f {OD-  ԍ These include, but are not limited to, all of the applications listed above, supra note 12, except for Application File No. 53054CMP90, which was returned on October 16, 1990.  X -  x7. Petitioners do not attempt to explain their failure to file required interference studies,  x[except with respect to one station. Specifically, petitioners contend, on reconsideration, that a  xyreview of the Commission's records indicated, in addition to an E channel group application for  Xf- xLa Grange for which petitioners proposed collocation,Xff yO+ -  ԍ In their applications, petitioners proposed collocation with the adjacent channel proposed E group channel   ,station, Application File No. 9144CMP83 for La Grange. On October 15, 1990, another applicant, Application File No. 51434CMP91, also proposed an adjacent channel E group channel station at the same transmitter site. that only one previously proposed station,  x=Wagon Wheel Enterprises ("Wagon Wheel"), WLW844, Application File No. 15924CMP83,  X8- xfor Deanville, Texas, was located within 50 miles,84f yO%- xԍ Petitioners are silent about the duty to file interference analyses for previously proposed and authorized  {O%-stations within the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) and (2)., of petitioners' proposed site.8f yO-ԍ Petitioners claim that this application was located 39.4 miles from petitioners' proposed transmitter site. Petitioners"8X,-(-(ZZ "  xcontend that they failed to perform and serve an interference study on the Wagon Wheel  X- x[application because the Commission provided no notice, at the time of their application filings,  X- xkof the 1983 Wagon Wheel application. In preparing the engineering work for the La Grange  xKapplication, petitioners assert that they relied on the thencurrent "inventory" of pending MMDS  X- x>applications printed by the Commission on July 30, 1990, as well as data bases prepared by  X- x=independent private companies. Xf yO- xԍ Petitioners attach copies, dated July 30, 1990, October 25, 1990, and June 6, 1992, of the relevant pages of  xKthe FCC internal staff listings, to contend that the Wagon Wheel application did not appear on the listings until  x,October 25, 1990, nor on public notice until April 17, 1991. As for the independent data bases utilized, petitioners report using the online computer data base "Dataworld."  Petitioners allege that neither source listed the 1983 Wagon  xZWheel application. In support, petitioners attach a declaration of the engineer who performed the  xoriginal interference analysis for the La Grange applicants. Petitioners' engineer reports using  x[a Texas Rand McNally road map and noted that "[i]f a previously proposed filed location used  xKa name not shown as a place name on the road map, it could have possibly been missed, however  xDeanville is clearly shown as a place name and would have been found if it were in the inventory  xzat the time of the study $> ." Therefore, petitioners argue fairness and due process require that  xKpetitioners be given an opportunity to amend, on reconsideration, their applications to include an interference analysis for the 1983 Wagon Wheel application.  X -  ox 8. At the time of the La Grange filings, the applicants failed to submit required  xinterference analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public  xnotice or FCC internal staff listings prior to the filing date of petitioners' applications. For  xexample, petitioners failed to submit an interference study for a pending, previously proposed  x/post1983 application, Application File No. 50342CMP90, for Brenham, Texas, which was  xplaced on public notice on May 2, 1990, over five months prior to the earliest La Grange filing  xldate. Copies of the Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of  X- xissuance. See 47 C.F.R.  0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public  X- xinspection at the Commission's Press and News Media Division. Id. Moreover, the above  xapplication was also listed on the July 30, 1990, FCC internal staff listing which petitioners  X- xpurport to have relied on in preparing their original interference analysis. Therefore, given  xpetitioners' failure to file required interference analyses, at the time of their application filings,  X- xfor pending, previously proposed and authorized stations listed on public notice or FCC internal  xystaff listings, we find that even apart from any failure of petitioners to file an interference study  Xi-for the Wagon Wheel station, petitioners did not comply with Section 21.902(c).Zi@f yOZ"- xԍ In addition, with respect to the Wagon Wheel application, we note, as demonstrated by petitioners' own  xevidence, the La Grange applicants who filed on October 26, 1990, and October 31, 1990, should have been aware  {O#-of this application as it was listed on the October 25, 1990 FCC internal staff listing. See supra note 17.   {x9. As for petitioners' use of the privately maintained electronic data base Dataworld, we  xnote that this service was not the Commission's official MMDS online contractor, at the time"$b ,-(-(ZZ\"  x[of the applicants' filings, which petitioners freely acknowledge. The Commission has, over the  x!years, announced, in public notices, third party entities which have contracted with the  X- xCommission to provide to the public online access to the MMDS data base. See e.g. Public  X- xNotice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo. No. 10511  x(Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioners did not use the Commission's official online contractor, but rather  x-chose to rely on an unofficial, nonCommission affiliated data base and did so at the risk that this unofficial data base was not accurate and complete.   x10. Regarding petitioners' pledges, contained in their applications, to take all measures  x>necessary to avoid harmful interference including ceasing operations, this does not excuse  xzpetitioners' failure to submit interference studies as required by Section 21.902. A pledge to  xcomply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from  X - x compliance with the requirements of Sections 21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c).n\ f {Oi - xԍ See e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all  {O3- xlegitimate engineering techniques does not constitute the kind of showing discussed in the MMDS Allocation Order and required under 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7)."n The mandate that  xapplicants submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the  xgood faith commandment of Section 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants,  xconditional licensees, and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference  x]. . . and . . . are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential  X}- xNinterference . . . ." See also 47 C.F.R. 21.31. As noted earlier, interference analyses are  xnecessary at the beginning of processing MDS applications, cannot be skipped, and are a  XQ-prerequisite to the grant of a license. See  35.   mx11. Thus, due to petitioners' failure to file required interference analyses for pending,  xpreviously proposed and authorized, 1983 and post1983 stations, we find that the La Grange  xapplicants failed to comply with Section 21.902(c). "An application that proposes cochannel or  xadjacent channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not  X- x=cause harmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing." Amendments of  x/Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to Technical  xhRequirements Applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed  X- xService and the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984). Accordingly, petitioners' applications were unacceptable for filing and properly returned.  XC-  _x12. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference  xxanalyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also had to serve each required interference study  x=upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee  xrequired to be studied, and submit a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and  X- xlicensee served.f 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. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). Here, the La Grange applicants failed to serve, at the  X - x<time of filing, any copies of the required interference analyses, as mandated by Section 21.902(g)," D,-(-(ZZ"  X- xion any of the required applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be  xstudied by Section 21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be  X- x=heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC at 5444, the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with Section 21.902(g):   XxThe Commission makes provision for actual notice and an opportunity to be heard by   parties in interest by requiring at Section 21.902(g) that microwave stations that might be   affected by operation of an MDS station be served a copy of the required interference   0analysis for their station. Cornaggia admittedly failed to properly serve VisionAire with   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.(#  xThus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on the applicants' failure to comply with the service requirements contained in Section 21.902(g).  X-  x13. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. Petitioners, in their applications, request that  xthe Commission grant "any required waiver necessary" to accept their filings. We have construed  xMthis request as a request for waiver of the interference studies required pursuant to Section  XO- x021.902(c) and the service requirements of Section 21.902(g). Section 21.19 provides that  x/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:   !Xx(a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its   application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public  ^ interest; or   (b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule   inequitable, unduly burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative.(# 47 C.F.R. 21.19.  X$-  Ox14. The La Grange applicants failed to provide any justification for grant of a waiver.  x<"An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks  x\a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such  X- xaction.'" WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family  X - xRadio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)); see also David  X!- x]Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for waiver . . . must  xjaffirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes  X#- x of the rule."). Nor, in our de novo review, do we find that grant of waivers would serve the  xpublic interest or that the facts and circumstances of the La Grange filings are sufficiently unique  X_%- xso as to warrant waiver of these requirements. Thus, we decline to grant petitioners' request for waivers. "1',-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ X-  x15. PostReturn Interference and Service Showings. On reconsideration, petitioners seek  X- xto include a postreturn interference study for the 1983 Wagon Wheel application as well as a  X- xcertificate of service for the Wagon Wheel station. Petitioners claim that their postreturn  xinterference analysis of the Wagon Wheel application demonstrates no harmful interference.  xThus, petitioners argue, there is no public policy reason to dismiss their applications and, hence, equity demands the reinstatement of petitioners' applications.  Xa-  ?x16. As discussed previously, the interference analysis requirement is an imperative one  XJ- xwhich demands compliance at the time of application. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d  x{at 1264, ("we expect applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in their  X - xNapplications."); see also Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994)  x("[S]tation engineering must be demonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to  X - xLSection 21.902(c) . . . ."). In addition, as noted supra, service upon affected parties is provided  x<for in the Commission's rules so that interested parties have actual notice of the proposed station  x.and sufficient time to respond if desired. Here, we have found that even without regard to the  X - xWagon Wheel application, petitioners had access to information necessary to prepare required  xinterference analyses and to serve these studies upon the required parties, yet, petitioners failed  X- xjto include, with their applications, required interference studies and certificates of service. See  Xl- xsupra  8, 12. Hence, even if we did accept petitioners' postreturn showings, petitioners' applications would still be unacceptable for filing.   x 17. Therefore, we find that acceptance of petitioners' postreturn interference and service  X- xshowings regarding the Wagon Wheel station is not warranted. See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd  x5442, 5444 n.7 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) ("[I]t is no longer possible to amend an application which  X- x]has already been dismissed . . . ."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993)  x(curative amendments filed with petition for reconsideration, attempting to supply a missing  X- xKinterference showing and other missing information, not allowed); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd  x]at 4699 n.9 ("We reject Benson's contention that she should be permitted to file curative  X- xzamendments and have her application reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. We  xbelieve that the Division's initial return of the abovereferenced Benson application as  Xb-unacceptable for filing was correct . . . .").bf yO- x[ԍ Moreover, although the Commission declines to accept petitioners' interference analysis, submitted on  xireconsideration, we note that a cursory review of this interference showing reveals that it is also deficient on the  xhmerits. Specifically, the postreturn study used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and  xthe reference receiving gain. In addition, the coordinates for petitioners' proposed system are incorrectly listed, in  xthis study, as: 29 degrees, 52 minutes, 26 seconds, North latitude and 96 degrees, 52 minutes, 50 seconds, West  xlongitude; petitioner's application lists the coordinates as: 29 degrees, 56 minutes, 9 seconds, North latitude, and 96  x<degrees, 50 minutes, 11 seconds, West longitude. Also, the Wagon Wheel station's proposed site is erroneously  xZlisted as 39.4 miles away from petitioners' La Grange site. According to Commission records, the Wagon Wheel site is 34.39 miles from petitioner's proposed site; a difference of five miles.   XK-"K,-(-(ZZ]" "III. CONCLUSION   x18. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the La  x/Grange applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.   x19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the La  XH-Grange applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED.   x20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xZcopies of the decision to the authorized representatives for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: