WPC2 2H BX ZRoman (TT)3|UxXU4  pQXTimes New Roman (Bold) (TT)^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4/4MtScript ROOM 224HPLAS4.WRSSXU4  pQ,,PX2;zA  yO-#C\  P6QP#3|nTimes New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Bold Italic) (TT)Italic2ZIvpkHP4M (PCL); Rm. 605_1; LPT2onal)HL4MPCAD.PRSXU4  pQ\g:_Xa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 k&v6ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 R   6 a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2     Pa4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2R++a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 26;a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2ih*36a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2 ePleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:BXR9 xyQX?y?I??\?\?i?x?0?0?F ?a? ?Mm?i?p?px?;?00?r?r?tc?I?r?t ?L?\?\a?\?a?mn?e?6pDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd)>F)))))))))<)C"VV5VYO5O5O5O5^<^<^<^>^<^C^F.".C.).CaC>>^CO"O6O)O0O"VCVVCVC^<^O=O)OFVCVCVCVCVCVCxVV>O5O5O5VCO)VCC.O)V<X<<( (WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN+HH+@<)<<<<R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVȆRxxH"x𐎂x됐x2/K'Z)#@B,"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!B(#,~hB4  pG;h6jC:,Xj9 xOG;XAPF,\4  pG;\5hC:,12Xh*f9 xr G;XXUUUU@"UUUUUU@̪UUUUUU_UUUUUU_UUUUUU_UUUUUU_ȪUUUUUU@UUUUUU@UUUUUU@UUUUUU_ĪĪ"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCdddddd#-ԍ Section 21.31 of the rules explains how applications do not have to be directly  X'$-mutually exclusive to be cutoff:  XxFor example, applications A, B, and C are filed in that order. A and B are directly mutually exclusive, B and C are directly mutually exclusive. In order to"&0*((&" be considered comparatively with B, C must be filed within the "cutoff" period  Xy<established by A even though C is not directly mutually exclusive with A. (# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(c).h X01Í ÍX01ÍÍIn applying this standard," 50*((" the staff evaluates whether the MDS applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an  X-authorized or previously proposed MDS station,X01ÍÍX01Í Í5Xa X-ԍ  MDS applicants must submit interference studies analyzing the potential for harmful interference with other MDS stations located within a 50 mile radius of the proposed station because "[i]t is possible for cochannel interference generated by one MDS station to cause unacceptable distortion of another station's signal from as far  Xs <away as 50 miles."  R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981); see  21.901(d)(7) and 21.902(c)(1) and (2) (1991). The 50 mile benchmark for MDS stations was adopted in  WF <Amendments of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 43 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations to Provide for Licensing and Regulation of Common Carrier Radio Stations in the Multipoint  X<Distribution Service, 45 FCC 2d 616, 62021 (1974) (hereinafter MDS Allocation Order), which codified, as a rebuttable presumption, Commission policy as to what constitutes  X<mutually exclusive status. See also Amendment of Parts 1 and 21 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Applicable to the Domestic Public Radio Services (Other Than  X<Maritime Mobile), 60 FCC 2d 549, 559 (1976) (hereinafter Domestic Public Radio Services  X<Order). The Commission adopted this 50 mile benchmark to enhance administrative efficiency in processing applications, avoid "gridlock" situations, and permit  X{<authorization of stations to proceed expeditiously. See R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604;  Xe<Sioux Valley Empire Elec. Ass'n, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 7375, 7376 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1988). X01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í ÍX01Í Í and (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or  X-previously proposed MDS station.}Xa X-ԍ As the Commission noted in the MDS technical rulemaking order, "the mileage between these [MDS] stations is not the only factor that determines whether interference  X<will occur." Amendment of Parts 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations with regard to the technical requirements applicable to the Multipoint Distribution Service, the Instructional Fixed Television Service and the Private Operational Xw<Fixed Microwave Service (OFS), 98 FCC 2d 68, 90 (1984) (hereinafter MDS Technical  Xa<Order). In a 1990 order, Texas Wired Music, Inc., File No. 50009CMP90, Call Sign  XK -WDU282 (Dom. Fac. Div., released Aug. 27, 1990), we explained the basis for using the radio horizon as a standard for determining mutual exclusivity: Xx[T]he latest engineering analysis of the [applicant] demonstrates that a natural phenomenon, radio horizon, substantially reduces the possibility of interference occurring to any receiver of [the authorized station] located in [its] protected service area. . . . Underlying this methodology is the premise that once the signal reaches its radio horizon it is generally blocked or attenuated to such a level that it is not likely to interfere with a receiver beyond that point. The amount of"'0*(('" signal attenuation at this point is dependent upon the type of surface the signal encounters and generally ranges between 6 and 20 db.(# Applications which are determined to be either"b0*((" within 50 miles or with an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any station, are considered to be mutually exclusive with the station unless they demonstrate a lack of harmful interference pursuant to the standards  X<specified in the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3) and (4) and  6 and  X<7, infra. For the abovereferenced MDS applications on the E or F channels,  0(#(#X 21.901(d)(5) also defines mutual exclusivity as based on whether the proposed transmitter site is within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or its 15mile buffer  Xa-zone of an authorized or previously proposed station. b N abXa Xt <ԍ See Amendment of Parts 2, 21, 74 and 94 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations in regard to frequency allocation to the Instructional Television Fixed Service,  XG <the Multipoint Distribution Service, and the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service,  X1<94 FCC 2d 1203, 126264 (1983)(hereinafter MDS Allocation Order). Section 21.901(d)(5), 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5) (1991), provides:   XxNotwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 21.31(a) all applications that propose to locate transmission facilities within or within 15 miles of the border of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) will be considered together. In the case of a Standard Consolidated Statistical Area (SCSA) all applications that propose to locate facilities within or within 15 miles of the boundary of any SMSA contained in the SCSA will be considered together . . . . Each application will be entitled to comparative consideration or to be included in a lottery in only one such area.(#N  X3-x4. Cutoff Rules. In order to be acceptable for filing, each of the abovereferenced MDS applications was required to be filed on or before the applicable cutoff  X -date for mutually exclusive applications.]  Xa X<ԍ In Domestic Public Radio Services Order, 60 FCC 2d at 551, we explained the purpose of our cutoff rule: Xx[W]hat is commonly called our "cutoff" rule originated in our need for an  X]<orderly administrative procedure to control the disposition of our caseload. See 47 U.S.C.  154(j). . . . [T]o provide early consolidation of competing applications and to prevent processing disruption by late filings, we require an application for a frequency, previously applied for, to be filed within a certain date. Competing applications filed after this date are considered to be "cutoff" from comparative consideration.(#  X%<(citations omitted). See also City of Angels Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 745 F.2d 656, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("The cutoff rule basically serves two purposes. First, it advances the interest of administrative finality. . . . Second, it aids timely . . . applicants by granting"'0*((p'" them a 'protected status'. . . . ") (citations omitted). ] By way of background, the Commission" y0*(( " initially authorized the filing of MDS applications on the E or F channels on one filing  X<date, September 9, 1983. See MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 126266;   X<Establishment of MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 33,873, as corrected 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746 (1983).  b  Thereafter, no additional applications for new stations were accepted for filing until April 20, 1988, pursuant to  21.901(d)(4). Applications for the E or F channels which complied with specified restrictions could then be filed between April 20,  Xx<1988 and April 9, 1992. See  10, infra.  Wb<  x5. If an MMDS application is mutually exclusive with a 1983 application or  X4<authorized station, the applicable cutoff date is September 9, 1983. Establishment of  X <MultiChannel Systems, 48 Fed. Reg. 34,746. If there is no mutually exclusive 1983 application or authorized station, but there is a mutually exclusive, post1983, previously proposed or authorized station, the applicable cutoff rule for the abovereferenced applications, all of which were filed after October 31, 1990, is  21.914, which provides that:   XxNotwithstanding the provisions of  21.31(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this part, to be entitled to a random selection process or to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications, an [MDS] application . . . must be received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing on the same calendar day as the first of the conflicting applications is received by the Commission in a condition acceptable for filing. (#  X-47 C.F.R.  21.914.a  yXa X-ԍ Section 21.914, commonly referred to as the "same day calendar rule," was adopted in order to address the problems caused by the volume of MDS applications filed by speculators, which had resulted in delays in the licensing process and  X<overburdened the Commission's limited resources. See Amendment of Parts 21, 43, 74, 78, and 94 of the Commission's Rules Governing Use of the Frequencies in the 2.1 and 2.5 GHz Bands Affecting Private OperationalFixed Microwave Service, Multipoint Distribution Service, Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Instructional Television Fixed  X~<Service, and Cable Television Relay Service, 5 FCC Rcd 6410, 6413 (1990) (hereinafter  Xh <Wireless Cable Order); Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 6764, 677172 (1991)  XR!<(hereinafter Wireless Cable Reconsideration Order), petition for review filed, United States  X<"<Independent Microwave Television Ass'n v. FCC, No. 911637 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 20, 1991) (held in abeyance by Court Order of February 21, 1992, pending action on second set of reconsideration petitions). Section 21.31(b) provides, in part, that in order to be entitled to comparative status: XxThe application [must be] received by the Commission in a condition acceptable"&0*((&" for filing by whichever "cutoff" date is earlier:(# Xx(i) Sixty (60) days after the date of the public notice listing the first of the conflicting applications as accepted for filing, or(# Xx(ii) One (1) business day preceding the day on which the Commission takes final action on the previously filed application (should the Commission act upon such application in the interval between thirty (30) and sixty (60) days after the date of its public notice.)(# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(b)(2). Except for the September 9, 1983 cutoff date,  21.31(b) is the cutoff provision for MDS applications on the E or F channels filed between April 20, 1988 and October 31, 1990.a"  0*(("Ԍ X-ԙx6. Station Design Requirement. Section 21.902(b)(3) requires each MDS applicant to engineer its proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of interference  X-protection within the protected service areasp  Xa X-ԍ Section 21.902(d) defines the protected service area for MDS stations.p of all other authorized or previously proposed cochannel stations. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(3). Section 21.902(b)(4) requires each MDS applicant to engineer its station to provide at least 0 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas of all other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(b)(4). Section 21.902(f) defines harmful interference as the ratio of desired signal to undesired signal present in the cochannel or adjacent channel, at the output of a reference receiving antenna oriented to  X1-receive the maximum desired signal.= 1D Xa X&-ԍ Cochannel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of the ratio of desired signal to undesired signal is less than 45 dB. Adjacent channel harmful interference exists if a free space calculation of this ratio is less than 0 dB. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(f). =  X -x 7. MDS Interference Studies. At the time the abovereferenced applications were filed, in order to demonstrate compliance with  21.902(b), and so that mutually exclusive determinations could be made,  21.902(c)(1) of the Commission's rules required that an MDS applicant include with the application an analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if the applicant's proposed transmitting antenna had an unobstructed electrical path to any part of the protected service area of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station, or if the applicant's proposed transmitter is within 50 miles of the transmitter coordinates of any other authorized or previously proposed cochannel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(1)(1991). In addition,  21.902(c)(2) 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 of any other authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel station. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(c)(2)" 0*((T"  X<(1991); see 47 C.F.R.  21.902(a), (b), (d) and (f). Section 21.901(d)(7) further requires 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 must also show what steps it has taken to comply with the requirements of  b'  21.902(a), which requires MDS applicants, licensees, and conditional licensees, to make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent  X`-channel stations in the same area and cochannel stations in nearby areas. 47 C.F.R.(#(#X  21.901(d)(7).  X -x8. Service Requirement. 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, pursuant to  21.902(g) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  21.902(g). The same rule requires that a list identifying each applicant, conditional licensee, and licensee served be submitted with the application.  Xz-   Xc-x9. ITFS Interference Protection. For MDS applications on the E or F channels which were filed beginning October 11, 1990 through December 29, 1991, the applicant also was required to file with the application, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(1), an engineering analysis demonstrating a lack of harmful interference to each cochannel or  X-adjacent channel Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)W Xa X<ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  74.90174.996. W licensed station with a  X-transmitter site within 50 miles of the proposed MDS transmitter site. In addition, a copy of the analysis had to be served on each affected ITFS licensee. In the alternative, the MDS applicant could submit a statement from the ITFS licensee stating that it did  X<not object to the MDS operation. zXa X-ԍ For applications filed before October 11, 1990, the MDS conditional licensee for the E or F channels is required to file, prior to commencing construction, a consent statement from all cochannel and adjacent channel ITFS licensees with transmitters within 50 miles of the proposed MDS transmitter. In the event the MDS conditional licensee cannot obtain such a statement, it is required to submit a Petition for Declaratory Ruling of lack of harmful interference, together with the required  XL!<interference analyses.  Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6438, n. 16; see also People's  X6"<Choice TV, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 3628 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992). The rule provision was later revised and codified as  21.902(i). Thus, for MDS applications on the E, F or H channels filed on or after December 30, 1991, the required ITFS analysis or consent statement must be filed, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.902(i)(2)(1993), on or before the  X%<60th day after the application is placed on public notice. See Wireless Cable  X&<Reconsideration Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 677172. See Wireless Cable Order, 5 FCC Rcd at 6413." 0*(("Ԍ X-ԙx10. Location Restrictions. After the initial filing date of September 9, 1983, no filing period was designated until 1988. In accordance with  21.901(d)(4) of the Commission's rules, the Commission then designated that MDS applications for E or F  X<channel stations could be submitted for filing commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations which were: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MDS application for the E or F channels pending on April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility, and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was an MDS application for the E or F channels pending as of April 19, 1988, or  XI<an existing authorized facility. Public Notice, Common Carrier Bureau Opens Filing  X3<Period For Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Applications, 3 FCC Rcd 2661  X <(1988) (hereinafter 1988 Public Notice#XU4  pQ|X#).  b)  The #XR9 xyQX#1988 Public Notice#XU4  pQ|X# also advised potential applicants that all applications must comply with the specified location restrictions, that grant of waivers of the location restrictions were not anticipated, and that applications failing to meet these location restrictions would be dismissed as unacceptable for filing.  X <Id. at 26612662. x11. The 1988 location restrictions were a natural outgrowth of a policy that had provided certain efficiencies in the processing of MDS applications for channels 1, 2, and 2A. In 1981, we noted:   XxAt the inception of the MDS service in 1974 . . . we . . . established the presumption that no harmful interference would occur if stations were greater than 50 miles apart. If a proposed station were to be located 50 miles or closer to an existing station then we required (and still require) that the applicant submit an engineering showing of the possible impact it would have on the other station. The 50 mile presumption was primarily a processing standard to assist staff . . . . Our intention was to establish general standards which would permit authorization of operations to proceed in an expeditious manner.(#  Xj<R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d at 604. See also Sioux Valley, 2 FCC Rcd at 7376. It was our experience prior to 1988 that there were fewer interference analyses submitted for authorized or previously proposed stations with transmitter sites beyond 50 miles of the subsequently proposed transmitter sites, but within the radio horizon, than for authorized or previously proposed stations within 50 miles.  b,   b, Without the need to review interference analyses for 1983 stations within 50 miles of the post1983 MMDS applications' transmitter sites, scarce engineering resources instead could be used to review interference analyses filed for modification applications, or to make necessary engineering determinations on 1983 applications.  X#-x12. Summary. Thus, at the time the abovereferenced applications were filed, applicants for new MMDS stations were required to file for a location farther than 50 miles from the location of any station proposed in an application which was pending on April 19, 1988, or of any existing facility, and farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on")' 0*((%&"  X-April 19, 1988, or an existing authorized facility. Applicants were permitted to file: (#(#X (1) beyond 50 miles of a station proposed in an application pending on April 19, 1988 or  X-an existing authorized station, as long as the location was also farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there was one or more MMDS applications pending on April 19, 1988 or an existing authorized facility; (2) within 50 miles of a station proposed in an application filed after April 19, 1988; and (3) within the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of any previously proposed or authorized station, proposed in an application filed after April 19, 1988. Applicants filing within these areas were required to file their applications before the applicable cutoff dates. Applicants also were required to engineer the proposed station to provide at least 45 dB of interference protection within the protected service areas 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 authorized or previously proposed adjacent channel stations. In order to demonstrate compliance with these interference protection standards, applicants were directed to submit, as part of their application, interference studies which analyzed the potential for harmful cochannel and adjacent channel interference for all stations and pending applications within 50 miles or the radio horizon of the proposed station, and to serve those studies on the stations and applicants required to be studied. In addition, for applications filed beginning October 11, 1990 through December 29, 1991, the MMDS applicant was also required to submit with its application either an engineering analysis demonstrating a lack of harmful interference to each cochannel or adjacent channel ITFS licensee with a transmitter site within 50 miles of the proposed MMDS transmitter site, or a no objection letter from each ITFS station licensee. Section 21.20 of the rules explicitly put all applicants on notice that failure to comply with these requirements would result in the return of their  X<application as unacceptable for filing. Notice was also provided in the MMDS Allocation  X<Order, 94 FCC 2d 1203, and MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68. III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION x13. Identical or substantially similar petitions for reconsideration were filed for the 101 returned MMDS applications at 10 different transmitter sites. Petitioners contend that their applications fully complied with all pertinent Commission rules, or else presented facts which would compel the grant of any necessary waivers. In support, petitioners chiefly assert that the interference analyses submitted with their applications demonstrated that there is no realistic possibility of harmful interference to existing or proposed stations, and that to the extent the proposed stations failed to comply with the  X"<location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice, Commission precedent supports a grant of  X#<a waiver.  b/ Petitioners also argue that the staff incorrectly applied the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions and other Commission rules, and provided insufficient detail in the letters returning the applications. x14. There follows a description of the applications filed for each of these"'' 0*((&" locations, the reasons for the staff's disposition of each application, and the arguments presented in the petitions. As discussed in detail below, we conclude that the applications were defective because each applicant failed to submit and serve the required interference analyses for authorized and previously proposed MMDS stations. The applications were also properly returned as unacceptable for filing because they were filed within the geographic area of authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations, or within an MSA or its 15 mile buffer zone,  b1 in violation of the specific filing  X_<requirements set forth in the 1988 Public Notice, and presented no grounds justifying the grant of a waiver. Finally, these applications were mutually exclusive with an authorized station or previously filed application with an earlier cutoff date, and thus, not entitled to comparative consideration even if in a form acceptable for filing.  X -x15. Cullman, Alabama. On January 21, 1992, certain petitioners filed 40  X -applications proposing the same transmitter site at Cullman, Alabama. Xa XO-ԍ Application File Nos. 00892CMP92 through 00906CMP92; 00913CMP92 through 00920CMP92; 00922CMP92; 00923CMP92; 00927CMP92 through 00930CMP92; 00945CMP92 through 00950CMP92; and 00989CMP92 through 00993CMP92. After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated March 3, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant:  Xz-(1) filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications;`z4Xa X_-ԍ This language refers to the applicant's noncompliance with the location  XH<restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice. When this language is included in a return letter, it means that the applicant: (1) selected an incorrect transmitter site; (2) filed in an area not open for filing, and thus, on a date not designated by the Commission, in contravention of  21.901(d)(4); and (3) filed past the relevant cutoff date, in that the applicant selected a transmitter site which makes the proposed station mutually exclusive with an authorized or previously proposed station. and (2) proposed  Xc<a transmitter site within an MSA or its buffer zone in violation of the MMDS Allocation  XM<Order and  21.901(d)(5).}M\ Xa XZ-ԍ The Cullman applicants filed within the Birmingham, Alabama MSA or its buffer zone.} With regard to the applicants' request for a waiver of the 50  X7<mile location restriction contained in the 1988 Public Notice, the return letters indicated that the applications failed to meet the waiver requirements in  21.19, and that without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the 40 returned applications were filed on April 2, 1993. x16. These 40 returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50" 0*(("  X-miles or the radio horizon of: (1) one 1983 authorized MMDS station;HXa Xy-ԍ WLR564 in Huntsville, Alabama.H (2) 95 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on January 21, 1992, the  X-filing date of the Cullman applications;vyXa X-ԍ These 95 1983 applications include 44 applications for Huntsville, Alabama, three applications for Gadsen, Alabama, and 48 applications for Birmingham, Alabama (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 02756CMP83; 04439CMP83; 02145CMP83; 10562CMP83; 03386CMP83; 08539CMP83; and 11491CMP83). Application File No. 08539CMP83 was subsequently authorized (WHT710 in Birmingham, Alabama). and (3) 143 post1983 previously proposed  X-MMDS stations with applications pending on January 21, 1992.vXa X# -ԍ These 143 applications, which were filed more than a year before the returned applications were filed, also specified a transmitter site at Cullman (including Application File Nos. 52767CMP92; 52768CMP92 through 52797CMP92; 52800CMP92 through 52834CMP92; 52754CMP92 through 52766CMP92; 52701CMP92 through 53729CMP92; 52753CMP92; and 52730CMP92 through 52752CMP92). The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for 222 previously proposed stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that they: (1) failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized  XH<or previously proposed stations as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); and (2) failed to demonstrate that the proposed station was engineered to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4). In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Cullman applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations.  Xz-x17. Lamar, Colorado. On June 6, 1991, certain petitioners filed two applications  Xc-proposing the same transmitter site at Lamar, Colorado.`cXa X !-ԍ Application File Nos. 59584CMP91 and 59586CMP91.` After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters mailed January 19, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications. Reconsideration petitions for the two returned applications were filed on February 10, 1993. x18. These two returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50" 0*((" miles or the radio horizon of 41 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with  X-applications pending on June 6, 1991, the filing date of the Lamar applications.iXa Xb-ԍ All 41 applications specify a transmitter site at Lamar, Colorado (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 52653CMP91; 53443CMP91; 53449CMP91; 53532CMP91; 53650CMP91; and 55065CMP91). Application File Nos. 53443CMP91 and 53532CMP91 were subsequently authorized (WMX200 and WMX203).i The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for all 41 previously proposed stations. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of the interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Lamar applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Lamar applications.  X1-x19. Grangeville, Idaho. On December 2, 1991, certain petitioners filed three  X -applications proposing the same transmitter site at Grangeville, Idaho.p 4Xa X-ԍ Application File Nos. 52161CMP92; 52183CMP92; and 52184CMP92.p On December 3, 1991, three additional petitioners filed three applications proposing the same  X -Grangeville transmitter site.r Xa X-ԍ Application File Nos. 52196CMP92; 51298CMP92; and 52202CMP92. r After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated June 23, 1993 or June 30, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant: (1) submitted inadequate interference analyses due to applicants' failure to serve all affected parties pursuant to  21.902(g) and/or failed to consider all previously proposed or authorized ITFS or MMDS stations pursuant to  21.902(c) and/or 21.902(i); and (2) proposed a station in an area not open for filing pursuant to  21.901(d)(4) in that the applications were filed in the geographic area of an authorized MMDS station or a pending MMDS application  X<and thereby failed to meet the criteria established in the 1988 Public Notice. The June 30, 1993 return letters added that the applications filed on December 3, 1991 were filed past the relevant cutoff period established in  21.31 and 21.914. Reconsideration petitions for the six returned applications were filed on July 16, 1993. x20. These six returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50  X-miles or the radio horizon of: (1) two 1983 authorized MMDS stationsSXa X"-ԍ WHT783 and WHT784 in Spokane, Washington.S; and (2) 136 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on December 2  Xf-and 3, 1991, the filing dates of the Grangeville applications.fG Xa X^&-ԍ All 136 applications specify a transmitter site at Lewiston, Idaho (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 54162CMP90 through 54189CMP90). Additionally, the three"f 0*((" applications filed on December 3, 1991 are within 50 miles or the radio horizon of an additional 35 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending  X-on December 3, 1991,'Xa XK-ԍ These 35 applications include the three abovereferenced applications filed on December 2, 1991, and 32 additional applications filed on the same date for the same Grangeville transmitter site (Application File Nos. 52158CMP92 through 52192CMP92).' and did not include interference studies with the applications, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for these 35 previously proposed stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that they: (1) used incorrect  X-antenna specifications; (2) indicated terrain blockage, but did not include supporting demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; and (3) failed to demonstrate that the proposed station was engineered to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), and 0 dB of adjacent channel protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4). In addition, these applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Grangeville applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications  X -would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Grangeville applications.  X -x21. Big Rapids, Michigan. On July 31, 1991, certain petitioners filed five  X-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Big Rapids, Michigan.4Xa Xu-ԍ Application File Nos. 61201CMP91; 61203CMP91; 61213CMP91; 61214CMP91; and 61234CMP91. After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated March 10, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant: (1) filed past the cutoff period established in  21.31 or 21.914; and (2) filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications. Reconsideration petitions for the five returned applications were filed on April 9, 1993. x x22. These five returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50 miles or the radio horizon of: (1) 25 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations at Muskegon, Michigan with applications pending on July 31, 1991, the filing date of the  X-Big Rapids applications;Xa X"-ԍ These 25 applications for Muskegon (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 04581CMP83; 07163CMP83; 10357CMP83; 11728CMP83; 13622CMP83; and 16352) specified six different transmitter sites in or near Muskegon. Application File Nos. 07163CMP83 and 16352CMP83 were subsequently authorized (WMH509 and WMH389). and (2) one post1983 previously proposed MMDS station,"# 0*(("  X-with an application pending on July 31, 1991.Xa Xy-ԍ This application (Application File No. 50186CMP90) specified a transmitter site at Cadillac, Michigan. The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for 24 previously proposed stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that they: (1) failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the authorized or  X<previously proposed stations as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) indicated terrain blockage, but did not include supporting demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (3) used incorrect methodology to calculate the protected service area of previously proposed stations; (4) used incorrect antenna specifications; and (5) contained incorrect technical parameters for the previously proposed and the newly proposed stations such as the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain. In addition, these applicants also failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Big Rapids applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned  X -applications would not cause harmful interference to previously proposed stations. The Big Rapids applications did not include a request for a waiver of any Commission rules.  Xz-x23. Fergus Falls, Minnesota. On July 11, 1991, certain petitioners filed two  Xc-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Fergus Falls, Minnesota.`cbXa Xv-ԍ Application File Nos. 60540CMP91 and 60585CMP91.` After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned both applications as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated March 17, 1993. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because the applicant: (1) filed past the relevant cutoff date established in  21.31 or 21.914; and (2) filed in the geographic area of authorized and pending MMDS stations. The return letter for Application File No. 60585CMP91 also indicated that the application was returned because the applicant submitted inadequate interference analyses under  21.902 due to applicant's failure to serve all affected parties pursuant to  21.902(g) and/or failure to consider all previously proposed or authorized ITFS or MMDS stations pursuant to  21.902(c) and/or 21.902(i). Reconsideration petitions for the two returned applications  Xf-were filed on April 21, 1993.%fXa X*!-ԍ The reconsideration petitions were filed five days after expiration of the period  X"<for filing of such petitions.  See 47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(5). The petitioners offered no explanation for their late filing.% x24. These two returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50  X!-miles or the radio horizon of: (1) two 1983 authorized stations;l !Xa Xi'-ԍ WHT606 in Alexandria, Minnesota and WLW839 in Fargo, North Dakota.l (2) four 1983 previously"!H 0*((" proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on July 11, 1991, the filing date of  X-the Fergus Falls applications;!Xa Xb-ԍ All four applications specify a transmitter site at Fargo, North Dakota (Application File Nos. 00468CMP83; 00623CMP83; 02417CMP83; and 04408CMP83). and (3) three post1983 authorized MMDS stations.v"KXa X-ԍ WLW783 and WLW784 in Garfield, Minnesota, and WLK300 in Fargo, North Dakota.v The interference studies that were submitted with the applications were inadequate in that they: (1) failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the  X-authorized or previously proposed stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d), and (f) (#(#X Xv<(see  21.902(e)); (2) contained incorrect technical parameters for the authorized or previously proposed stations such as the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain; (3) indicated terrain blockage, but did not include supporting demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) used incorrect antenna specifications; and (5) failed to demonstrate that the proposed station was engineered to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), to a previously authorized station to which the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path. In addition, the ITFS study filed by the applicants is invalid, pursuant to  21.901(d)(1), because incorrect technical specifications for an ITFS  X -station were used.# Xa X>-ԍ The returned applications were required to submit interference analyses for ITFS Station WHR743 in Ashby, Minnesota. Thus, the Fergus Falls applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to  Xz-authorized or previously proposed stations.  No waiver requests were included in the Fergus Falls applications.  X5-x25. Jal, New Mexico. On February 7, 1991, certain petitioners filed two  X-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Jal, New Mexico.a$ Xa XN-ԍ Application File Nos. 57648CMP91 and 57658CMP91. a After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated May 19, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant: (1) filed past the cutoff period established in  21.31 or 21.914; (2) filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications; and (3) submitted inadequate interference analyses by failing to serve all affected parties pursuant to  21.902(g) and failed to consider all previously proposed or authorized ITFS or MMDS stations in the proposed area. Reconsideration petitions for the two applications were filed on June 16, 1993. x26. These two returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50"80 $0*((" miles or the radio horizon of: (1) one 1983 previously proposed MMDS station with an  X-application pending on February 7, 1991, the filing date of the Jal applications;M%Xa Xb-ԍ Application File No. 16625CMP83.M and (2) 192 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on  X-February 7, 1991.&yXa X-ԍ These 192 applications include 172 applications for Odessa, Texas, and 20 applications for Hobbs, New Mexico (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 50827CMP90; 55300CMP90 through 55319CMP90; 54105CMP91; 54143CMP91; 55029CMP91; 54134CMP91 through 54137CMP91; 54166CMP91; 54156CMP91; and 54144CMP91). The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for all 193 previously proposed stations. The interference narrative that was submitted with the applications, and which concluded that there were no existing or pending stations within 50 miles, was inadequate in that it failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously proposed stations,  X1<as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f).  See  21.902(e). In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, these Jal applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Jal applications.  X -x27. Pendleton, Oregon. On September 27, 1991, certain petitioners filed seven  X-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Pendleton, Oregon.'Xa X-ԍ Application File Nos. 62380CMP91; 62388CMP91; 62395CMP91; 62399CMP91; 62405CMP91; 62418CMP91; and 62427CMP91. After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated September 17, 1992. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant: (1) filed past the cutoff period established in  21.31 or 21.914; (2) filed in the geographic area of authorized or pending MMDS applications; and (3) did not comply with the Commission's requirements for a waiver, and that without a waiver, the applications were unacceptable for filing. Reconsideration petitions for the seven returned applications were filed on October 16, 1992. x28. These seven returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50  X-miles or the radio horizon of: (1) 11 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on September 27, 1991, the filing date of the Pendleton"}h '0*(("  X-applications;{(Xa Xy-ԍ All 11 applications specify a transmitter site at Richland, Washington (Application File Nos. 01651CMP83; 04548CMP83; 04147CMP83; 00567CMP83; 07130CMP83; 10594CMP83; 10895CMP83; 11695CMP83; 13589CMP83; 14027CMP83; and 15710CMP83). Application File No. 10895CMP83 was subsequently authorized (WML477).{ and (2) 164 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with  X-applications pending on September 27, 1991.)Xa X-ԍ These 164 applications include one application for Richland, Washington, two applications for Walla Walla, Washington, 80 applications for La Grande, Oregon, and 81 applications for Pendleton, Oregon (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 55986CMP91; 56016CMP91; 56450CMP91; 56540CMP91; 56449CMP91; and 57569CMP91). The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for 95 previously proposed MMDS stations. The interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that they: (1) contained incorrect technical parameters for authorized or proposed stations  X-such as the transmitting antenna gain; (2) used incorrect methodology in calculating the protected service area of previously proposed stations which specified a directional transmitting antenna, calculating the protected service area as the area of a circle with a radius of 15 miles instead of calculating it pursuant to  21.902(d)(1); (3) indicated terrain blockage, but did not include supporting demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; (4) failed to demonstrate that the proposed station was engineered to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(3), and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection pursuant to  21.902(b)(4); and (5) used incorrect antenna specifications. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Pendleton applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed  Xy-stations.  XK-x29. Ridgeway, Pennsylvania. On December 6, 1991, certain petitioners filed two  X4-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Ridgeway, Pennsylvania.`*4r Xa XW-ԍ Application File Nos. 52231CMP92 and 52234CMP92.` After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letter dated January 29, 1993. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications. Reconsideration petitions for the two returned applications were filed on March 1, 1993. x30. These two returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50 miles or the radio horizon of: (1) two 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with"|# *0*(("  X-applications pending on December 6, 1991, the filing date of the Ridgeway applications;+Xa Xy-ԍ Both applications, Application File Nos. 06723CMP83 and 16640CMP83, specify a transmitter site at State College, Pennsylvania. Application File No. 06723CMP83 was subsequently authorized (WHM366). and (2) 13 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations, with applications pending on  X-December 6, 1991.,KXa X-ԍ All 13 applications specified a transmitter site at Clarion, Pennsylvania (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 51304CMP92 through 51314CMP92). The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for all 15 previously proposed MMDS. Thus, the Ridgeway applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications  X-would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Ridgeway applications.  XH-x31. Warsaw, Virginia. On November 12, 1991, certain petitioners filed 21  X1-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Warsaw, Virginia._-1Xa X-ԍ Application File Nos. 51699CMP92 through 51702CMP92; 51705CMP92 through 51707CMP92; 51709CMP92; 51713CMP92; 51716CMP92; 51717CMP92; 51728CMP92; 51729CMP92; 51733CMP92; 51734CMP92; 51738CMP92; 51739CMP92; 51743CMP92; 51746CMP92; 51750CMP92; and 51751CMP92._ After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated October 20, 1992. The letters indicated that the applications were returned because each applicant filed in the geographic area of pending MMDS applications. Reconsideration petitions for the 21 returned applications were filed on November 5, 1992. x32. These 21 returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50 miles or the radio horizon of 15 1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with  Xb-applications pending on November 12, 1992, the filing date of the Warsaw applications.._b: Xa XM-ԍ These 15 applications include two applications for Washington, D.C., (Application File Nos. 02880CMP92 and 11849CMP83) and 13 applications for Richmond, Virginia (Application File Nos. 00215CMP83; 00684CMP83; 01652CMP83; 02509CMP83; 03470CMP83; 04020CMP83; 04036CMP83; 06094CMP83; 06710CMP83; 07921CMP83; 11562CMP83; 12556CMP83 and 15157CMP83). Application File No. 15157CMP83 was subsequently authorized (WHT736 in Richmond, Virginia). The applications did not include interference studies with the applications, as required by  21.902(b) and (c), for one previously proposed MMDS station. The interference studies that were filed were inadequate in that they: (1) failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna"a.0*((" within the protected service area of authorized or previously proposed stations as  X<required by  21.902(c), (d), and (f) (see  21.902(e)); (2) contained incorrect technical parameters for authorized or proposed stations such as the transmitting antenna gain and the reference receiving antenna gain; (3) indicated terrain blockage, but did not include supporting demonstrations, such as shadow maps or terrain profiles; and (4) used incorrect antenna specifications. These applicants also failed to comply with the requirements of  21.901(d)(1) for ITFS interference protection because free space calculations were not submitted for each registered receive site of each ITFS licensee with an authorized transmitter site within 50 miles of the proposed MMDS stations'  X2-proposed transmitter site./2Xa X -ԍ The returned applications were required to submit interference analyses for ITFS Stations WHF243 (King William, Virginia) and WHG411 (Mathews, Virginia). In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Warsaw applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications  X -would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Warsaw applications.  X -x33. Portage, Wisconsin. On October 2, 1991, certain petitioners filed 14  X-applications proposing the same transmitter site at Portage, Wisconsin.0bXa X-ԍ Application File Nos. 50006CMP92; 50008CMP92; 50041CMP92; 50049CMP92; 50051CMP92; 50059CMP92; 50061CMP92; 50062CMP92; 50070CMP92; 50083CMP92; 50088CMP92; 50097CMP92; 50023CMP92; and 50057CMP92. After reviewing each of these applications, the Commission staff returned each application as defective and unacceptable for filing by return notification letters dated October 15, 1992. The letters indicated that each application was returned because the applicant filed in the geographic area of other pending MMDS applications. Reconsideration petitions for 13 returned applications were filed on November 5, 1992, and for one  X-returned application on November 30, 1992.a1Xa X-ԍ The reconsideration petition for Application File No. 50023CMP91 was filed 46 days after the date of the return letters mailed to the Portage applicants, and thus is  XX<untimely. See 47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(5). Petitioner offered no explanation for his late filing.a x34. These 14 returned applications propose a transmitter site that is within 50  X-miles or the radio horizon of: (1) one 1983 authorized MMDS stations;G2; Xa X$-ԍ WDU380 in Madison, Wisconsin.G (2) two 1983 proposed MMDS station, with applications pending on October 2, 1991, the filing date of" 20*((a"  X-the Portage applications;3Xa Xy-ԍ Application File Nos. 13869CMP83 and 16652CMP83, both specify a transmitter site in Milwakee, Wisconsin. (3) one post1983 authorized MMDS station;G4bXa X-ԍ WHT772 in Madison, Wisconsin.G and (4) 23 post1983 previously proposed MMDS stations with applications pending on October 2,  X-1991.5Xa X-ԍ These 23 applications include one application for Waupun, Wisconsin; two applications for Mauston, Wisconsin; and 20 applications for Tomah, Wisconsin (including, but not limited to, Application File Nos. 59419CMP91 through 59436CMP91). The applications did not include interference studies, as required by  21.902(b)  X-and (c), for two authorized stations and 20 previously proposed stations. X01Í ÍX01Í ÍThe interference studies that were submitted were inadequate in that they: (1) failed to include free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratio for each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously proposed or  X_<authorized stations, as required by  21.902(c), (d) and (f) (see  21.902(e)); and (2) contained incorrect technical parameters such as the transmit antenna gain and the reference receive gain. The ITFS study filed by the applicants is invalid, pursuant to  X - 21.901(d)(1), because incorrect technical specifications for ITFS stations were used.6  Xa XK-ԍ The returned applications were required to submit interference analyses for ITFS Stations WHR815 and WHR671 in Madison, Wisconsin. In addition, the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for service of interference studies as provided in  21.902(g). Thus, the Portage applicants failed to demonstrate that the stations proposed in the returned applications would not cause harmful interference to authorized or previously proposed stations. No waiver requests were included in the Portage applications. x | IV. DISCUSSION  X5-x35. Untimely Petitions for Reconsideration. As a preliminary matter, we note  X-that three petitions for reconsideration were untimely filed.7 Xa X -ԍ Untimely petitions for reconsideration were filed for Application File Nos. 50023CMP91; 60540CMP91; and 60585CMP91. Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  405, requires that petitions for reconsideration "must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public"70*(("  X-notice is given of the order, decision, report, or action complained of."8Xa Xy-ԍ Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f), which implements this statutory mandate, establishes that a petition for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days from the date of the return notification letter, or the date of public notice of the return action, if any, as those dates are defined in  1.4 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.4.  Because the time period for filing petitions for reconsideration is prescribed by statute, the  X<Commission may not ordinarily waive or extend the filing period. Reuters Limited v.  X<FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("[W]e conclude that the Commission acted beyond its lawful authority when it entertained the belated petition for  X<reconsideration."); Metromedia, Inc., 56 FCC 2d 909 (1975) (Commission may not waive 30 day filing period to accept a petition for reconsideration filed one day late). Here, the untimely petitions were filed between three and 16 days late and these petitioners  XK-have offered no justification for their late filing.9 KXa X<ԍ The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976), created a narrow exception to this rule by holding that the Commission may extend or waive the 30day filing period in the "extraordinary case" where the latefiling is due to the Commission's failure to give a party timely notice of the action  X<for which reconsideration is sought. Under the holding of Gardner:   Xx A petitioner has the burden to show (a) when and how he received notice in fact, (b) that the time remaining was inadequate to allow him reasonably to meet the 30day requirement (from date of issuance) of  405, and (c) that he moved for reconsideration promptly on receiving actual notice.(#  X<Gardner, 530 F.2d at 109192, n.24. The untimely petitioners here do not even acknowledge their tardiness in filing, much less attempt to meet this stringent burden of proof.  Due to these applicants' failure to comply with 47 U.S.C.  405, the untimely petitions for reconsideration listed at n. 55,  X <supra, will be dismissed. We note, however, that even if we were to consider the merits of the arguments raised in the untimely petitions for reconsideration, we would still deny those petitions for the reasons discussed below.  X - 36. Mutual Exclusivity and Cutoff. Based upon our review of the returned applications and publicly available information regarding authorized MMDS stations and pending applications, we conclude that the petitioned applications were untimely filed with respect to authorized stations or previously filed applications with which the returned applications were mutually exclusive. The determining factors we used to ascertain if the abovereferenced MMDS applications were mutually exclusive pursuant to  21.31(a) were whether the applications were filed: (1) within 50 miles of an"890*(( "  X-authorized or previously proposed MMDS station;`:Xa Xy<ԍ MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 62021.` (2) within the radio horizon (with an unobstructed electrical path) of the protected service area of an authorized or  X-previously proposed MMDS station;X;zXa X<ԍ MMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC at 109111.X or (3) within an MSA, or its 15mile buffer zone,  X-for which there is an authorized or previously proposed MMDS station.\<,Xa X<ԍ MMDS Allocation Order, 94 FCC 2d at 126264.\ Each of these  X-returned applications propose a transmitter site which made the proposed stations mutually exclusive, pursuant to  21.31 or 21.914, with authorized or previously  Xv<proposed MMDS stations. See  35, supra. Specifically, these returned applications were either mutually exclusive and cutoff with respect to: (1) a 1983 pending application or authorized station (for which the cutoff date was September 9, 1983); or (2) a post1983 pending application or authorized station, which had a cutoff date prior  X -to the filing date of the returned applications.=  Xa X-ԍ Of these 101 returned applications, each was mutually exclusive and cutoff by previously filed MDS applications, with a cutoff date of September 9, 1983, except for: (1) the two returned Lamar applications, which were mutually exclusive with and cutoff by applications filed for Lamar on October 24, 1990, with a public notice date of February 24, 1991, including authorized station WMX203; and (2) the three returned Grangeville applications, which were mutually exclusive with and cutoff by applications filed on March 23, 1991 for Lewiston, Idaho (with a public notice date of March 23, 1991), on September 30, 1991 for Colfax, Washington, and on November 16, 1990 for LaGrande, Oregon (with a public notice date of November 12, 1991). Thus, in  X<a de novo review, we have determined that each of the 101 returned applications was mutually exclusive and cutoff by an authorized station or previously filed application. Thus, the abovereferenced applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing pursuant to  21.31(d), which states: Xx An application otherwise mutually exclusive with one [or] more previously filed applications, but filed after the appropriate date prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, will be returned without prejudice and will be eligible for refiling only after final action is taken by the Commission with respect to the previously filed application (or applications).(# 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d). x37. We reject the contention of some petitioners that because the applications they filed for each community were filed on the same date as all other applications for that community, their applications could not have been filed past the cutoff period established in  21.31 or 21.914. Whether an MDS application is cutoff is not  X<determined solely by the date of filing visavis applications specifying the same"=0*((" transmitter site and proposing service to the same community, but also by: (1) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.31, granting the application would result in harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date is past; or (2) whether, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.901(d)(5), the application proposes a transmitter site that is within or within 15 miles of the borders of an MSA, which has a  X<previously proposed or authorized station for which the cutoff date is past. See  35,  Xw<supra. As explained above, the abovereferenced applications were cutoff by mutually exclusive, previously proposed or authorized stations which, although they specified cities different than the cities specified by the returned applications, would have received harmful interference from the stations proposed in the returned applications.  X -x 38. Interference Protection. At the very inception of MDS, the Commission established the principle that subsequently filed applications must not cause harmful interference to any previously proposed or authorized MDS station. "Of course, the applicant for the second channel sought will be expected to demonstrate that his system is designed so that significant interference will not occur with respect to the first MDS  X<channel. . . ." MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d at 621. Almost ten years before the abovereferenced applications were filed, the Commission explained its emphasis on this requirement for MDS applications: 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 21.90[2](c) of our Rules therefore requires an MDS application to include an 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.(#  X<R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596, 606 (1981).>Xa X-ԍ The distance was extended in 1984 to the radio horizon with an unobstructed  X<electrical path of the applicant's MDS station. MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 111.  X-Subsequent to the filing of the last of these 101 returned applications, the distance was  X<extended to 100 miles. Amendment of Parts 1, 2 and 21 of the Commission's Rules, 8 FCC Rcd 1444, 1448 (1993). We have also recognized that "the demonstration of interference protection, at the time of filing, aids the Commission in the public interest determination that an applicant is technically qualified to be an  XR<MDS/MMDS licensee." Family Entertainment Network, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 566, 56768,(#(#X n. 10 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994). Thus,  21.902(b) requires all MDS applicants and licensees to provide 45 dB of cochannel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent  X-channel interference protection,Y? Xa X%-ԍ We have consistently required MDS applicants to comply with  21.902(b). In the  X&<Family Entertainment case, we returned as unacceptable for filing an application which"&>0*((&" demonstrated that the level of interference was within 0.16 dB of meeting the 45 dB cochannel standard. In so doing, we stated that: Xx[W]e reject FEN's claim that its applications should be granted because the level  X4<of interference . . . is de 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. (# 9 FCC Rcd at 568. Y and to demonstrate that protection in interference" ?0*((j" studies submitted with the applications. x39. Petitioners' applications failed to demonstrate a lack of harmful interference  X<to existing and previously proposed MMDS stations. As discussed in Section II, supra, applicants for new MDS stations on the E or F channels are required to file specific technical interference protection showings for cochannel and adjacent channel stations. 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 certain adjacent channel interference problems might arise. The Commission also anticipated that some authorized cochannel stations would be spaced more closely than  X <ordinarily allowed and require careful planning and engineering. MMDS Allocation  X <Order, 94 FCC 2d at 1246, 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 interference in  X <adjacent areas will not be considered acceptable for filing." Id. at 1264. See also(#(#X  21.902(b) and (c). Consequently, there have been a series of cases emphasizing the importance of interference protection showings in MDS applications for the E or F  X}-channels.@ } Xa X<ԍ See, e.g., New Channels Communications, Inc., 57 Rad. Reg. 2d 1600, 1602 (1985) ("In our view, an MDS application 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 the  X~<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 21.902, the Division's finding, that CNI's application was  X$<defective and unacceptable for filing, was proper.");  G.C. 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"&?0*((&" application was properly returned as unacceptable for filing . . . for failure to include  Xy<the technical showing required . . . . "); Marylan J. Benson, 7 FCC Rcd 4668 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("[T]hose applications that do not contain 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 . . . .")  "}@0*((-"Ԍ X<ԙx40. Applicants for two locations failed to file and serve any interference analyses for existing or previously proposed MDS stations with transmitter sites within 50 miles or the radio horizon with an unobstructed electrical path of the applicants' proposed  X<stations. See, e.g.,  1718, 2526, supra. Our analysis of the interference statements  X<submitted shows that the returned applications failed, inter alia, to provide at least 45 dB of cochannel interference protection or at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection as required by  21.902(b); failed to submit free space calculations of the desired to undesired signal ratios to each reference receiving antenna within the protected service area of the previously proposed stations as required by  21.902(f);  X4<failed to demonstrate terrain blockage (see  21.902(d)); used incorrect methodology in  X <performing the interference study (see Section 21.902(d)); and contained incorrect technical specifications for the petitioner's station or the previously proposed station.  X <See Revision of Part 21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 571617 (1987) ("Coordination of MDS . . . systems . . . relies on accurate data about the interference environment.") Thus, these applications were properly returned as unacceptable for  X <filing.  See MMDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 93 ("An application that proposes cochannel or adjacent channel operation and does not contain a showing that the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference as described herein will not be  Xi<accepted for filing."); see also Family Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 567 ("[T]he filing of an interference analysis, which demonstrates lack of harmful interference, is considered  X<<a basic requirement in determining the acceptability of an application."); Dan S. Bagley,  X&<Jr., 7 FCC Rcd 4002, 4003 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992) ("In the processing of MDS station applications, the interference analyses required by [ 21.902] are crucial.")  X-x41. Notice to Affected Parties. In addition, each applicant failed to serve, as required by  21.902(g), all applicants, conditional licensees and licensees for stations required to be studied by  21.902(c), thus depriving affected parties of notice and an  X<opportunity to be 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  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 analysis 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" @0*((I " rulemaking order, in which the Commission staff resolves interference problems after oppositions are filed, was negated.(#  X<x42. Location Requirements. The 1988 Public Notice allows the filing of MDS  X<applications on the E and F channels commencing April 20, 1988, but only for locations that are: (1) farther than 50 miles from any proposed location of an MMDS application pending on April 19, 1988 or an existing station; and (2) farther than 15 miles from the boundary of a statistical area for which there are applications pending on April 19, 1988  XJ<or an existing station. We explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Notice that "[a]pplications filed must comply with the location restrictions contained in this Notice.  X <We do not anticipate granting any waivers of this location requirement." 1988 Public  X <Notice, 3 FCC Rcd at 2661. We also emphasized twice that applications filed in  X <violation of the location requirements would be returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. Despite these clear directives, virtually all of the abovereferenced MMDS applications  X <proposed a transmitter site in violation of the location restriction of the 1988 Public  X <Notice. Therefore, these applicants submitted applications on dates not designated by the Commission for filing of MDS applications. x43. Petitioners can claim no surprise concerning the important burden placed on applicants to carefully select the proposed location of an MDS station. In addition to  X<<the clear language in the 1988 Public Notice, we stressed, as early as 1980, the  X&<importance of compliance with site selection requirements for MDS stations. In R.L.  X<Mohr, 77 FCC 2d 30 (1980), we explained that "given the rather severe shortage of frequencies in these lower more desirable bands, . . . [t]o be able to use these frequencies  X<[for MDS] imposes a cost, a cost in terms of more careful engineering and site location, and perhaps in use of more sophisticated equipment than would be otherwise required."  X<Id. at 37 (emphasis added). Thus, petitioners had full notice of the necessity to comply with the location restrictions. Because petitioners chose to disregard the Commission's clear directive, their applications were properly returned as unacceptable for filing.  X[-x44. Waiver Requests. Although many of the returned applications did not include a waiver request, petitioners assert that the applications contained all necessary  X-<elements for grant of waivers of the location restrictions contained in the 1988 Public  X<Notice, and thus, the Commission was required to grant such waivers. Section 21.20(c)(1) states that a defective application may still be accepted for filing if the  X-application is accompanied by a waiver request. However, because many of the returned applications were not accompanied by a request for waiver, these applicants  X!-failed to meet the requirements of this rule.A!Xa X5$-ԍ The applications filed for Grangeville, Idaho; Big Rapids, Michigan; Fergus Falls, Minnesota; Jal, New Mexico; Ridgeway, Pennsylvania; Warsaw, Virginia; and Portage, Wisconsin did not include waiver requests. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, we do not find that grant of the waivers would serve the public interest, and thus""KA0*((e""  X-will not grant a waiver on our own motion pursuant to  21.20(c)(2).BXa Xy<ԍ The Commission may waive any rule or requirement on its own motion. See(#(#X  21.20(c)(2). x 45. 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:   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(# Xx(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. (# "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  X <which warrant such action." #XP*f9 xQ2XX##XR9 xyQX#Wait Radio v. FCC#XU4  pQ|X#, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969)  X<(citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968)  X{<(per curiam)); see 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 <x46. Petitioners assert that they are entitled to a waiver of the 1988 Public Notice location requirements because the applications identified all stations within 50 miles of the applicants' proposed stations, and, given the distance between those identified stations and the applicants' proposed stations, no "realistic possibility of harmful interference" exists. However, the Commission already has determined that the "mileage between [MDS] stations is not the only factor that determines whether  X<interference will occur." MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 90. In 1984, the Commission adopted, at 47 C.F.R.  21.902(f), the definition of harmful interference as a  Xj<free space calculation of a specified desired to undesired signal ratio. See MDS  XT<Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d at 8990. As shown in Section III, supra, each of the returned applicants failed to submit interference studies, as required by  21.902, for all authorized or previously proposed MMDS stations within 50 miles of their proposed transmitter sites, and to demonstrate that the proposed station would not cause harmful  X<interference. Indeed, in some applications petitioners failed to even identify the existing or previously proposed stations. Thus, their assertion that there is "no realistic possibility of harmful interference" to other existing or proposed stations is totally" cB0*((: "  X-unsupported.#CXa Xy-ԍ A bald conclusion, without any offer of proof or documentary support, has no probative value in determining whether a proposed station would cause harmful  XK<interference. Jim Bolton, 2 FCC Rcd 3207 (Comm. Car. Bur. 1987). # These wholly unsupported assertions fall far short of the stringent  X<showing required by WAIT Radio of the existence of extraordinary or special  X-circumstances justifying waiver.  x47. Petitioners also assert, incorrectly, that the purpose of the location  X<restrictions contained in the 1988 Public Notice is "solely to avoid harmful interference."  Xx-The location restrictions, however, serve other important administrative purposes which do not concern interference avoidance. The location restrictions also minimize the possibility for application gridlock, and allow us to process applications more  X3<expeditiously and to efficiently utilize scarce engineering resources. See Boyd B.  X <Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 570 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); R.L. Mohr, 85 FCC 2d 596,  X <604 (1981).  These purposes would not be served were we to routinely grant a waiver of the location restrictions to each and every applicant that demonstrated noninterference through the submission of interference studies. Thus, we conclude that granting  X <petitioners' requested waivers would frustrate the underlying purpose of the 1988 Public  X <Notice location restrictions.  X<x48. We also reject petitioners' assertion that the 1988 Public Notice contemplated that waivers of the 50 mile location requirement would be routinely  XS<granted whenever an MMDS applicant "demonstrate[s] noninterference." The Notice states that the Commission did not anticipate granting waivers of the location restrictions. Petitioners' reliance on a subsequent paraphrase of  21.20, the rule  X<governing acceptability for filing, and language in the Notice reminding applicants that they also must comply with the rules requiring the filing of interference studies for ITFS and MMDS authorized and proposed stations within 50 miles, as inviting applicants to file for waivers of the location requirement, is misplaced. The language referred to simply reminded interested parties that the imposition of additional location restrictions on post1983 applicants did not exempt those applicants from the requirements to file both MMDS and ITFS interference studies, which were adopted in 1984 and are  Xo<contained in  21.901(d)(1), 21. 902(i) and 21.902(c). See MDS Technical Order, 98 FCC 2d 68 (1984). This language did not explicitly or implicitly override the Commission's express warning that waivers of the location restrictions were not contemplated.  X<x49. While petitioners cite Austin Movie and Sports Cable, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 6174 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1989), to support their position that the Commission should have granted a waiver of the location restrictions and accepted their applications for filing,  X!<that case is distinguishable from the instant case. In Austin Movie, the required interference analyses were filed with the application. The Commission granted the""LC0*((G"" application, notwithstanding the potential for interference, based, in part, on the parties' stated willingness to comply with the  21.902(a) mandate to resolve potential interference problems and on the imposition of several express conditions to ensure  X<interferencefree operation. Id. at 6176. Here, petitioners failed to submit the required analyses, and they have not presented any statements by previously proposed or authorized stations regarding their willingness to address potential interference  Xw<problems. In addition, the application in Austin Movie was filed for Channel 2A, to  Xa<which the 1988 Public Notice is inapplicable. Thus, the additional consideration of  XK<whether the underlying purpose of the Notice's location restriction would be frustrated or whether there were any unique circumstances which would make the application of those restrictions unduly burdensome or unfair was not presented in that case.  X <Petitioners also cite #XR9 xyQX#Lawrence N. Brandt#XU4  pQ|X#, 7 FCC Rcd 4511 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1992), as  X <supporting their waiver request. In Brandt, however, the applicant did not request a waiver and the decision does not discuss waiver issues. Instead, Brandt's filing was dismissed for failure to file interference studies pursuant to  21.902. The decision specifically noted that due to Brandt's failure to include all required information concerning the potential for harmful interference, it was not necessary to address an affected party's argument that Brandt's filing also should be dismissed for failure to  Xh<consider all previously filed MMDS applications within 50 miles. Id. at 4512. x x50. Petitioners also claim that a waiver of the 50 mile location restrictions would be in the public interest because it would result in service to unserved communities, implying that the proposed communities can only be served from an MDS transmitter  X-located within each community's borders.sDXa Xo-ԍ While petitioners assert that their proposed community of license is unserved and has various unmet needs, they offer no documentary support for these assertions. Thus, petitioners have failed to "plead with particularity the facts and circumstances"  X*<warranting a waiver. WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157.s We disagree. The Commission determined as early as 1973 that communities can be served, even when the transmitter is not located within the city limits of the specified community, by MDS stations located in  X<nearby areas. In Microband Corp. of America, 41 FCC 2d 184 (1973), the Commission returned as unacceptable for filing an MDS application proposing a station at Newark, New Jersey as mutually exclusive and cutoff by a previously proposed New York City MDS application, despite the Newark applicant's claim that service to New Jersey would be precluded in violation of 47 U.S.C.  307(b). In doing so we recognized that "the NewarkElizabethJersey City areas as a whole would be better served through a station  X(<located in New York City than through a . . . station located in Newark." Id. at 18586. x51. Several Cullman petitioners also allege that they are entitled to a waiver because Exhibit E to their applications demonstrates that there is no reasonable alternative site from which they could provide acceptable service to Cullman, that is located more than 50 miles from the sites of previously proposed or existing stations. "!5D0*((*!" Exhibit E to the applications, however, does not discuss the lack of a reasonable alternative site. The only proof offered on that issue is the affidavit of petitioners' communications consultant, in which he asserts that "the fact that a waiver is being requested by the applicant is sufficient evidence that no other reasonable alternative exists as confirmed by our engineering contained in our original application." These unsubstantiated assertions that the proposed transmitter site was the only suitable site available are not enough. An applicant must affirmatively demonstrate a lack of a  X_<reasonable alternative site. See Orange Park Florida TV, Inc. v. FCC, 811 F.2d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted) ("Commission precedent makes clear that an applicant seeking waiver of the minimum spacing rules must, as an initial matter, establish the nonavailability of fullyspaced sites . . . [Without such a showing, the  X <applicant's] waiver request died, as it were, at the starting gate."). See also Edna  X <Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd at 5444, n.6 ("Contrary to the assertion in the reconsideration petition that the Gary site . . . is the only possible site for this MMDS station, the [seven transmitter sites studied by the applicant] do not exhaust the numerous potential sites in  X -the Chicago [CMSA] and its 15mile buffer zone.")./E Xa X#-ԍ The Cullman petitioners further argue that the Commission was required to grant their waiver requests because the 50 mile location requirements were waived for two 1991 applications for new stations at Windom, Minnesota. The Windom situation, however, is not analogous. A review of Commission records reveals that the two file numbers provided by petitioners are not for new station applications. Instead, each is a certification of completion of construction, pursuant to authorization of a modification application, of a previously constructed station. No waiver requests were submitted, no waiver consideration was made, and consequently, there is no waiver ruling for comparison purposes here. To the extent our staff action on the Windom applications could somehow be construed as compelling the grant of petitioners' waiver requests in  X=<the circumstances presented here, we decline to treat it as precedent. See Family  X'<Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568, n. 12. /   X|- x52. Petitioners failed to present justification as to why their applications merit treatment different from that which we applied to thousands of other post1983 MMDS applications. In view of these considerations, we do not find it would be in the public  X7<interest to grant a waiver of the location restrictions in the 1988 Public Notice. Therefore, we conclude that petitioners' requests for waivers of the location requirements were properly denied. x53. Petitioners assert that the staff's disposition of their waiver requests by "the mere checking of two paragraphs on a form returning the application in question" cannot, on its face, meet the courtimposed requirement to give a "hard look" to waiver  X<requests. However, the Court in WAIT Radio made clear that: "g E0*(("ԌXx The agency is not bound to process in depth what are only generalized pleas, a requirement that would condemn it to divert resources of time and personnel to hollow claims. The applicant for waiver must articulate a specific pleading, and adduce concrete support, preferably documentary. Even when an applicant complies with these rigorous requirements, the agency is not required to author an essay for the disposition of each application. (# 418 F.2d at 1157, n.9. Here, most of the applications did not even include a waiver request. Where the application did request a waiver, the request was of a general nature and lacked concrete, documentary support. Under these circumstances, and in light of the thousands of applications the staff was processing, the return notification letters indicating that the request was denied as failing to comply with  21.19 of the Commission's rules were sufficient. Moreover, we have now reviewed the staff's denial of petitioners' waiver requests and have fully explained the basis for denying those requests.  X<x54. In addition, even if the 1988 Public Notice location restrictions had not prohibited the filing of the abovereferenced applications, in each instance these applications still would have been returned as unacceptable for filing due to violations of other Commission rules in effect at the time the returned applications were filed, including filing after the relevant cutoff date of mutually exclusive applications and failing to submit adequate interference analyses for authorized stations or applications. x55. Finally, we disagree with the petitioners' argument that we have changed the requirements, rules and standards applied to the returned applications and adopted  X<more stringent separation standards ex post facto by refusing to grant the waivers and accept these applications for filing. As discussed at length above, the petitioners' applications were returned as unacceptable because they were filed after the relevant cutoff dates established in  21.31 and 21.914 of the rules, and failed to submit and serve the required interference studies at the time the application was initially filed, as  XP<specified by  21.902. See Roundtree Communications, 7 FCC Rcd 5456 (1992); Boyd B.  X:<Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994); Edna Cornaggia, 8 FCC Rcd 5442 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993). All of the pertinent rules cited herein were longestablished and  X -applicable at the time the returned applications were filed.pF Xa X -ԍ For example, the interference study filing rule was adopted in a 1974 rulemaking  Xo!<order (MDS Allocation Order, 45 FCC 2d 616 (1974)) and the initial cutoff provisions of  XY"< 21.31 were adopted in 1968.  See Applications for Common Carrier Facilities, 13 FCC 2d 415 (1968).p All MDS applicants are charged with being familiar with Part 21 of the Commission's rules. Any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand clear and valid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes the risk that the application will not be  X!<acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242 (1961); see also Donald E."! 6F0*(( "  X<Benson, 8 FCC Rcd at 1873. Thus, we reject petitioners' claims that the Commission engaged in arbitrary and capricious action and find that "[t]he Division's return of [the abovereferenced] applications . . . was not unreasonable or arbitrary, but rather was  X<based on the [applicant's] failure to comply with Commission rules." Family  X<Entertainment, 9 FCC Rcd at 568. x56. In view of all the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's return of the applications under consideration in this order. Reconsideration is not justified and reinstatement of the applications is not warranted. x57. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the untimely reconsideration petitions  X <filed by the applicants and listed in n. 55, supra, ARE HEREBY DISMISSED and the reconsideration petitions filed by the remaining abovereferenced applicants ARE  X -HEREBY DENIED.#XR9 xyQX##XU4  pQ|X# x58. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Mass Media Bureau shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   x` `  William F. Caton  X-x` `  Acting Secretary