WPC# 2BJZ Courier3|a 2x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Sit 5M PCL)HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\&bYX@26CF Z3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicSymbolHP LaserJet 5Sit 5M PCL)HPLAS5SI.PRSX\  P6G;\&bYP S' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;ɒP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#&a\  P6G;u&P#2lv!rv Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference footnote textfootnote text 2} r#A_ footnote referencefootnote reference toc 1toc 1X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#toc 2toc 2X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#toc 3toc 3X` hp x (#` (#`` (#`X` hp x (#2    v toc 4toc 4 X` hp x (# (#` (#`X` hp x (#toc 5toc 5 X` hp x (#h(#`h(#`X` hp x (#toc 6toc 6 X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#toc 7toc 7  2)  toc 8toc 8 X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#toc 9toc 9X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#index 1index 1X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#index 2index 2X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#2[vylo[toa headingtoa headingX` hp x (#(#(#X` hp x (#captioncaption _Equation Caption_Equation Caption Body TextBody Text2!vpr k kM!a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2$!v"t#y#a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2&E$$% ;&a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersC @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style StyleB b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersL! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2R*!"'"'#($y)a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers!_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"h` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers#pfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers$yW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2.%*&+P+'{,({-a1DocumentgDocument Style Style%Xqq   l ^) I. ׃  Doc InitInitialize Document Style&  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style'. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style()WD (1) . 20)4.*.+i/,0a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style))D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style+9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style,8bv{ 2  a.   26-0.1/0202a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style-F!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style.(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style/(D a) . PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper0P@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:>?>@f?Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g=J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g>S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g?\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g@e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2/CAW@BACADBRight Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gAn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gBw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gCF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gD&!"  . 2EEaCFCGDHETechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gE&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gF*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gG''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gH&)*   2 TIEJFKGLv GTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gI4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gJ&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gK&/0  . MACNormalL;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2)WMo?TNTOi-UPVFootnoteMÍčfootnote tex#N'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#headerOAx 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# referenceP;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2\Q~[WRiXS^BZTO[itemizeX1Q&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2RI ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3SF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!T!!#d\  PCP#2_U !]V.^Wr^Xa_CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileUW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentViޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaWa1AgendaAgenda ItemsX7D yP ) I. 2bYr%`Z`[Ka\aa3AgendaYHeadingChapter HeadingZJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers[>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading\0\ E A.  2e]db^c_*d`1dHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd]+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date^ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off_@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5` 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2&ja1%fb1Vgc1hdniLEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5af 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11bL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14c 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentdK\ * ă2meXjfdjgj=khkBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedeN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargefB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscoredg V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginshu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2riEmj-=ok8jpl8qINVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoicei ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatjD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoicek:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macrolz 4p, $0$002um snXto[up[`uINVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoicem+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestylenSMALLSmall TypestyleoFINEFine Typestylep2xq[ur[Hvs[vtvLARGELarge TypestyleqEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestylerVERY LARGEVery Large TypestylesENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Headert+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2*uXxv ywyxKz1udfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsv$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5w$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIxJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2lyl\zȀ{d||Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabsy )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginszDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font{4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5|$ )^ `> XifQ 2}~>ރ~Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point}$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5~$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2kÓ٘Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   2?8ܚa21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh 2~q0ɞa61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  2qc!dReport Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  1, 2, 3,teNumbersotation"H('0\F H rW?I 1.A, B,3,teUppercase LettersH('0\F H rW?I .TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#2m.NotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2lۥG٦t_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  24Jla42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2#fb7la82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpР` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2(U$}$ŵbly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2uljlWC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2ž:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2wQlowwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH Default Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2Tpqee2XwE~wKRn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@RH*G>FwE~wK\Emn` ` ` 3XwE~wKSn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@SH*G>FwE~wK\Eo p . 4XwE~wKTn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@TH*G>FwE~wK\E qr 5XwE~wKUn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@UH*G>FwE~wK\E st 2p6XwE~wKVn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@VH*G>FwE~wK\E*uv   7XwE~wKWn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@WH*G>FwE~wK\Ewx` ` ` 8XwE~wKXn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E8yz@   9XwE~wKYn6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EA{|@` `  ` ` ` 2}!10wE~wKZn6bDocument Style=(G>wK@ZH*G>FwE~wK\E0} ~    11wE~wK[n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\EJ` ` @  ` `  12wE~wK\n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\ES` `  @  13wE~wK]n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\E\` `  @hh# hhh 2u=14wE~wK^n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 15wE~wK_n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\En` `  hh#(@- ( 16wE~wK`n6bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*G>FwE~wK\Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17wE~wKan6bDocument Style=(G>wK@aH*G>FwE~wK\EF D*  ׃  2518wE~wKbn6bTechnical Document StylewK@bH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 19wE~wKcn6bTechnical Document StylewK@cH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 20wE~wKdn6bTechnical Document StylewK@dH*G>FwE~wK\E*    21wE~wKen6bTechnical Document StylewK@eH*G>FwE~wK\E'   2g022wE~wKfn6bTechnical Document StylewK@fH*G>FwE~wK\E&   23wE~wKgn6bTechnical Document StylewK@gH*G>FwE~wK\E4$     24wE~wKhn6bTechnical Document StylewK@hH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . 2e&Format Downln6bFormat Downloaded DocumentK@uH*G>FwE~wK\EU XX    X\ #d6X@7@#a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   a227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJ2Da427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh a627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( 2vvvpa827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 2vv}heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ 22Ma2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh 2z9a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq Word222Null(Dt—Word222Null( >fWRK+P—!t >f—+b1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#2 wvNORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P&P#footnote refDt—footnote reference >fbRK+P—!t >f—+b>#V\  P UP#page number(Dt—page number( >feRK+P—!t >f—+b2>b626 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??USlist>gx(Dt—list7!wB( >fgRK+P—!t >f—+b*??endnote refeDt—endnote reference >fhRK+P—!t >f—+b>>#XO\  P!UXP##c P"7P#line number(Dt—line number( >fjRK+P—!t >f—+b;;#XO\  P#UXP##c P$7P#26(Highlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b''#G x}'Y##\9> (P(YP#Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b''#> p})Y##\9> (P*YP#2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b''#b> p}+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# 2^TGraphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# Article headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b*'#r"zp1C# #\9> (P2YP# 27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bOO#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#28g a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  2c,a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 230d.NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#Bld/UnderlieBold and Underline Text/  5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FP  SMALL:@6MSMALL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.E2i 2e<KKNORMAL:@6MNORMAL;% =(%L:h *%o-.:.EX` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains @6Mbly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awX` hp x (#` hp x (#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2K K K1K|"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2KKDK ,"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">gggrr=Kf\g4]/NQ\rrĄSrr|]gggKw~fnfzQsTnMiQ3,n\_mbz\igigp\\sQQznfnnns=\ncg~n==\\\f2 K8^FZ#"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\4  pG;8P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP9H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\:0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XU2^=4,<v&^\  PA&P\{,W80,%BZW*f9 xr G;XO7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM yO'  X   / X'w  #Xj\  P6G;ynXP#Federal Communications Commission`(#Z FCC 99123 ă   yxdddy /#X\  P6G;ɒP# CORRECTED VERSION &}  vf Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO'}9Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S '#&a\  P6G;u&P#) In the Matter of) ) Canyon Area Residents for the Environment) Request for Review of Action Taken Under) Delegated Authority on a Petition for) an Environmental Impact Statement) )  S '  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  S@ ' Adopted: May 27, 1999  hhCqppReleased: May 27, 1999  S' By the Commission:  S' "  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review and related pleadings filed by the  xQCanyon Area Residents for the Environment (CARE) seeking review of a letter ruling of October 9, 1998,  x7by Dale Hatfield, Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET Letter), which denied CARE's  xrequest for a blanket prohibition on the siting of communications facilities on Lookout Mountain near  xIDenver, Colorado, and denied CARE's proposal that the Commission adopt stricter limits on public  S' xtexposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation.@P yO@' " ԍ CARE subsequently submitted related and supplemental material to Commission staff dated April 30, 1998,  xM May 18, 1998, August 25, 1998, September 10, 1998, November 27, 1998, November 30, 1998, January 13, 1999,  x March 9, 1999, and March 19, 1999, respectively. In addition, CARE filed a letter with the Commission, dated April  x 6, 1999, objecting to the Commission's approval of an application for a digital television antenna for station KDVR  xx on environmental grounds. Fox Television Stations, Inc., permittee of KDVR, responded to CARE's objections in  x a letter, dated April 26, 1999. We believe that no new issues were raised in these additional filings that have not  x previously been raised, and we, therefore, will consider this material as part of the overall application for review discussed herein.  CARE's Application for Review was opposed by the Lake  S'Cedar Group (LCG).P yO ' " ԍIn letters, dated November 23, 1998, December 31, 1998, and March 25, 1999, LCG opposed CARE's Application for Review. By letter, dated April 16, 1999, CARE responded to LCG's opposition. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Application for Review.  S8'G I. BACKGROUND ă  S' "2. LCG, a consortium of Denver, Colorado, television stations, has applied to Jefferson County,  x/Colorado, for authority to construct a new multipleuse transmission tower on Lookout Mountain.  x*Lookout Mountain is an "antenna farm" that for many years has been the location for transmitting towers  xused by many of the radio and television broadcast stations licensed to Denver and its surrounding areas.  xThe LCG tower is the proposed location for the new digital television (DTV) facilities of six Denver  S ' xtelevision stations. In addition, several licensees of television stations in Denver plan to relocate their" ( ,))ZZZ"  xcurrent analog (NTSC) antennas to the LCG tower, as do a number of FM radio stations. The proposed  xcommon tower will immediately replace two existing towers, and other towers eventually will be  xZconsolidated on it. In 1997 and 1998, the six Denver television stations each filed applications with the Commission specifying the LCG tower as the site for their new DTV facilities.  S8' "3. In response to the DTV applications, on March 26, 1998, CARE filed a petition asking that  xthe Commission take the following actions: (1) deny renewals to licensees with antennas located at the  xLookout Mountain, Colorado, antenna site; (2) not approve any new antennas for the Lookout Mountain  xtsite including the DTV applications; and (3) adopt a new limit for human exposure to RF fields of 0.01  S' xmicrowatts per centimeter squared (0.01 W/cm2) for transmitters located in residential areas. In its letter  xof May 18, 1998, CARE also asked the Commission to require all broadcasters on Lookout Mountain to  xMperform "an environmental impact study pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)."  S ' xgCARE's requests were based on concerns that the Commission's guidelines for human exposure to RF  xemissions, adopted in 1996, are not sufficiently protective of human health, and that the Lookout Mountain antennas were exposing nearby residents to unsafe levels of RF energy.  S ' "4. In response to CARE's petition, the OET Letter concluded that CARE's original petition did  x^not contain factual evidence that transmitting stations located in the Lookout Mountain area were violating  xgCommission rules. OET also concluded that CARE had not demonstrated that a blanket prohibition on  xsiting of additional transmitters at Lookout Mountain was warranted. In addition, because the  xCommission's rulemaking concerning changes to the RF exposure limits had long since been concluded,  xCARE's proposal to establish new Commission exposure limits thousands of times stricter than current  x+limits was judged untimely and without merit. Problems with CARE's interpretation of various  xmeasurement study reports and exposure assessment protocols were also documented, including  x*misunderstandings of spatial averaging and of conclusions in the earlier studies conducted in the Lookout  xMountain area. However, OET did conclude that more recent evidence of RF levels on Lookout Mountain  xin excess of the Commission exposure limits indicated that a further investigation of the Lookout  xMountain site was justified. Consequently, two subsequent measurement studies were performed at Lookout Mountain by Commission personnel.  SP' "5. On October 29, 1998, Commission staff conducted a measurement survey of RF exposure  xlevels in publicly accessible areas at the Lookout Mountain site and determined that certain locations on  S' xLookout Mountain exceeded the RF limits.  See Summary of FCC Survey at Lookout Mountain Antenna  xSite, November 12, 1998. OET determined that the relatively high RF levels measured were largely the  xresult of emissions from the antennas of five Denver FM radio stations. The Denver DTV applications  xcould not be granted until the existing RF problem was corrected by the FM stations. At the  xrecommendation of Commission staff, the FM stations subsequently voluntarily reduced their power and  x@took other steps to temporarily eliminate the RF problem on Lookout Mountain. The FM stations also  xagreed to implement a more permanent solution, pending local approval, including the erection of fencing  xto prevent public access and exposure in the future. Based upon these actions, on December 2, 1998, and  xklater on February 8, 1999, the staff granted the Denver DTV applications. CARE did not specifically seek  xreconsideration or review of those actions. Thereafter, OET staff revisited the Lookout Mountain site and  x/confirmed that the remedial measures taken by the FM stations had been implemented and that the  SJ$'Lookout Mountain site was in compliance with RF guidelines. See Study Report of January 4, 1999.  S%' "6. In response to the OET Letter, CARE filed its Application for Review, dated November 5,  xk1998. In addition to certain procedural matters that we address below, CARE makes the following claims"&,>(>(ZZm%"  xand raises the following primary issues: (1) that measurement data indicate noncompliance with  x*Commission exposure limits by broadcasters on Lookout Mountain; (2) that the Commission has violated  xthe National Environmental Policy Act; (3) that Commission environmental impact studies or  xEnvironmental Assessments for Lookout Mountain are required and "overdue;" (4) that alternative sites  x*exist for locating new antennas for Denver broadcast stations; (5) that citizens are fearful for their safety  x^and for the value of their homes; (6) that broadcasters should be ordered to "show cause," under Section  x312(b) of the Communications Act, as to, why they should not cease and desist from violating Section  x/1.1310 of the Commission's rules; (7) that the constitutional and "common law" rights of Lookout  xMountain residents are being violated; (8) that Commission guidelines for human exposure to RF energy  xwere improperly promulgated and are not strict enough to protect human health; and (9) that the proposed  x^LCG should be denied because of blanketing interference problems on Lookout Mountain and the possible  x<negative impact on wildlife preserves, historical sites and endangered species in the area. We now consider these matters.  S '!J II. DISCUSSION  S '  SX' A. Procedural Issues  S0'  S' "7. As an initial matter, we note that CARE's Application for Review and its supplementary filings  xMraise a number of issues that were not before the staff when it considered CARE's earlier filings in the  x3OET Letter. For example, in its Application for Review and supplemental filings, CARE raises for the  xfirst time the questions of historical preservation, endangered species, and blanketing interference. Section  x1.115(c) of the Commission's Rules states that: "[N]o application for review will be granted if its relies  xon questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.  x47 C.F.R.  1.115(c). In this case, CARE has not adequately explained why it was unable to raise these  xmatters in a more timely fashion. We cannot allow a party to "sit back and hope that a decision will be  x^in its favor and, when it isn't, to parry with an offer of more evidence. No judging process in any branch  S' xof government could operate efficiently or accurately if such a procedure were allowed." Colorado Radio  Sz' xCorp. v. FCC, 118 F. 2d 24, 26 (D.C. Cir. 1941). Therefore, we are not obligated to consider the new  x^matters raised in CARE's filings. However, as indicated below, we have examined the new matters raised  xby CARE, and we find that CARE has failed to present any relevant evidence or law demonstrating that  S'we should not have granted the DTV applications.X( yOl' " ԍLCG also points out that CARE''s Application for Review exceeds the 25 page limit specified in Section  x 1.115(f) of the Rules. 47 C.F.R.  1.115(f). In an effort to be as responsive as possible to the citizens of the Lookout Mountain area, we will permit CARE's filing in excess of the page limitations.  S' "8. CARE also requests that the Commission seek public comment on its Application for Review.  xAs detailed herein, the Commission has solicited and thoroughly considered the comments of expert health  xgand safety agencies and the public in adopting its radiofrequency radiation health and safety guidelines,  xin general. Additionally, the Commission has fully considered all the issues raised and briefed by CARE  xwith respect to the siting of communications towers, including, in particular, the proposed LCG tower.  xIt is not the Commission's practice to solicit additional public comment on rulemaking proceedings that  xhave been concluded and license applications that have been granted, and our rules do not require us to  xdo so. CARE provides no reasons why additional public comment would be beneficial. Since there  xappears to be little or no benefit to be achieved by seeking additional public comment on the matters"t#,>(>(ZZG""  x3raised by CARE, and the present record is adequate for the Commission to decide the matter, CARE's  S'request that we allow public comment on the Application for Review is denied.\( yO@' x ԍ CARE's additional request for a "full copy of the current internal FCC regulations" used to guide FCC  {O' x7 compliance with NEPA, is also denied, since such information is already available in Section 1.1301 et seq. of the  {O'Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  1.1301 et seq. xxX   S`' B. Arguments Concerning RF Radiation  S8'  S' " 9. The results of the Commission studies of the Lookout Mountain have been described in  xseparate reports, dated November 12, 1998, and January 4, 1999, respectively. Noncomplying areas were  xidentified as a result of these studies, and recommendations were made for corrective actions to ensure  xQthat the Lookout Mountain site was brought into compliance with Commission exposure limits. This was  xaccomplished, and, as noted in the January 4 study report, we are now satisfied that the broadcast stations  x&at Lookout Mountain are in compliance with the Commission exposure guidelines. CARE's claim that  xit has supplied the information necessary to trigger an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the site, as  xspecified in the Commission's Rules [47 CFR 1.1307(c)], is now moot since the extensive Commission studies and followup activities obviate the need for the preparation of an EA.   S ' " 10. CARE claims that the Commission has violated the National Environmental Policy Act  x(NEPA) of 1969 (Sections 5 and 6) and that the Commission's guidelines are not sufficiently protective  xtof human health. The Commission adopted new RF exposure guidelines (ET Docket 9362) following  xa oneyear period for public comment with hundreds of pages of comments being filed with the  S' xCommission from industry, trade associations, citizens and expert federal health and safety agencies. See  S' xGuidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, 11 FCC Rcd 15123  x(1997). CARE's collateral attack on the Commission's RF exposure guidelines is not timely and is dismissed.   S' " 11. CARE states that the Commission violated its rules implementing NEPA by not requiring a  S' xdraft EIS and final EIS for licensees on Lookout Mountain. Under the Commission's rules, however, EIS's  xare only prepared after the Commission reviews the Environmental Assessment (EA) and determines that  xthe proposal "will have a significant effect upon the environment," and such effect cannot be resolved by  S|' xcorrective action. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1308, 1.13141.1319. In the present situation corrective actions have  xgalready been taken to bring the site into compliance prior to even the preparation of an EA. Therefore,  xthere is no longer an environmental issue with respect to potential violation of Commission RF exposure guidelines requiring the preparation of either an EA or EIS.  S' " 12. CARE's allegations that alternative sites should be considered as part of an environmental  xgevaluation are untimely, and, in any case, would only be relevant if a determination had been made that  xa significant environmental effect, such as RF exposure, currently exists at the site. As explained above,  x&this is not the case. Therefore, there is no need to consider alternative sites because of a potential RF  xtexposure problem. Furthermore, the Commission is not inclined to become involved in application site selection, or local zoning issues as long as federal requirements are met.  S"' " 13. We find no merit to CARE's claim that area residents' fear of RF radiation and concern over  xtproperty values are environmental factors that should be considered by the Commission. This claim is"v#,>(>(ZZ:""  xxuntimely. Moreover, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the consequences of their actions on the  xphysical environment; NEPA does not require federal agencies to undertake an analysis of and consider  S' xthe effects upon residents "psychological health." See Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against  S' xgNuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983). Moreover, NEPA does not require federal agencies to consider  xsocioeconomic factors, such as diminished property values, where, as here, the record established that the  S<' xthreshold requirement for NEPA analysis effect on the physical environment has not been met. See  S' xgKnaust v. City of Kingston, N.Y., No. 96CV601 (N.D.N.Y., January 15, 1999) (WESTLAW, Allfeds  S' xlibrary); Olmsted Citizens for a Better Community v. U.S., 606 F. Supp. 964 (D. Minn. 1985). Finally,  xin the absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity, a common law nuisance action will not lie against the Federal Government.  SR ' " 14. CARE's claim that Lookout Mountain broadcasters should "show cause" (Section 10), under  xSection 312(b) of the Communications Act, as to, "why they should not cease and desist from violating  xSection 1.1310 of the Commission's rules," is, again, a moot point. Since the compliance problems have been remedied by radio licensees, there is no longer a violation, and such an action is unnecessary.  S ' "F15. CARE's claim that the Commission's actions, "violate the personal, property and  xconstitutional rights of these residents," is untimely, and, in any case, without merit. This claim is based  x}on an allegation that the Commission had failed ("without due process of law") to consider "current  xrelevant and credible scientific evidence" in making its decisions with respect to RF guideline  ximplementation and protection of human health. As the record in this matter and in the docket adopting  xZnew guidelines has amply demonstrated, the Commission has extensively considered all points of view  xand evidence in arriving at its decisions and conclusions. This same response applies to CARE's  xallegations that the "common law rights" of residents have been violated by the Commission and that the Commission fails to protect human health.  S' "16. CARE's claim that the Commission did not follow recommendations of federal health and  xsafety agencies in adopting its new RF exposure guidelines is an improper collateral attack on the  xCommission's rules and is wholly without merit, as explained previously. On the contrary, letters of  xsupport for the Commission's guidelines have been received from senior officials of the U.S.  x3Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National  xInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health  x_Administration (OSHA). These letters are included in the record of ET Docket 9362 and were  xextensively relied upon there. EPA has also sent a recent letter to the FCC addressing the situation at  S' xLookout Mountain and reaffirming its support for the Commission's RF guidelines (see attachment).KX( yO"' "+ ԍLetter, dated April 30, 1999, from Robert Brenner, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and  x. Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Dale N. Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission.K In  xaddition, the Commission continues to cooperate with these other federal agencies and coordinate activities  xof mutual interest through an ongoing radiofrequency interagency working group, chaired by the EPA.  S ' "17. CARE again claims that the Commission has not considered scientific information on  xZbiological effects in developing its guidelines. The Commission conducted the extensive proceeding in  xET Docket 9362, reviewed comments from the public, industry, expert organizations and federal health  xand safety agencies to determine which scientificallybased guidelines to adopt for use in evaluating human"|#,>(>(ZZ-""  xexposure, and, in fact, considered relevant scientific information on biological effects in adopting its  xguidelines. Although the Commission stated in that proceeding that it does not have the expertise to  S' x^develop health and safety standards on its own,( {O'ԍSee Report and Order, FCC 96326, ET Docket 9362, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1997) at para. 28. the Commission does have sufficient expertise to analyze  xand evaluate existing standards and guidelines, and it has utilized that expertise in adopting its current  x}guidelines. The Commission also has the expertise to assess new scientific studies and standards to  x}determine whether the state of the science has changed sufficiently to require a reformulation of its  xguidelines. It is instructive to note that in the very citation highlighted by CARE to support the claim that  x&biological effects from "lowintensity" exposures are scientifically established ("Vienna Paper on EMF  S' xMobile Phones and Health"), the conclusion is reached that there is no scientific consensus about how  x&these effects can be used to develop exposure standards. In other words, the current state of reliable  xlscientific knowledge is reflected in the existing guidelines. Also, it is important to point out that  xDbiological "effects" are not the same as biological "hazards." The exposure criteria recommended by both  xMthe National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical  x3and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), upon which the Commission's guidelines are based, are themselves  S ' x"based on thresholds for known biological effects that are potentially hazardous. These existing RF  x<standards and guidelines are designed to protect the public from scientifically established levels for  xZpotentially harmful effects linked to exposure to RF fields. In any event, as stated previously, CARE's  S\'collateral attack on the Commission's RF guidelines is untimely.   S ' "18. CARE claims that the Commission places an unfair burden on citizens for monitoring  xQcompliance and cites the situation at Lookout Mountain where Mr. Hislop and Dr. Larson performed their  xown measurement surveys, the results of which contradicted some of the earlier measurement data  xxobtained there by consultants for LCG. Citizens such as Mr. Hislop and Dr. Larson are to be commended  xtfor investing their own time and resources to help ensure compliance. However, this isolated incident,  x*in which Mr. Hislop and Dr. Larson discovered previously undetected areas of noncompliance, does not  xprove that it is Commission policy to expect citizens to routinely undertake such tasks. In this case, it is  xour belief that the underreporting of field levels at certain locations was unintentional on the part of the  xbroadcast licensees and applicants. In a sworn affidavit, Mr. Robert Weller, of Hammett and Edison, Inc.,  x^the engineering consulting firm that advised LCG, has described the problems he experienced with certain instrumentation used for his measurements.  S,' "19. While it is true that the Commission relies largely on selfcertification of RF compliance,  xwillful misrepresentation before the Commission with respect to RF compliance or any other matter is a  x*violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules, and can have serious consequences. If there is evidence of willful  xmisrepresentation by a licensee or applicant to the Commission with respect to RF compliance certification  xor some other issue, the Commission has the authority to levy forfeitures and/or take other punitive actions  x*including license revocation. We see no basis to conclude that this occurred with respect to the Lookout  xMountain site. Those areas which were recently found to be out of compliance with respect to the new  xexposure guidelines (implemented in October of 1997) were in compliance with the previous guidelines  x*in effect at the time the stations were last required to certify compliance. Furthermore, the measurement  xproblems experienced and sworn to by Mr. Weller do not, without more evidence, support a conclusion  x7that the Lake Cedar Group or other broadcasters intentionally misled the Commission with respect to RF exposure. "L$Z,>(>(ZZ""Ԍ S' "20. Finally, CARE alleges that computer modeling alone is not sufficient to guarantee  xcompliance. We fully agree that at complex antenna sites such as Lookout Mountain computer modeling  xalone may not be sufficient to evaluate compliance. In fact, this is the reason that the Commission has  xrequired that actual measurements be made at the site, and that is why the staff twice conducted its own  xmeasurement studies. Also, as a condition of the grant of the LCG application, future measurements must  xDbe taken to ensure compliance once the new broadcast tower is constructed and operational. In addition,  x@Jefferson County is considering its own monitoring requirements for the area, and we understand and  xexpect that a site coordination committee is being established by the licensees located at Lookout  xMountain. Therefore, the implication that the Commission has based, or will base, decisions on "computer modeling alone" is factually inaccurate.  S ' C. Other New Matters  S ' "21. In its Application for Review and supplemental filings, CARE raised additional objections  xZto the LCG tower with respect to blanketing interference, facilities sited within an officiallydesignated  x^wildlife preserve, siting of a facility listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and claims of affects  xZon an endangered species. CARE's objections are untimely, and, in any case, are without merit. While we are not obligated to do so under Section 1.115(c) of the Rules, we will consider each of these matters.  S' "'22. With respect to blanketing interference, CARE supplies anecdotal evidence of apparent  x*interference problems experienced by residents in the Lookout Mountain area. The specific cause of this  xinterference, be it a single broadcast station or many, or even whether it is due to a television or radio  xstation, it not apparent from CARE's submission. Quite obviously, the interference is not being caused  xby the proposed DTV facilities which have not been constructed and are not operational. The fact that  xtexisting analog television, AM or FM radio stations may be causing blanketing interference on Lookout  xMountain is not a reason to withhold a grant of the Denver DTV applications or prohibit construction of  xZthe LCG tower. To the extent that there may be an existing blanketing interference problem, this does  xnot mean that the new DTV tower will contribute to and/or exacerbate the problem. The Commission's  xblanketing interference rules are only applicable once a station is operating and are not practically  SP' xconsidered at the construction permit application stage. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review  S*' xStreamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules and Processes, MM Docket No. 9843, Report and Order,  x13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23104 (1998). We will address any actual interference complaints that are a result  S' xof the initiation of the new DTV facilities when the television licensees file their license applications. To  xthe extent that it can be demonstrated that the DTV facilities, once operational, are contributing to the  xongoing blanketing interference problem, we retain the right to notify the television stations to cease  Sd' x&conducting equipment tests, pursuant to Section 73.1610, in accordance with the public interest. See  S>' xWeigel Broadcasting Company, 11 FCC Rcd 17202 (1996). We note that LCG has stated that its  xmembers will comply with the Commission's blanketing interference rules, both existing and proposed,  xand they will assume full responsibility for the adjustment of reasonable complaints arising from the  S!' xxexcessively strong signals of their new stations facilities or take other corrective actions. See Amendment  xof the Commission's Rules to More Effectively Resolve Broadcast Interference, MM Docket No. 9662,  Sz#'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 4750 (1996) (Blanketing Interference NPRM).dXz#( yO%' "g ԍTo the extent that blanketing interference problems exist and/or continue after the television licensees initiate  x their new DTV operations, residents in the area may seek relief from the Commission pursuant to Section 73.685(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 73.685(d). d"z#,>(>(ZZ-""Ԍ S' "yԙ23. As for CARE's request that we change our rules to begin examining blanketing interference  xas an environmental matter under NEPA, we note that CARE has made such a request in comments filed  xin the blanketing interference rulemaking and, because it would involve a change in our rules, we believe  xgthat this matter would best be resolved in that proceeding. We also note that we previously have ruled  S`' xthat RF radiation will not be considered as a blanketing interference issue. See Blanketing Interference  S:'NPRM, supra at  26.   S' "24. CARE also argues that an EA should have been performed by all licensees on Lookout  xMountain for the following reasons: (1) land adjacent to Lookout Mountain is owned by Jefferson County  xDOpen Space which has been designated a wildlife preserve and tower construction may have a significant  ximpact that wildlife; (2) certain endangered species reside in the Lookout Mountain area and their habitat  xis threatened by tower construction; and (3) two facilities listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located near the LCG tower site and may be negatively impacted.   S ' "E25. From the inception of the Commission's environmental rules, the location of new antennas  xkin antenna farms, or on existing towers or structures, has been deemed environmentally preferable to new  xconstruction, has been encouraged, and has been categorically excluded from the environmental processing  S\' xrequirements. See Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 49 FCC 2d 1313,  S6' x1320 (1974); see also First Century Broadcasting, Inc., 100 FCC 2d 761 (1985). Note 3 to Section 1.1306 of the Commission's current rules specifically provides that:  #XThe construction of an antenna tower or supporting structure in an established 'antenna  S' farm' (i.e., an area in which similar antenna towers are clustered, whether or not such has  #been officially designated as an antenna farm), will be categorically excluded unless one  or more of the antennas to be mounted on the tower or structure are subject to the  provisions of  1.1307(b) and the additional radiofrequency radiation from that antenna(s)  #on the new tower or structure would cause human exposure in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines in  1.1307(b).   x Thus, unless additional RF radiation caused by a new tower, or the cumulative RF radiation due to all  xDtowers within an antenna farm, creates exposure levels in excess of the Commission's adopted health and  xsafety guidelines, the construction of the new tower is generally exempt from the Commission's environmental processing rules.  S' "26. CARE has not shown that the proposed tower, otherwise categorically excluded from the  xCommission's environmental rules, would warrant the filing of an EA under the Commission's safeguard provision contained in 47 C.F.R. 1.1307(c). Section 1.1307(c) provides:  XIf an interested person alleges that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded,  Owill have a significant environmental effect, the person shall submit to the Bureau  Wresponsible for processing that action a written petition setting forth in detail the reasons  zjustifying or circumstances necessitating environmental consideration in the decision Sz#' making process. (See 1.1313). The Bureau shall review the petition and consider the  environmental concerns that have been raised. If the Bureau determines that the action  ,may have a significant environmental impact, the Bureau will require the applicant to  S&' prepare an EA (see 1.1308 and 1.1311), which will serve as the basis for the determination to proceed with or terminate environmental processing. "&,>(>(ZZ`%"Ԍ x7ԙCARE has not shown, and the record does not establish, that the proposed LCG tower "may significantly  xaffect the environment," given that the LCG tower will be located in an established antenna farm, an area  S' xin which similar towers already exist and have existed for many years. See First Century Broadcasting,  S' xkInc., 100 FCC 2d 761, 763764 (1985). Specifically, the record does not support CARE's contention that  x&the antenna farm portion of Lookout Mountain is an officially designated wildlife area. In fact, CARE  x*admits that the only wildlife preserve in the area, the Jefferson County Open Space, is actually "hundreds  xof meters" from the proposed LCG tower site. As for endangered species, the record does not demonstrate  xZthat the Lookout Mountain area is the critical habitat for such animals as the Preble's meadow jumping  xmouse, or that such animals even can be found in the Lookout Mountain area. Lookout Mountain is not  S' xincluded on the State of Colorado's list of protection areas for such animals. In addition, with respect to  xhistoric preservation, the record does not establish that the construction of the LCG tower would adversely  xaffect either of the two historic sites cited by CARE. The new LCG tower will immediately replace two  xexisting towers and other towers will be replaced when the conversion to DTV is complete. As such, it  xappears that the LCG tower will have less of an effect on historic sites than the numerous existing tower  xDstructures. Therefore, CARE has not demonstrated, and the record does not establish, that the otherwise  xcategorically excluded location for the proposed LCG tower may have a significant environmental effect  xunder section 1.1307(c), which would necessitate the preparation of an EA by the applicants and further environmental review by the Commission.  S4'  S'C III. CONCLUSION ă  Sl' "27. The foregoing discussion supports our belief that CARE has provided no new evidence that  xwould warrant any further environmental analysis of the Lookout Mountain site with respect to either  xRcompliance with the Commission's RF exposure guidelines or electromagnetic interference or a  x^reconsideration of the conclusions expressed in the OET Letter. Furthermore, the new matters raised by  x@CARE do not demonstrate that the OET Letter was in error as a matter of fact or law. Therefore, we deny CARE's Application for Review.  ST' "y28. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and (j)  xand 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j) and 403, and  xDSection 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, the Application for Review filed by Canyon  xMArea Residents for the Environment IS DENIED and the letter ruling of October 9, 1998, by the Chief of the Office of Engineering Technology IS AFFIRMED. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas  St#'` `  hhCqSecretarypp  *xxX X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: