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)1>Rd{تֽG}oy:` b! jofJW"3!. ks0WDD6Wgbv{<@DDzE!n142lrK 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""III. DISCUSSION  03. Because we find dispositive Wyse's failure to submit required interference showings   jwith its application and to give notice, by service of these studies, to the parties required to be  X-  studied, it is unnecessary to address petitioner's other arguments. As discussed in detail below,   interference analyses are necessary at the time of application filing due to the extensive planning   \and engineering involved in the MDS licensing process. In addition, service upon affected   parties, as defined by Section 21.902(g), is required by the Commission's rules so that interested   Kparties have actual notice of the proposed station and sufficient time to respond if they so desire.   jTherefore, even if we were to accept petitioner's arguments concerning other deficiencies cited   in the applicant's return letter, the Wyse application was still deficient due to the applicant's  X-failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902.     X- 4. Interference Protection. Section 21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants to engineer   their proposed stations to provide at least 45 dB of interference protection within the protected  X-  <service areas{ yO-ԍ Protected service areas for MDS stations are defined at 47 C.F.R. 21.902(d).{ of all other authorized or previously proposed cochannel stations and at least 0 dB   =of interference protection within the protected service area of all other previously proposed or  Xm-  authorized adjacent channel stations.mB {O`"-  Lԍ MDS applicants have been consistently required to comply with  21.902(b). In Family Entertainment  {O*#-  Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 568 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994), 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, it was stated that:  {OL&- 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 45 dB, at which interference would be deemed acceptable. (# 47 C.F.R.21.902(b)(3)(4). MDS applicants are required"m ,-(-(ZZ" to demonstrate these protections in interference studies submitted with their applications.  @5. At the time Wyse's application was 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.  21.902(c)(1) (1989).   In addition, Section 21.902(c)(2) 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 antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area   mof any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.   X -  21.902(c)(2)(1989); 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 statement of   the techniques that would be employed at the proposed station to avoid interference with   Koperation 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 applicants,   licensees, and conditional licensees to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to   other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel stations in the same area and  X6-cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R. 21.901(d)(7).  ]6. 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  Xi-  Service and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service, 94 FCC 2d 1203, 1264 (1983)  XT-  (hereinafter 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  X-  kconsidered acceptable for filing." MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264. See also 47  X-  C.F.R. 21.902(b)(c). There has been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of  X-  Zinterference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F channels.$  {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 -  irequired . . . . "); 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 . . . .").  Hence, "the filing"d ,-(-(ZZ"   Kof an 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-at 567.  X- N 7. In a de novo review, on reconsideration, we have determined that Wyse's application   was properly returned for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements by   failing to demonstrate the lack of harmful interference to previously proposed and authorized  Xc-  stations required to be studied pursuant to Section 21.902(c). Specifically, Wyse failed to file  XL-  interference studies for: (1) one 1983 subsequently authorized MMDS station;XLd  yOa-  ԍ WLW844, Application File No. 15924CMP83, for Deanville, Texas. While WLW844 was granted on   KOctober 8, 1991, and subsequently forfeited on October 8, 1992, at the time the Wyse application was filed, the applicant was required, pursuant to 21.902(b), to include an interference analysis for this station.  and (2) 20 pending  X5-previously proposed post1983 applications.5  yOj-  ԍ These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 50342CMP90; 52814CMP90; and 52815CMP90, for Brenham, Texas; and 51310CMP90 for Shiner, Texas.  X - 8. Petitioner does not attempt to explain its failure to file required interference studies   [except with respect to one station. Specifically, petitioner contends, on reconsideration, that a   yreview of the Commission's records indicated, in addition to an E channel group application for  X -  <La Grange for which Wyse proposed collocation, X  yOO-  Jԍ Petitioner does not identify, either in its application or petition for reconsideration, the specific E channel La   Grange application referenced above. However, according to Commission records, only one adjacent channel proposed station, Application 09144CMP83 for La Grange, was thenpending at the same transmitter site as Wyse. only one previously proposed station, Wagon   Wheel Enterprises ("Wagon Wheel"), WLW844, Application File No. 15924CMP83, for  X-  Deanville, Texas, was located within 50 miles*  yOA"-  Yԍ Petitioner is silent about the duty to file interference analyses for previously proposed and authorized stations  {O #-within the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1) and (2).* of petitioner's proposed site. V yO$-ԍ Petitioner claims that this application was located 39.4 miles from petitioner's proposed transmitter site. Wyse contends   ithat it failed to perform and serve an interference study on the Wagon Wheel application because   the Commission provided no notice, at the time of its application filing, of the 1983 Wagon  XO-  /Wheel application. In preparing the engineering work for the La Grange application, Wyse"O ,-(-(ZZ+"   <asserts that it relied on a thencurrent "inventory" of pending MMDS applications printed by the  X-  Commission as well as data bases prepared by independent private companies.  yOb-  ԍ Petitioner attaches copies of two pages of FCC internal staff listings, to support its contention that the Wagon   Wheel application did not appear on the listings until October 25, 1990, nor on public notice until April 17, 1991.   As for the independent data bases utilized by petitioner, Wyse reports using the online computer data base "Dataworld."  Petitioner alleges   [that neither source listed the 1983 Wagon Wheel application. In support, petitioner attaches a   declaration of the engineer who performed the engineering work, claiming to have "completed   the original interference study for the La Grange, Texas MMDS application in October of  X-  1990."  yO -ԍ Wyse's interference analysis was submitted to the Commission, with its application, on July 2, 1990. ĕ In addition, petitioner's engineer reports using a Texas Rand McNally road map and   noted that "[i]f a previously proposed filed location used a name not shown as a place name on   the road map, it could have possibly been missed, however Deanville is clearly shown as a place   name and would have been found if it were in the inventory at the time of the study." Therefore,   petitioner argues fairness and due process require that petitioner be given an opportunity to   -amend, on reconsideration, its application to include an interference analysis for the 1983 Wagon Wheel application.  X -  9. At the time of Wyse's application filing, Wyse had failed to submit required   interference analyses for authorized or previously proposed stations which had appeared on public   lnotice or FCC staff internal listings prior to the filing date of petitioner's application. For   Lexample, Wyse failed to submit an interference study for a pending previously proposed post  1983 application, Application File No. 50342CMP90, for Brenham, Texas, which was placed  Xb-  lon public notice on May 2, 1990, two months prior to Wyse's filing date.|b@ yOS-ԍ This application was also listed on the June 12, 1990, FCC internal staff listing.| Copies of the  XK-  Commission's public notices are available to the public at the time of issuance. See 47 C.F.R.    0.443. In addition, previously released notices are available for public inspection at the  X-  Commission's Press and News Media Division. Id. Therefore, given petitioner's failure to file  X -  [interference analyses, at the time of its application filing, for pending previously proposed and   yauthorized stations listed on public notice or FCC internal staff listings, we find that even apart   from any failure of Wyse to file an interference study for the Wagon Wheel station, petitioner did not comply with Section 21.902(c).  10. As for petitioner's use of the privately maintained electronic data base Dataworld,   we note that this service was not the Commission's official MMDS online contractor at the time   of the La Grange application filing, which petitioner freely acknowledges. The Commission has,   over the years, announced, in public notices, third party entities which have contracted with the  X;-  .Commission to provide to the public online access to the MMDS data base. See, e.g., Public  X&-  Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases, Mimeo. No. 10511   (Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioner did not use the Commission's official online contractor, but rather   chose to rely on an unofficial nonCommission affiliated data base and did so at the risk that this",-(-(ZZ<" unofficial data base was not accurate and complete.  "11. Moreover, in addressing petitioner's contentions, we note that petitioner fails to  X-  provide many of the factual particulars upon which its allegations are based. In Jim Bolton, 2   \FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987 ), it was observed that a bald conclusion, without any   =offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value. Specifically, petitioner asserts   that in preparing the engineering work for the La Grange application, review of the "thencurrent   (and only available) inventory of pending MMDS applications published by the Commission"   did not reveal any cochannel or adjacent channel applicants within 50 miles of petitioner's   proposed site. Petitioner does not, however, state which particular FCC internal staff listing was   Lconsulted. Similarly, petitioner declares on reconsideration that "[r]eview of the Commission's   records" indicates that there were no thenpending F channel applicants and only one E channel   applicant within 50 miles of petitioner's proposed site. Again, petitioner does not state which   specific Commission records were reviewed, nor when the records were reviewed. Finally, we   .note that petitioner's engineer's declaration, attached to the reconsideration petition, does not   provide any additional information in this regard; in fact the engineer reports completing "the   original interference for the La Grange, Texas MMDS application in October of 1990" which is   0clearly erroneous as the La Grange application was filed on July 2, 1990, and, hence, the  Xd-engineering work was performed sometime on or before July 2, 1990.d yO-ԍ The interference analysis in the La Grange application does not state the date it was performed.   ^12. Petitioner's pledge, contained in its application, to take all measures necessary to   Lavoid harmful interference including ceasing operations, does not excuse petitioner's failure to   submit interference studies as required by Section 21.902. A pledge to comply with the   requirements of Section 21.902(a) does not exempt any MDS applicant from compliance with the  X-  lrequirements of Sections 21.901(d)(7) or 21.902(c).o\X {O-  ԍ See, e.g., G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008. "An applicant's general statement that he would use all  {O-  legitimate 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)."o The mandate that applicants submit   interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith   =requirement of Section 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, permittees, and   licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and . . . are expected  X~-  [to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . . ." See also 47   ?C.F.R. 21.31. As noted earlier, interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of  XR-processing MDS applications, cannot be skipped, and are a prerequisite to the grant of a license.  #13. Thus, due to Wyse's failure to file required interference analyses for pending   previously proposed and authorized 1983 and post1983 stations, we find that the La Grange   =applicant failed to comply with Section 21.902(c). "An application that proposes cochannel or   adjacent channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not  X -  =cause harmful interference as described herein will not be accepted for filing." Amendments of   /Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to Technical"!|,-(-(ZZ "   hRequirements Applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Television Fixed  X-  Service and the Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 93 (1984). Accordingly, Wyse's application was unacceptable for filing and properly returned.  X- _14. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition to submitting the required interference   analyses to the Commission, an MDS applicant also must serve each required interference study   =upon the previously proposed or authorized station applicant, conditional licensee or licensee   required to be studied, and submit a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and  XJ-  zlicensee served.J yO -  ԍ A listing of applications and their associated addresses has always been available to the public in the MDS Public Reference Room, and is periodically updated. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The La Grange applicant failed to serve, at the time  X5-  of filing, any copies of the required interference analyses, as mandated by Section 21.902(g), on  X -  jany of the required applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations stipulated to be   studied by Section 21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and opportunity to be  X -  heard. In Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442, 5444 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) the return of a modification application was upheld for failure to comply with Section 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  @a copy of the interference analysis . . . Due to this lack of service the orderly process  ]contemplated in the Commission's rulemaking order, in which Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#  X-   jThus, this application was also properly returned as unacceptable for filing based on its failure to comply with the service requirements contained in Section 21.902(g).  X- ]15. PostReturn Waiver Request and Submission of Interference and Service Showings.   On October 15, 1993, the same filing date as the petition for reconsideration, Wyse filed a  X-  petition for waiver and leave to amend its application to include a postreturn interference study   for the 1983 Wagon Wheel application as well as a certificate of service for the Wagon Wheel  XZ-  station, which was attached only to the reconsideration petition. Petitioner claims that its post  return interference analysis of the Wagon Wheel application demonstrates no harmful   interference. Thus, petitioner argues, there is no public policy reason to dismiss its application and, hence, equity demands the reinstatement of petitioner's application.  X-  16. Wyse, in a postreturn waiver and amendment request, seeks a waiver of the  X -  Commission's freeze on the filing of most amendments to applications. See Notice of Proposed  X!-  Rulemaking, PR Docket No. 9280, 7 FCC Rcd 3266, 3270 n.35 (1992) (hereinafter 1992"! ,-(-(ZZ "  X-  NPRM). {Oy-  ԍ The 1992 NPRM announced a freeze effective April 9, 1992, on the filing of most amendments to pending applications. 7 FCC Rcd at 3270, n.35. Due to the interconnectedness of this filing and Wyse's petition for reconsideration,   identical filing dates, and substantially similar arguments, we will address petitioner's waiver and  X-amendment petition. " yO-  ԍ Petitioner cross references each filing in the other. In fact, in the waiver and amendment petition cover letter,   petitioner states: "[a] Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement of the above referenced Application  {O7-  incorporating the proposed Amendment is being filed today under separate cover." (emphasis added). The arguments,   on this issue, made in the petition for waiver and amendment are substantially similar to the ones raised in the   petition for reconsideration. Specifically, in the waiver and amendment petition, petitioner argues that only one non  Jcollocated Echannel application (the 1983 Wagon Wheel application) was within 50 miles of petitioner's site; that   xthe Commission provided no notice of this application at the time of the La Grange application filing; that after   petitioner's application was returned, an interference study of the Wagon Wheel application was performed which demonstrated no harmful interference; and that equity required its application be reinstated.   X- 17. We reject petitioner's postreturn request for waiver of the 1992 NPRM's amendment  X-  yfiling freeze.  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  application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public  ^interest; or  (b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule  inequitable, unduly burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative.(#   47 C.F.R. 21.19. "An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When   an applicant seeks a waiver . . . it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which  Xf-  warrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio  XQ-  MGrande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc., v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam));  X<-  0see also David Laustsen, 3 FCC Rcd 2053, 2054 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1988) ("[A] request for   waiver . . . must affirmatively demonstrate that application of the rules would frustrate the underlying purposes of the rule.").  X- 18. We find that granting this waiver request would not serve the public interest. Nor   [do we believe that the facts and circumstances of the Wyse application are sufficiently unique   so as to warrant a waiver of Section 21.902 which requires interference showings. As discussed  X-  Kpreviously, the interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which demands compliance  X-  \at the time of the application. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1264, ("we expect  Xq-  applicants to address this problem [of potential interference] in their applications."); see also   4,330 Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service  XE-  =Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335 (1994), aff'd mem, A/B Financial, Inc., et al."E ,-(-(ZZ{"  X-  v. FCC, No. 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam). In addition, as noted earlier,   service upon affected parties is required under the Commission's rules so that interested parties   .have actual notice of proposed stations. Here, we have found that even without regard to the  X-  Wagon Wheel application, Wyse had access to information necessary to prepare required   interference analyses and serve these studies upon the required parties, yet, petitioner failed to  X-  include, with its application, required interference studies and certificates of service. See supra  Xz-  M 7. Hence, even if we did accept petitioner's postreturn showings, petitioner's application would still be unacceptable for filing.  19. Therefore, we find that acceptance of petitioner's postreturn interference and service  X -  showings regarding the Wagon Wheel station is not warranted. See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd   at 5444, n.7 ("[I]t is no longer possible to amend an application which has already been  X -  kdismissed. . . ."); Earl V. Levels, 8 FCC Rcd 5506 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993) (curative amendment   filed with petition for reconsideration, attempting to supply a missing interference showing and  X -  other missing information, not allowed); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd at 4669, n. 9 ("We reject   zBenson's contention that she should be permitted to file curative amendments and have her  X-  Kapplication reinstated nunc pro tunc, for further processing. We believe that the Division's initial  X-  return of the abovereferenced Benson application as unacceptable for filing was correct. . . ."). yO-  ԍ Moreover, although we decline to accept petitioner's interference analysis submitted on reconsideration, we   note that a cursory review of this interference showing reveals that it is also deficient on the merits. Specifically,    the postreturn study used incorrect technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving   antenna gain. In addition, the coordinates for petitioner's proposed system are incorrectly listed as: 29 degrees, 52   minutes, 26 seconds, North latitude and 96 degrees, 52 minutes, 50 seconds, West longitude. Petitioner's application   lists the coordinates as: 29 degrees, 56 minutes, 9 seconds, North latitude, and 96 degrees, 50 minutes, 11 seconds,   West longitude. Also the Wagon Wheel applicant's proposed site is incorrectly listed as 39.4 miles away from   petitioner's 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.  :IV. CONCLUSION  20. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the La   Grange application under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the application is not warranted.  21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petition and waiver request  X-filed by Wyse Wireless Partnership ARE HEREBY DENIED. " ,-(-(ZZ"  22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative by certified mail, return receipt requested. ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   ` `  hh,VCharles E. Dziedzic ` `  hh,VAssistant Chief, Video Services Division ` `  hh,VMass Media Bureau