WPCQ 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.$h';U7G;A 74  .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New 2rK Za'3|j"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\#I^XPTimes New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic2}#f K kK2!",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""transmitter site in violation of the location restrictions of the 1988 Public Notice.@ B yO-  ԍ Specifically, petitioners' proposed a transmitter site within 50 miles of 72 1983 applications pending at the   time of the Henryetta filing, including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 02528CMP83; at Canadian Valley,   hOklahoma; 00536CMP83;01028CMP83; at McAlester, Oklahoma; and 06527CMP83; at Tulsa, Oklahoma.  yOJ-These applications were as close as 25.47 miles from petitioners' proposed transmitter site.#Xn4  pG;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. (# 9 FCC Rcd at 568.   16. At the time the Henryetta applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance   Nwith Section 21.902(b), and so mutual exclusivity determinations could be made, Section   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" ,-(-(ZZ"   0or 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   Lmiles 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   Lapplicant 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 of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent  XH-  channel station. 47 C.F.R.  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 the operation of adjacent channel stations. The applicant was also   Nrequired to show what steps would be taken to comply with the requirements of Section   !21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees, to make   Lexceptional efforts to avoid harmful 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). These interference showings are a significant requirement because the Commission,   in reallocating the E and F channels from ITFS to MDS, did so with the understanding that   Kcertain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that   jsome authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than ordinarily allowed and  X6-  .require 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.   Those applications that do not contain an analysis of how the applicant intends to avoid cochannel  X-  interference in adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id; see also 47 C.F.R.    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. c {O@-  =#X\  P6G;ɓP#э 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.    Div. 1994) ("Section 21.902(c)(2) requires that an applicant initially file with the application 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  {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, 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'. . . . Cooper's application was  yO!-  properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include the technical showing required . . . . ");  {O!-  ,Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain an analysis   xof 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   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 Rcd at 567. "m ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ l17. In addition to being mutually exclusive with and cutoff by pending, previously filed  X-  applications, see supra  14, we also find that the Henryetta applications were properly returned   for failure to comply with our interference protection requirements. Each of petitioners'  X-  applications did not include all of the required analyses of the potential for harmful interference   Lto authorized or previously proposed MMDS cochannel stations within 50 miles, and adjacent  X-  <channel stations for which there was an unobstructed electrical path. Specifically, in our de novo   review on reconsideration, we have determined that each Henryetta applicant failed to file  Xc-  yrequired interference studies for: (1) one 1983 previously authorized MMDS station;cc yO-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э WLK382 at Clayton, Oklahoma, Application File No. 16600CMP83, which appeared on public notice on July 20, 1988. (2) three  XL-  1983 subsequently authorized MMDS stations;# L c yO -  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э WMH684 at Canadian Valley, Oklahoma, Application File No. 02528CMP83; WLW923 at Tulsa,   wOklahoma, Application File No. 07727CMP83; and WLW895, at Tulsa, Oklahoma, Application File No. 10449  CMP83. While these stations were subsequently forfeited, at the time the Henryetta applications were filed, the applicants were required by 21.902(b) and (c) to include interference analyses for these stations. # and (3) 63 pending previously proposed 1983  X5-  applications.WX5c yO-  ;#X\  P6G;ɓP#э These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 14526CMP83 for Clayton, Oklahoma; 00536  CMP83, for Henryetta, Oklahoma; and 14809CMP83 for Tulsa, Oklahoma, which appeared on public notice on February 24, 1986.W In addition, the Henryetta applications filed on May 18, 1990, failed to file  X -  Zinterference studies for 18 pending previously proposed post1983 applications. ( c yO-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 51088CMP90; 51097CMP90; and 51104CMP90 at Henryetta, Oklahoma. The Henryetta   applications filed on July 2, 1990, failed to file interference analyses for 20 pending previously  X -proposed post1983 applications. c yO!-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 51407CMP90; 52145CMP90; and 52146CMP90 at Henryetta, Oklahoma.  18. Regarding petitioners' failure to file required interference studies, we note that the   Henryetta applicants failed to submit required interference analyses for authorized or previously  X-  Zproposed stations which had appeared on public notice\c {O-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э Copies of the 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 Commission's Press and  {O -News Media Division. Id. or FCC internal staff listings prior to the   filing date of petitioners' applications. For example, the Henryetta applicants failed to submit   an interference study for an authorized station in Clayton, Oklahoma, WLK382 which was placed   [on public notice on July 20, 1988, almost two years prior to petitioners' filing dates. Petitioners  X8-  zdo not attempt to explain their failure to file these required interference analyses except with   regard to one pending 1983 Canadian Valley application, Application File No. 02528CMP83.   Thus, given petitioners' failure to file interference studies for pending previously proposed and"  ,-(-(ZZ "  X-  authorized 1983 and post1983E "c yOy-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э For example, regarding the post1983 proposed stations, we note that all of the post1983 previously proposed   stations, pending on the dates of the Henryetta filings were listed on the July 30, 1990, FCC internal staff listing that  {O -  ;petitioners relied on in preparing their amended interference studies. See supra note 17. Petitioners fail to explain their failure to submit required interference analyses for these applications.E stations listed on public notice or FCC internal staff listings, we   find that any failure of petitioners to file interference studies for the Canadian Valley application   .would not have affected our determination that the Henryetta applicants failed to comply with Section 21.902(c).  19. As for petitioners' use of other independent data bases, these are by definition not   Kaffiliated with the Commission and, hence, the Commission does not attest to their accuracy. The   Commission has over the years announced, in public notices, third party entities which have   Lcontracted with the Commission to provide to the public online access to the MDS data base.  X1-  jSee, e.g. Public Notice, New Contractor for Online Public Access to Commission Data Bases,   Mimeo. No. 10511 (Nov. 7, 1990). Petitioners did not use the Commission's official online   ycontractor, but rather chose to rely on unofficial, nonCommission affiliated data bases and did so at the risk that this unofficial data base was not accurate and complete.  20. In addition, petitioners' pledge, contained in their applications, to take all measures   necessary to avoid harmful interference, including ceasing operations, does not excuse petitioners'   failure to submit interference studies as required by Section 21.902. The mandate that applicants   submit interference analyses with their applications is a separate requirement from the good faith   commandment of Section 21.902(a), which mandates that "[a]ll [MDS] applicants, conditional   licensees and licensees shall make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference . . . and ...   are expected to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference . . .  X-  ." See also 47 C.F.R. 21.31. A pledge to comply with the requirements of Section 21.902(a)   does not exempt any MDS applicant from submitting interference studies. As discussed  X-  previously, interference analyses are necessary at the beginning of processing a particular MDS   application so that mutual exclusivity determinations may be made. This is a step which cannot   be skipped, as implied by these petitions. Moreover, Part 21 of the rules is structured so that   applicants must demonstrate a lack of harmful interference as a prerequisite to the grant of a license.  }21. Lastly, the study that was submitted for a pending 1983 McAlester, Oklahoma   Napplication, Application File No. 01028CMP83, failed to meet the interference analysis  X;-  <requirements. Specifically, petitioners failed to engineer the proposed stations to provide at least   45 dB of cochannel interference protection, pursuant to Section 21.902(b)(3); submitted incorrect   free space calculations for the desired to undesired signal ratio to each reference receiving antenna  X-  ygain within the protected service area of the previously proposed station;5!Xc yOY%-  x#X\  P6G;ɓP#э Additionally, we note, the Henryetta applicants failed to submit, in some areas of the McAlester protected   service area to which their proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path, calculations of the   Kdesired signal to undesired signal ratio. Our independent calculations, conducted on reconsideration, revealed the"& ,-(-( '" potential for harmful interference in these areas. 5 and used incorrect" X!,-(-(ZZ"   technical parameters for the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving gain. "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 herein will not be  X-  accepted for filing." MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93. Because petitioners here failed   to make the required showings regarding interference protection, their applications cannot be  X-  characterized as complete or in substantial compliance with the Commission's rules. New  Xz-  NChannels, 57 RR 2d at 1602. Thus, due to the lack of required interference analyses, the Henryetta applications were unacceptable for filing and were properly returned.  X7- 22. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, we find that each of the Henryetta applicants  X -  ^failed to serve copies of the required interference analyses, as mandated by 47 C.F.R.  X -  21.902(g), on all 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.(#   KThus, these applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing due to their failure to comply with the service requirements of Section 21.902(g).  X- {23. Failure to Satisfy Waiver Requirements. Regarding petitioners' requests for waivers,   we find that their grant would not serve the public interest. 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 of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances"t$ X!,-(-(ZZ(#"  X-  which warrant such action." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing  X-  [Rio Grande 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.").  ?24. While petitioners, in their amended applications, seek waivers "of the Commission's   Rules," it appears from the context of the request that the Henryetta applicants were requesting  XN-  waiver of the 50 mile location restriction, contained in the 1988 Public Notice, and the   interference analyses, required by Section 21.902, specifically for the pending previously   proposed Tulsa applications. On reconsideration, petitioners attempt to expand their waiver requests to include the Canadian Valley application as well.  ]25. Regarding petitioners' requests for waiver of the 50 mile location restriction, we note   that petitioners fail to address, as required by Section 21.19(b), the issue of whether there was   a reasonable alternative site which is located more than 50 miles from the sites of 1983   previously proposed stations. An applicant must demonstrate a lack of a reasonable alternative  X-  under Section 21.19(b). See Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444 n.6 ("Contrary to the assertion   kin 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>-  Npotential sites in the Chicago . . . CMSA and its 15 mile buffer zone."). See also Boyd B.  X)-  Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570; Cheyenne Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 6049, 7050 (Dom. Fac. Div.   1993). The necessity of eliminating alternative sites has been recognized in another context.   "Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing   Lrules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fullyspaced sites.... [Without  X-  such a showing, the applicant's] waiver request died, as it were, at the starting gate." Orange  X-Park Florida TV, Inc., v. FCC, 811 FCC 2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).  }26. Petitioners assert that the one Tulsa interference analysis submitted with their  Xw-  .applications, based on the dismissed Tulsa application, see supra note 11, showed no harmful   \interference would be caused by their proposed stations, given the distance and the terrain   blockage between the Tulsa site and petitioners' proposed site. However, petitioners' Tulsa   yinterference study was inadequate since petitioners used incorrect technical parameters for the   transmitting antenna gain and referenced receiving antenna gain, and stated incorrect line loss.   {In addition, we note, that while petitioners performed an interference analysis which was   \representative, with regard to the coordinates and frequency, of some of the pending Tulsa  X -  applications,"X c yOQ#-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э Specifically, petitioners' interference study was geographically representative of the following nine pending   1983 Tulsa F channel applications: Application File Nos. 14915CMP83; 07996CMP83; 03198CMP83; 12207CMP83; 16214CMP83; 00872CMP83; 14416CMP83; 06356CMP83; and 03737CMP83. it was not representative and, hence, not probative regarding the potential for   interference for numerous other pending Tulsa applications which proposed different, closer"!",-(-(ZZ "  X-transmitter sites or proposed using the E channel frequencies.R#c yOy-  #X\  P6G;ɓP#э Specifically, petitioners' Tulsa interference study was not representative of 60 other pending 1983 Tulsa   happlications. These include, but are not limited to, Application File Nos. 15861CMP83, which was located 31.90   miles from petitioners' proposed site; 01031CMP83, which was located 43.70 miles from petitioners' proposed   site; 03374CMP83, which was located 44.32 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 14226CMP83, which was   located 45.97 miles from petitioners' proposed site; 11343CMP83, which was located 47.1 miles from petitioners'   proposed site; and 12090CMP83, which was located 47.50 miles from petitioners' proposed site. Moreover, the   Commission has already determined that the "mileage between [MDS] stations is not the only factor that determines  {O-  Zwhether interference will occur." MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 90. In 1984 the Commission adopted, at   h47 C.F.R. 21.902(f), the definition of harmful interference as a free space calculation of desired to undesired signal  {O -ratio. See MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 77.R  27. Moreover, petitioners' statements, in their applications to submit interference studies   yfor the new Tulsa lottery winners after these were selected by the Commission, and petitioners'   Zstatements on reconsideration seeking to submit, at that time also, an interference analysis for the   yCanadian Valley application, ignore the purposes behind the interference analysis requirement.  Xv-  As discussed previously, the interference analysis requirement is an imperative one which  X_-  demands complete compliance at the time of application. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC  XJ-  2d at 1264; see also G.C. Cooper, 8 FCC Rcd at 7008; Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd at 570   ("[S]tation engineering must be demonstrated at the time of filing the application, pursuant to   Section 21.902(c) . . . ."). Interference studies are necessary at the time of filing in order for   -determinations of mutual exclusivity to be made, without such studies, a logjam would be created  X -  making it more difficult to reach final actions. See Sioux Valley, 3 FCC Rcd at 7376   ("Traditionally, the classification of MDS applications as mutuallyexclusive was determined by   a review of each of the applicants' interference analyses . . . ."). If the Commission allowed an   indefinite time period for submitting interference studies, the staff would lack sufficient technical   Kinformation for evaluating applications and would be unable to act on many applications until the   ystudies were submitted. Furthermore, applicants may be tempted to wait as long as possible to   =submit interference studies so as to minimize the number that must be submitted. Widespread   abuse of this tactic would lead to a stalemate where the Commission could neither grant, nor  X:-  return or dismiss, any MMDS application. As noted, supra, each of the Henryetta applications   lacked interference studies required by Section 21.902, for pending, previously proposed MMDS   [stations within 50 miles of petitioners' proposed transmitter site, and failed to demonstrate that   the proposed station would not cause harmful interference. Thus, their assertion that interference  X-  wto other previously proposed stations was unlikely is unsupported.S$d c yO -  ;#X\  P6G;ɓP#э A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining  {O!-whether a proposed station would cause harmful interference. Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987).S These unsupported assertions  X-  yfall far short of the stringent showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special circumstances justifying waiver.  28. We also find petitioners' statements, contained in their waiver requests, that it was   their understanding that Commission policies would allow them to file their applications without   proving noninterference to all 1983 lottery losers, to be unsupported assertions. Applicants for"X $,-(-(ZZ"   =MMDS stations were required to file interference studies for all pending, previously proposed   stations within 50 miles of their proposed sites, including lottery losers. 47 C.F.R. 21.902(c).   We do not believe the facts and circumstances of the Henryetta applications are sufficiently   Lunique so as to warrant a waiver of this requirement. More importantly, due to the procedures   established for MDS lotteries, it is not unusual for an applicant that initially loses in a lottery to   be subsequently granted, because the initial tentative selectee did not survive qualification review.  Xv-  >See 47 C.F.R. 1.824(a). This is exactly what happened here. After subsequent lotteries of   1983 Tulsa applications, the Henryetta applications lacked required interference analyses for  XJ-  Lsubsequent lotterywinning applications which then became authorized stations.%Jc {O -#X\  P6G;ɓP#э These authorized stations were WLW895 and WLW923 at Tulsa, Oklahoma. See supra note 27. 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 granted petitioners' waiver requests, we would effectively strip   subsequently authorized MDS stations of the interference protection to which they are entitled   pursuant to Sections 21.901(d)(7) and 21.902. Similarly, petitioners' pledges "to take   Zextraordinary measures" to ensure noninterference to these proposed stations also fail to address   -this underlying purpose, since all applicants are required by Section21.902(b) "to cooperate fully  X-  and in good faith to resolve interference . . . problems." 47 C.F.R.21.902(b). Petitioners fail   to justify why their applications merit different treatment from that which we applied to  Xf-  thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. 4,330 Applications for Authority to Construct  XQ-  and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations at 62 Transmitter Sites, 10 FCC Rcd 1335  X<-  (1994), aff'd mem, A/B Financial, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 951027 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 26, 1995) (per curiam).  29. In view of these considerations, we find it would be contrary to the public interest  X-  to grant waivers of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice and the interference   analysis requirements mandated by Section 21.902. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners'  X-  waiver requests should be denied. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions   and the interference analysis requirements stipulated by Section 21.902 were waived as to the   1983 MMDS applications, the Henryetta applications would still have been returned as   unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules, including the cutoff rule,  X\-in effect at the time the returned applications were filed. See supra  14. :IV. CONCLUSION  30. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the   Henryetta applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted.  31. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the reconsideration petitions filed by the  X#-Henryetta applicants ARE HEREBY DENIED. "x$Z%,-(-(ZZF#"Ԍ 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Service Division shall send   copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. ` `   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: