WPC 2MB RK23|X5-#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOFFootnote;Íčfootnote tex#<'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header=Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference>;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2L?~G@iHA^IBOYKitemizeX1?&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2@I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3AF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!B!!#d\  PCP#2NCrLDLMErMF}PNa2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaEa1Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FF$ 2aQGNHOIPJPa2Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FG/ a3Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FH: a4Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FIE a5Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FJP   2mTKQLGRMSNSa6Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FK[   a7Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FLf  a8Paragraph+%X,1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)%8=(%  H*%FMq Heading7=4@6FChapter Heading=('87=F4*'Ç.7=.EN3  *  ׃  2VOTP5UQpURq9VRight Par5@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EO<@    Subheading@6FSubheading>_' =('87=F7*'Ç.7=.EP.   2*Ç.7=G@6FDocument Style=('87=FG*'Ç.7=.EQ56` ` ` 3*Ç.7=H@6FDocument Style=('87=FH*'Ç.7=.ER7 8 . 2XSeVTeAWUWVp9X4*Ç.7=I@6FDocument Style=('87=FI*'Ç.7=.ES 9: 5*Ç.7=J@6FDocument Style=('87=FJ*'Ç.7=.ET ;< 6*Ç.7=K@6FDocument Style=('87=FK*'Ç.7=.EU*=>   7*Ç.7=L@6FDocument Style=('87=FL*'Ç.7=.EV?@` ` ` 2A[WXXmYYZZZ8*Ç.7=M@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EW8AB@   9*Ç.7=N@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EXACD@` `  ` ` ` 10Ç.7=O@6FDocument Style=('87=FO*'Ç.7=.EY0E F    11Ç.7=P@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EZJGH` ` @  ` `  2]^[s[\ \]\^]12Ç.7=Q@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E[SIJ` `  @  13Ç.7=R@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E\\KL` `  @hh# hhh 14Ç.7=S@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E]eMN` `  hh#@( hh# 15Ç.7=T@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E^nOP` `  hh#(@- ( 2$a_^``_a`b`16Ç.7=U@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E_wQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17Ç.7=V@6FDocument Style=('87=FV*'Ç.7=.E`FST *  ׃  18Ç.7=W@6FTechnical Document Style7=FW*'Ç.7=.Ea&UV  . 19Ç.7=X@6FTechnical Document Style7=FX*'Ç.7=.Eb&WX  . 2ccVadaebfc20Ç.7=Y@6FTechnical Document Style7=FY*'Ç.7=.Ec*YZ    21Ç.7=Z@6FTechnical Document Style7=FZ*'Ç.7=.Ed'[\   22Ç.7=[@6FTechnical Document Style7=F[*'Ç.7=.Ee&]^   23Ç.7=\@6FTechnical Document Style7=F\*'Ç.7=.Ef4_$`     2nfgchdieje24Ç.7=]@6FTechnical Document Style7=F]*'Ç.7=.Eg&ab  . 25Ç.7=^@6FTechnical Document Style7=F^*'Ç.7=.Eh&cd  . Format Downl@6FFormat Downloaded Document=Fc*'Ç.7=.EiUgh XX    X\ #d6X@7@#Word222Null@6FWord222Null_' =('87=Fp*'Ç.7=.Ej1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#2okflZgminxlNormal7=r@6FNormal>_' =('87=Fr*'Ç.7=.Ek1}1~#Xj\  PG;XP##/x PX#HEADING 7t@6FJ>_' =('87=Ft*'Ç.7=.El0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 6v@6Ff>_' =('87=Fv*'Ç.7=.Em0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# HEADING 5w@6F>_' =('87=Fw*'Ç.7=.En0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# 2vo9opqqwbsruHEADING 4x@6F>_' =('87=Fx*'Ç.7=.Eo0 Zwp x (#rr#&n P&P# 4 hp x (##&n P&P# NORMAL INDEN@6F>_' =('87=Fy*'Ç.7=.Ep'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#enumlev1=z@6F>_' =('87=Fz*'Ç.7=.Eq$p  N hp x (#aa#&n P&P#4` hp x (##&n P &P#footnote ref@6Ffootnote reference'87=F{*'Ç.7=.ErR#V\  P!UP#2Gysvt]wuwvxDefault Para@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F}*'Ç.7=.Es((page number@6Fpage number_' =('87=F~*'Ç.7=.Et226Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Eu>4??USlist.7=@6Flist >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Ev>??2|wyyxuzyk{z|endnote refe@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.EwRR#Xj\  P"G;XP##c P#7P#line number@6Fline number_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.ExOO#Xj\  P$G;XP##c P%7P#Highlight@6FMiddle Article Highlight7=F*'Ç.7=.Ey''#G }&Y##\9> (P'YP#Headline=@6FHeadline for newsletter87=F*'Ç.7=.Ez''#> }(Y##\9> (P)YP#2{||}};~~~2nd line Hea@6F2nd line headline'87=F*'Ç.7=.E{''#b> }*Y##\9> (P+YP#Graphics hea@6FHeadlines for graphics87=F*'Ç.7=.E|** #o> P},YP##\9> (P-YP# Graphics bod@6Fchart data _' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E}** #Alo> P}.YXP##\9> (P/YP# Article head@6FHeadline for new article7=F*'Ç.7=.E~*'#r"z0C# #\9> (P1YP# 2ӇZŀZZyendnote text@6Fendnote text' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EYO#X}xP27XP##I2P3QP#toc 17=@6Ftoc 1>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(#`` hp x (#toc 27=@6Ftoc 2>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#`` hp x (#toc 37=@6Ftoc 3>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#` hp x (#2ŏZZ_Ztoc 47=@6Ftoc 4>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E (#` hp x (#toc 57=@6Ftoc 5>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.Eh(#` hp x (#toc 67=@6Ftoc 6>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(# ` hp x (#toc 77=@6Ftoc 7>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E2(2_ZZQZZtoc 87=@6Ftoc 8>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(# ` hp x (#toc 97=@6Ftoc 9>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(#`` hp x (#index 17=@6Findex 1>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#` hp x (#index 27=@6Findex 2>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` (#`` hp x (#2'ZFtoa heading@6Ftoa heading_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E(#` hp x (#caption7=@6Fcaption>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.EYO#X}xP47XP##I2P5QP#_Equation Ca@6F_Equation Caption'87=F*'Ç.7=.EOO#X}xP67XP##I2P7QP#27Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.Eww#X}xP87XP##&sxP97&P#2Y pq-HEADING 9@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P:7P##c P;7P#HEADING 8@6F >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'34 <DL!T$#c P<7P##c P=7P#28Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 29Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  . 2eУe5p-30Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  31Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E  32Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E*   33Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E` ` ` 25ϥa34Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E8@   35Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EA@` `  ` ` ` 36Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E0    37Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.EJ` ` @  ` `  2Qgʩ38Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.ES` `  @  39Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.E\` `  @hh# hhh 40Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 41Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.En` `  hh#(@- ( 2T42Ç.7=@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*'Ç.7=.Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 43Ç.7=@6FDocument Style=('87=F*'Ç.7=.EF *  ׃  44Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 45Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 2J{46Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E*    47Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E'   48Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&   49Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E4$     2+v50Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 51Ç.7=@6FTechnical Document Style7=F*'Ç.7=.E&  . 52Ç.7=@6F: >_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'4 <DL!T$#&n P>&P##&n P?&P#53Ç.7=@6Ffootnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>#V\  P@UP#2!]ݴS54Ç.7=@6FDefault Paragraph Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E55Ç.7=@6Ffootnote text =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ??US56Ç.7=@6Fendnote reference'87=F*'Ç.7=.E>>#Xj\  PAG;XP##B\  PBUP#57Ç.7=@6F_Equation Caption'87=F*'Ç.7=.E;;#XX2PCQXP##I2PDQP#2dS-cHIGHLIGHT 1@6FItalics and Bold('87=F*'Ç.7=.E DRAFT ON=@6FHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*'Ç.7=.E X 8#x6X@E7X@#`] (#EDRAFTă `;(#@D3 1, 4D  ӷDRAFT OFF@6FTurn Draft Style off87=F*'Ç.7=.ED      LETTER LAND@6FLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5F*'Ç.7=.E    '3   2ccxc۽n>LEGAL LAND@6FLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5=F*'Ç.7=.E   'A   LETTER PORT@6FLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11=F*'Ç.7=.E  3'   LEGAL PORT@6FLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 147=F*'Ç.7=.E  A'   TITLE7=@6FTitle of a Document87=F*'Ç.7=.E* ă2޿d_j-BLOCK QUOTE@6FSmall, single-spaced, indented*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 2@6FLarge and Bold=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E HIGHLIGHT 3@6FLarge, Italicized and Underscored*'Ç.7=.E  LETTERHEAD@6FLetterhead - date/margins7=F*'Ç.7=.E!  X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   2I+<<<xINVOICE FEE@6FFee Amount for Math InvoiceF*'Ç.7=.E F, $0  MEMORANDUM@6FMemo Page Format('87=F*'Ç.7=.E   * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP@6FExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E!" ,p, $0INVOICE TOT@6FTotals Invoice for Math Macro*'Ç.7=.E#$ p,p, $02x[g[[INVOICE HEAD@6FHeading Portion of Math Invoice*'Ç.7=.E%&   p,X 9 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@F7X@# XX  *$HHީ  ӧ   XX  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#x6X@G7X@# XX  *$HHީSMALL7=@6FSmall Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'(FINE.7=@6FFine Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E)*LARGE7=@6FLarge Typestyle=('87=F*'Ç.7=.E+,2[[`EXTRA LARGE@6FExtra Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E-.VERY LARGE@6FVery Large Typestyle87=F*'Ç.7=.E/0ENVELOPE=@6FStandard Business Envelope with Header'Ç.7=.E.12 V,  X  , 8 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@H7X@#    `   Style 14=@6FSwiss 8 Pt Without Margins=F*'Ç.7=.E'3'4#Co> PIQP##)a [ PJQ)P#2b dsPStyle 12=@6FDutch Italics 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'5'6#)^ `> XiKQ)X##)a [ PLQ)P#Style 11=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced II*'Ç.7=.EȔ 78#)a [ PMQ)P# dn  #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PNQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiOQ)X#`e%(Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PPQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   xw I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PRQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiSQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  w#)a [ PTQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiUQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 37=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*'Ç.7=.E9:#)a [ PVQ)P# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 47=@6FSwiss 8 Point with Margins=F*'Ç.7=.EG;<#Co> PWQP# dd  #  2#HStyle 17=@6FDutch Roman 11.5 Font87=F*'Ç.7=.E7=>#)a [ PXQ)P# dn Style 27=@6FDutch Italic 11.5'87=F*'Ç.7=.E'?@#)^ `> XiYQ)X#Style 57=@6FDutch Bold 18 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'A'B#T~> pZQTp##)a [ P[Q)P#Style 77=@6FSwiss 11.5>_' =('87=F*'Ç.7=.E'C'D#)ao> P\Q)P##)a [ P]Q)P#2   t "Style 67=@6FDutch Roman 14 Point87=F*'Ç.7=.E'E'F#w [ P^QP##)a [ P_Q)P#Style 10=@6FInitial Codes for Advanced=F*'Ç.7=.EV GH#)a [ P`Q)P# dn   #  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PaQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XibQ)X#`e%)Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PcQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XidQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   u I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PeQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XifQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PgQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XihQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 87=@6FInitial Codes for BeginningF*'Ç.7=.EV IJ#)a [ PiQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9  [  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PjQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XikQ)X#`^e%)Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PlQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XimQ)X#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   v I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PnQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XioQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PpQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiqQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 97=@6FInitial Codes for Intermediate*'Ç.7=.ET KL#)a [ PrQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PsQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XitQ)X#`e%'Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PuQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XivQ)X#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   z I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PwQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XixQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PyQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XizQ)X#   Page ``e%)Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2? djqUpdate7=@6FInitial Codes for Update Module*'Ç.7=.Ee MN#)a [ P{Q)P# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P|Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi}Q)X#`Ye%%Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   }58Ç.7=@6FFormat Downloaded Document=F*'Ç.7=.EUOP XX    #\ #d6X@7@#Bld/Und7=@6FBold and Underline Text87=F*'Ç.7=.EQR  a4Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'YZ25qqqqSqa5Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'[\a6Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*']^a7Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'_`a8Agenda.E+'*Ç.Agenda Items=('87=FGD!*'7=*'ab2g8a159.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8st@   a259.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Auv@` `  ` ` ` a359.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Jwx` ` @  ` `  a459.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'Syz` `  @  2%Ta559.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\{|` `  @hh# hhh a659.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e}~` `  hh#@( hh# a759.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( a859.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2W(a160.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'8@   a260.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'A@` `  ` ` ` a360.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'J` ` @  ` `  a460.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'S` `  @  2"| D!a560.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'\` `  @hh# hhh a660.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'e` `  hh#@( hh# a760.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'n` `  hh#(@- ( a860.E+'*Ç.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers'87=F*'w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2$pG""J##1t >.x(Dt—Document Style >f.RK+P—!t >f—+b56` ` ` a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   a229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  2'$k%"&&a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( 2A+'(I*l*a829f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp NORMAL INDENT ' 4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#footnote referencefootnote reference4#V\  PUP#Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font 2-s+,,g{-footnote textfootnote text US????USendnote referenceendnote reference44#XO\  PUXP##B\  PUP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption11#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#FM7V,,6%TriangleoF4=(g4O7V ,*g4çFM7VE/020..x/0a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  2=K0 K435 KC;"i~'^IVeVVVBVBGGGo鶧V`߶VGVuVoooVGGGV`Goz3zVBuVVVBVVVVVVVGoooooߥoooooVGVGVGVGo|ooooooooooVGVVVVGeVVG߶VVV```jGuoooV`VBT.TWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN[[uVoGQLQLVVooWW[[ЎVoL""i~'^IVVVVBVBGVV`ƧƝƶVGVVooVGVGՎo`Voe8eVBVVVBVVVVVVVGooooo^G^G^G^GoooooooƄƎƓ`G``V`͎ƎGrVeGooo```VoooV`VBTDTWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN[[VLVLVLVVWW[[ЎVL""i~'K2^88Vgg888g8888gggggggggg88V{gux`]{x.]oYxckkgxxxrd888SS8Y`Y`Y<``((Y(````;S<`]]]PSSSg/ggggg8ggggggSgd({Y{Y{Y{Y{YuY`Y`Y`Y`Y.(.(.(.(x`````x`x`x`x`r]{Yxa``r]x`c`{Z{g{ZuZuZugugx{aZggggaZ{a{g{g{g{gxgxg/(gggg/dPggogZ(ZCggZAZ/xaxxaxgagk8HH"&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""rrcBc,j}jrjruBuBuru\u\u\urrIrBrrijrrji~rnXnXnXrrrrurrr~fy=\\===WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\rr=_ffrrsKKrFF\\rF==\\sDDsspp\\\~pp=\\F"\a\4 \==m=\rfs\=s\siwbzpNm\QQ====fsbf\biUpNib3,z\_ffsNiimbmmQsU~bX~i=s~~bf~~==sssssss~~~=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu2\Rtƅ t:^y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P$ }*i88, ips77jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP7nC:,-X {O-ԍ Id. at 89.:  X-x 33.  P24DY The Second Report and Order was adopted by the Commission before the record closed in the Vband rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the Commission could not consider  X-the Vband record in its Second Report and Order. To incorporate that proceeding's record  X-would have required the Commission first to reconsider the Second Report and Order on its own motion, and then to expand the scope of its dominant use determination to include alternatives discussed in a different proceeding. This would not only set aside the Commission's explicitly declared approach to ordering these proceedings, but would presumably " in the view of satellite advocates " entail consideration of other frequency bands to be used for satellite service in conjunction with the 47 GHz band. We conclude that the petitioners are simply wrong to the extent they maintain that we were under some procedural obligation to proceed in the manner they advocate.  X-x!34.  P25XF Aside from these procedural requirements, the argument advanced by petitioners  X -encounters another problem: the VBand Notice itself declared the Commission's intent to resolve the pending 47 GHz frequency band proceeding without waiting for final resolution of"!|>0*&&ss "  X-the overall Vband allocation plan. The VBand Notice, released several weeks before  X-adoption of the Second Report and Order, made clear that the Commission anticipated that service rule proceedings for specific frequency bands would be resolved independently. The Commission concluded that [t]o defer action on other rulemakings, pending the outcome of this proceeding, would cause unnecessary delay in licensing commercial operations throughout  X-the 3651.4 GHz band.]? {O -ԍ VBand Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 10138 (para. 16).] During the period after release of the VBand Plan Notice and  X|-before release of the Second Report and Order, when preparing comments for the Vband proceeding, petitioners were on notice that action in the 47 GHz band proceeding was not  XP-dependent on proposals or comments in the VBand Notice.  X$ -x"35. Petitioners also assert that the Commission's action in the Second Report and  X -Order is no better than its action affecting payphone service providers, which was remanded  X -as arbitrary and capricious in Illinois Public.@ Z {O-ԍ Illinois Public Telecom. Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 555 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Illinois Public). The court in Illinois Public, however, stated that the Commission had failed to respond to or even acknowledge data showing dissimilar  X -costs for different types of payphone calls.:A ~ {O-ԍ Id. at 564.: In the Second Report and Order, in contrast, the Commission considered the arguments of satellite providers and explained, consistent with its broader approach to designation of spectrum, why those arguments are unpersuasive in this instance. The subsequent international actions by WRC97 reinforce our view that, while anticipating the dominant use of spectrum newly made available for commercial use requires judgment, the Commission's decision considered all viewpoints expressed in the record of this proceeding and cannot be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.  X-x#36.  P27KD Petitioners' contentions that the Second Report and Order effectively precludes satellite use of the 47 GHz frequency band, and that the Vband proceeding should consider 47 GHz issues as part of its broader inquiry, thus amount to a call for a different approach  X-than the Commission has explicitly adopted. The VBand Notice disavowed any intent to defer this proceeding. The Commission decided it was not necessary to delay action on the 47 GHz band in order to consider its potential uses in conjunction with other bands under review in the broader proceeding. The relative weight to be accorded innovations in service, domestic competition between providers, and global ( seamless) systems in this individual instance remains to be determined in the licensing rules, and these issues are considered in the  XM-Notice we adopt today. We therefore deny reconsideration of the Second Report and Order to the extent it is sought on the basis of that decision's relation to the Vband proceeding."8A0*&&ssz"  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:P0*&&ssH"  X-imposed.}Q yOy-ԍ Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1983).} Moreover, notice is sufficient where the description of the subjects and issues  X-involved affords interested parties a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking.RX yO-ԍ Transpacific Freight Conference of Japan/Korea v. Federal Maritime Commission, 650 F.2d 1235, 1248  yOL-(D.C. Cir. 1980).ĸ  X-x049. We also reject the claim made by the petitioners that the Commission somehow  X-went beyond the bounds of the Millimeter Wave Notice because it took action in the Second  X-Report and Order that precludes use of satellite technology in the 47 GHz band. The Second  Xz-Report and Order does not have any such effect. The extent to which technical obstacles to spectrum sharing by such technologies may require service rules in the 47 GHz band that could impede the use of one or more technologies has not yet been decided. Further, while we do not regard the initial determinations of license structure as having a preclusive effect,  X -the Millimeter Wave Notice, as noted, also advised parties that both the frequency bands and  X -technical standards proposed might be altered in the final rules.{S B {O-ԍ See, e.g., note  N15JK18 , supra, and accompanying text.{ We conclude that decisions  X -made by the Commission in the Second Report and Order regarding channelization and wide X -area licensing are well within the scope of the notice provided in the Millimeter Wave Notice.  X -x150. P56GA  We emphasize that our primary purpose in making available spectrum in the 47  X-GHz band is to encourage new technologies and services, as announced in the Millimeter  X-Wave Notice. Because these new technologies and services are, in the nature of this evolving process, unproven, we also seek to maintain the maximum flexibility for implementation of alternatives to the anticipated dominant use, whether in the fixed or satellite services. In light  XD-of the declared purposes of the Millimeter Wave Notice, and the consideration of additional spectrum allocations for satellite services in other proceedings, the service rules will, however, be focussed on the development of fixed terrestrial and fixed satellite services generally, and the platform technology more specifically. The feasibility of providing for satellite services in these rules will be considered in the proceeding we initiate today. If the preclusive effects that petitioners are concerned about are realized, they will result from full consideration in that process of different approaches to service rules. The Commission's determination in the  X-Second Report and Order of the likely dominant use does not have that effect.  Xy-  IV. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ă  XK-x251. In this Notice, we propose licensing and operating rules for the 47 GHz band, and we propose that licenses for this band be acquired through competitive bidding under the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules. We also propose to license the 47 GHz band under Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, as modified to reflect the particular characteristics and circumstances of services offered through the use of spectrum in the 47 GHz band. We"fS0*&&ss" seek comment on how Government and nonGovernment licensees can effectively share the 47 GHz band. In addition, in a few instances, we propose that modifications to the Part 27 Rules be made applicable to the 2.3 GHz band. We also propose to modify Part 27 to clarify that the rules contained in Part 27 will apply to both the 2.3 GHz band and the 47 GHz band.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63. Commission and NTIA representatives currently are engaged in discussions to determine the best means to balance the needs of Government and commercial users in these  Xi-and other millimeter wave bands. Those discussions have centered on three approaches.Gdi {O6"-ԍ Id. at 10140 (para. 19).G One approach involves allocating parts of the spectrum for exclusive nonGovernment use and allocating other parts for exclusive Government use. Although the Commission has identified these bands for nonGovernment use under the Part 27 Rules, one option may be to designate"$d0*&&ss" this, or other similar bands, for exclusive Government use. In exchange, other bands would be designated for exclusive commercial use.  X-x?64. A second approach the Commission is exploring with NTIA involves partitioned geographic exclusivity. In some cases, Government use is confined to a definable  X-geographic area.e yO-ԍ An example of such a case would be geographic areas in the vicinity of military installations. In any wireless band where such operations exist, those areas could be identified and carved out of auctionable markets. In this case, after licensing spectrum in the 47 GHz band pursuant to the Part 27 Rules, future Government spectrum requirements would be met in other bands designated for Government use.  X -x@65. A third approach involves granting the nonGovernment licensee exclusive rights for nonGovernment use in a certain band and geographic area. However, current Government operations and requests by the Government for future frequency assignments would be handled as they are now. This approach, however, could reduce the amount of spectrum in a given area that will be available for future use in a block licensed to a nonGovernment entity and could cause problems with planning and financing of buildout, and with the auctioning of licenses.  Xb-xA66. We seek comment on the possibilities for sharing between Government and commercial wireless users on frequencies in the 47 GHz band. We seek comment on whether it is desirable " from public interest, technical, and administrative perspectives " to explore options that would permit exclusive nonGovernment use in portions of this spectrum and provide Government users geographic exclusivity in other spectrum. We also seek comment regarding the best means to balance Government and nonGovernment access to this spectrum. For example, we anticipate that agreements may be negotiated between commercial and Government users that could result in protected Government use of frequencies under a wireless operator's control, or in Government operational requirements being met through the  X-commercial operator.fX yO.-ԍ Regardless of how Government and commercial spectrum access is balanced, it is possible that some commercial operators may be required to share that spectrum with Government users. Finally, we seek comment regarding whether it is feasible or possible to establish technical sharing rules that would allow sharing between Government and commercial licensees without significantly reducing the amount of spectrum available for commercial use or limiting flexibility regarding the types of commercial services that may be provided."7Bf0*&&ss{"  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:z yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.12.> would apply to 47 GHz applicants. Thus, a 47 GHz applicant requesting authorization only for noncommon carrier services would be subject to Section 310(a) but not to the additional prohibitions of Section 310(b). A 47 GHz applicant requesting authorization for common carrier services (or for both common carrier and noncommon carrier services) would be subject to both Section 310(a) and Section 310(b).  X -xN79.ؠ In the filing of an application under the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), satellite, and LMDS rules, the Commission requires any applicant electing noncommon carrier status to submit the same information that common carrier applicants submit to address  X -the alien ownership restrictions under Section 310(b) of the Act.U{  {O$-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  310(b). See Revisions to Part 21 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Multipoint  {O-Distribution Service, 2 FCC Rcd 4251, 4253 (para. 16) (1987) (MDS Report and Order); Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, IB Docket No. 95117,  {O-Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 21581, 21599 (para. 43) (1996) (Satellite Rules Report and Order); LMDS  {OJ-Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1265051 (para. 243).U We propose that the same approach be followed with respect to 47 GHz applicants. Under our proposal to permit licensees to change status with a minimum of regulatory oversight, updated information can be used whenever the licensee changes to common carrier status without imposing an additional filing requirement when the licensee makes the change.  XK-xO80. P69PS נ Like common carriers, noncommon carriers, under our proposal, would be required to file the information whenever there are changes to the foreign ownership information. We would not disqualify the applicant requesting authorization exclusively to provide noncommon carrier services from a license if its citizenship information reflects that it would otherwise be disqualified from a common carrier license. As the Commission stated  X-in the Satellite Rules Report and Order and in the LMDS Second Report and Order, the Commission is requiring noncommon carriers to address all the alien ownership prohibitions to better enable the Commission to monitor all of the licensed providers in light of their  X-ability to provide both common and noncommon carrier services.|V  {O.#-ԍ Satellite Rules Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21599 (para. 43); LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12651 (para. 243). We request comment on this proposal. "i B |0*&&ss"Ԍ X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-ԍ Millimeter Wave Notice, 9 FCC Rcd at 708889 (para. 24). MTAs are defined in the Rand McNally 1992  {O-Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, pages 3639. As defined by Rand McNally, there are 47 MTAs. In addition, for licensing purposes, the Commission has separated Alaska from the Seattle MTA and licensed it as a separate MTAlike area. The Commission has also separately licensed the following three MTAlike regions: (1) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands; (2) Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands; and (3) American Samoa. In total, therefore, the Commission has recognized 51 MTAs and MTAlike areas. The Commission stated that in the millimeter wave bands it was proposing to allow a broad range of uses and technologies, some of which might require large  XO-service areas.FO {O-ԍ Id. at 7088 (para. 24).F The Commission indicated that large service areas would facilitate the setting of technical standards, reduce coordination requirements between adjoining licensees, and produce larger economies of scale, which could be especially important during the initiation  X -of new services.2   {O-ԍ Id.2  X-xR83.ؠ Since the Millimeter Wave Notice was issued, the Commission has licensed the C and D frequency blocks of the 2.3 GHz band on the basis of the 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs) and the A and B frequency blocks using the 52 Major Economic Areas  X-(MEAs).v  yO$-ԍ Sections 27.5, 27.6 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  27.5, 27.6.v REAGs and MEAs are based on the U.S. Department of Commerce's 172"! 0*&&ssQ"  X-Economic Areas (EAs), as modified by the Commission.h {Oy-ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10814 (para. 54).h EAs are defined by the Department of Commerce and do not raise copyright issues associated with commercially  X-defined geographic areas.` Z yOo-ԍ In its comments, Rand McNally, the copyright owner to MTA and BTA listings, states that the Commission may not make MTAs or BTAs the geographic boundaries for 47 GHz services without its consent, and until an applicable license from Rand McNally has been obtained. Rand McNally Comments (Jan. 30, 1995) at 56.` The Commission created REAGs by aggregating EAs in the continental United States into six superregional licenses and by creating six additional regions to cover Alaska, Hawaii, three U.S. possessions, and the Gulf of Mexico.  Xv-xS84. In choosing to license part of the 2.3 GHz band using REAGs, the Commission noted that the use of larger service areas would: (1) encourage the rapid development and deployment of innovative service; (2) facilitate interoperability and the setting of standards; and (3) allow for economies of scale that will encourage the development of low cost  X -equipment.h  {O1-ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10814 (para. 55).h The Commission also stated that the use of REAGs would facilitate the  X -aggregation of service areas and speed implementation of new services.G  {O>-ԍ Id. at 10815 (para. 55).G Furthermore, the Commission stated that the use of larger service areas would speed and simplify the process of interference coordination along geographic boundaries, as well as minimize transaction costs and disputes arising from interference, and facilitate implementation of services that  X -would require easy interoperability. G  {O-ԍ Id. at 10815 (para. 56).G  Xy-xT85. We propose to license the 47 GHz band using the 12 REAG service areas adopted for the C and D frequency blocks for the 2.3 GHz band, and not the MTAs proposed in the  XK-Millimeter Wave Notice.K@  {O-ԍ See Appendix B, Proposed Section 27.11(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  27.11(b)(2). We tentatively conclude that the same reasoning used to adopt the REAG approach for the C and D frequency blocks for the 2.3 GHz band supports the use of REAGs as the geographic basis for licensing the 47 GHz band. By being larger than MTAs, REAGs permit more flexibility, allow for greater economies of scale, and permit more rapid introduction of new and innovative services. In addition, regional licenses should accommodate the stratospheric uses of the band for placement of platforms to provide the  X-pointtomultipoint service proposed by Sky Station.kXd  yOj"-ԍ For its stratospheric service, Sky Station supports licensing at least some of the 47 GHz spectrum on a national basis or, alternatively, superregional licenses consisting of clusters of MTAs, as the Commission did for narrowband PCS. Sky Station Further Comments to Petition for Rulemaking (Dec. 24, 1996) at 6.k We also note that the use of REAGs  X-is not inconsistent with the reasoning advanced by the Commission in the Millimeter Wave"" 0*&&ss"  X-Notice for the use of MTAs. We seek comment on our proposal to use REAGs rather than MTAs as the basis for licensing the 47 GHz band.  X-xU86. We recognize that the Commission has licensed other wireless services using other types of service areas. For instance, broadband PCS is licensed using MTAs and Basic  X-Trading Areas (BTAs).i yO-ԍ Section 24.202 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  24.202.i Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service in the 800 MHz band is  Xx-licensed based on EAs and 900 SMR service is licensed based on MTAs.xX yO -ԍ Sections 90.661 and 90.681 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  90.661, 90.681. Cellular service was initially licensed using Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas. Potential 47 GHz licensees may feel that REAGs are too large. Various commenters  X3-responding to the Millimeter Wave Notice propose smaller license areas, such as BTAs or MSAs because the large size of MTAs would, in their view, place unduly burdensome facility  X -buildout requirements on licensees. z {O-ԍ See Clarendon Foundation Comments (Jan. 30, 1995) at 5; GHz Equipment Co., Inc., Comments (Jan. 30, 1995) at 9; Troy State University Montgomery Comments (Jan. 31, 1995) at 2. Other commenters state that, for narrowband applications, smaller areas such as BTAs would be appropriate, while MTAs are adequate for  X -broadband. f yO-ԍ Pacific Bell Mobile Services and Telesis Technologies Laboratory Comments (Jan. 30, 1995) at 3. We seek comment on whether one or more of these smaller service areas should be used for licensing all or part of the 47 GHz band and whether the use of multiple licensing areas might affect service flexibility.  X}-xV87. Under our proposed approach, REAGs could be aggregated into national licenses,  Xf-and they could also be partitioned.Xf {O1-ԍ See para.  P86GZ95 , infra.X The aggregation and partitioning rules we propose in this Notice will allow licensees the flexibility to tailor operational areas to the needs of users. In addition, permitting licenses to be aggregated should enhance the feasibility of utilizing the  X!-47 GHz spectrum for satellite services.! yO-ԍ In its comments, Motorola states that an MTAbyMTA licensing scheme makes no sense for satellite services. Motorola Reply Comments (Mar. 1, 1995) at 5. Along these same lines, we seek comment on whether one or more of the 100 megahertz channel blocks should be licensed on a national basis. In this manner, licensees wishing to offer a nationwide service would not have to aggregate individual licenses. This approach should save time, money, and other resources, and also expedite the development and offering of services.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:!-ԍ Id., citing Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated filing Areas in the 896901 MHz and the 935940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool ! Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93252, Third Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 1170 (para. 2) (1995). Although licensees will have incentives to construct facilities to meet the service demands in their licensed service area, we tentatively conclude that the minimum requirements we propose for these bands will promote"g% 0*&&ss" efficient use of the spectrum, encourage the provision of service to rural, remote, and insular areas, and prevent the warehousing of spectrum.  X-x\93. We believe that these buildout provisions fulfill our obligations under Section  X-309(j)(4)(B). {O-ԍ Id. at 1084445 (paras. 114115), citing 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(B); see also Melcher v. FCC, Case Nos.  {O-931110, et al. (D.C.Cir., Feb. 6, 1998). We also believe that the auction rules that we propose to apply to these services, together with the service rules that we are proposing and our overall competition and universal service policies, constitute effective safeguards and performance requirements for licensing this spectrum. Because a license would be assigned in the first instance through competitive bidding, it will be assigned efficiently to a firm that has shown by its willingness to pay market value its intention to put the license to use. We also believe that, combined with the universal service policies of the 1996 Act, service to rural areas will be promoted by our proposal to allow partitioning and disaggregation of spectrum and by our proposal, as outlined below, to permit parties to disaggregation and partitioning agreements to negotiate  X -between themselves the responsibility for meeting the applicable construction requirements.j $ {O<-ԍ See paras.  95AB98 ש 97AB100 , infra.j  X -x]94. Finally, we intend to reserve the right to review our construction requirements in the future if we receive complaints related to Section 309(j)(4)(B), or if our own monitoring initiatives or investigations indicate that a reassessment is warranted because spectrum is being warehoused or otherwise is not being used despite demand. We also will reserve the right to impose additional, more stringent construction requirements on Part 27 licenses in the future in the event of actual anticompetitive or rural service problems and if more stringent construction requirements can effectively ameliorate those problems. We solicit comment on these proposals and views regarding performance requirements.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.15.> permits licensees seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation arrangements to request from the Commission authorization for partial assignment of a license, and provides that licensees may apply to partition their licensed geographic service area or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following  X_-the grant of their licenses._ {Ox -ԍ See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1083639 (paras. 96103), adopting 47 C.F.R.  27.15. In adopting the rule, the Commission decided to permit geographic partitioning of any service area defined by the partitioner and partitionee, to permit spectrum disaggregation without restriction on the amount of spectrum to be  X -disaggregated, and to permit combined partitioning and disaggregation.  {OW-ԍ Id. at 1083637, 10839 (paras. 9799, 102), citing Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 2184748 (paras. 2324). The Commission concluded that allowing parties to decide without restriction the exact amount of spectrum to be disaggregated will encourage more efficient use of the spectrum and permit the deployment of a broader mix of service offerings, both of which will lead to a more competitive wireless  X -marketplace.H  {O-ԍ Id. at 10836 (para. 97).H We propose that licensees in the 47 GHz band be eligible to the same extent to partition service areas and disaggregate spectrum. We request comment on this proposal, and specifically what limits, if any, should be placed on the ability of licensees to partition and disaggregate.  XK-x`97. In adopting Section 27.15, the Commission established the requirement that, to partition, the licensee must include with its request a description of the partitioned service area and a calculation of the population of the partitioned service area and the licensed  X-geographic service area.m  {OS-ԍ Id. at 10837 (para. 98), adopting 47 C.F.R.  27.15(b)(1).m The Commission also adopted provisions against unjust enrichment to address situations where a Part 27 licensee who received a bidding credit partitions a section of its service area or disaggregates a portion of its spectrum to an entity  X-that would not qualify for a similar bidding credit..  {O2#-ԍ Id. at 1083839 (para. 101), adopting 47 C.F.R.  27.15(c)(1)(2); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.2111. We propose to adopt these provisions, as well as the remaining provisions governing partitioning and disaggregation in Section 27.15, for licensees in the 47 GHz band. "|'R 0*&&ssn"Ԍ X-xa98. 95AB  We also propose to adopt for 47 GHz licensees the methods that the Commission  X-adopted in the Part 27 Report and Order for parties to partitioning, disaggregation, or combined partitioning and disaggregation agreements to meet construction buildout  X-requirements, and to codify these methods for 2.3 GHz licensees.& {O6-ԍ Id. at 10836 (para. 96) ( We also conclude that the specific rules pertaining to partitioning and  {O-disaggregation in WT Docket No. 96148 shall apply to WCS licensees.); see also Partitioning and  {O-Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 21857, 21865 (paras. 42, 6263); LMDS Rulemaking, Fourth Report and Order, FCC 9877, paras. 1619 (released May 6, 1998). Specifically, we propose to allow parties to partitioning agreements to choose between two options for satisfying the  X-construction requirements. {O -ԍ See Appendix B, Proposed Section 27.15(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  27.15(e)(1). Under the first option, the partitioner and partitionee would each certify that it will independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its respective partitioned area. If a licensee fails to meet its substantial service requirement during the relevant license term, the nonperforming licensee's authorization would be subject to cancellation at the end of the license term. Under the second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet the substantial service requirement for the entire market. If the partitioner fails to meet the substantial service standard during the relevant license term, however, only its license would be subject to cancellation at the end of the license term. The partitionee's license would not be affected by that failure.  X -xb99. Our proposal to offer two options to partitioning parties is based on our belief that Part 27 licensees may be motivated to enter into partitioning arrangements for different reasons and under various circumstances. For example, a Part 27 licensee might be motivated to partition its license in order to reduce its construction costs. In that case, the original licensee would have less population to cover in order to meet its substantial service requirement. Thus, it may find the first option most attractive for its purposes. Under another scenario, a Part 27 licensee that has met or is close to meeting its substantial service requirement may be approached by another entity interested in serving a niche market in a portion of the service area. Under these circumstances, the second option may seem most attractive to the parties.  X-xc100. 97AB  Similarly, we propose to allow parties to disaggregation agreements to choose  X-between two options for satisfying the construction requirements. {O-ԍ See Appendix B, Proposed Section 27.15(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  27.15(e)(2). Under the first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee would certify that they each will share responsibility for meeting the substantial service requirement for the geographic service area. If parties choose this option, both parties' performance will be evaluated at the end of the relevant license term and both licenses could be subject to cancellation. The second option would allow the parties to agree that either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee would be responsible for meeting the substantial service requirement for the geographic service area. If parties choose this" (0*&&ss[" option, and the party responsible for meeting the construction requirement fails to do so, only the license of the nonperforming party would be subject to cancellation.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:M| yO -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  26.55.> In Section 27.55 of the Commission's Rules, the Commission adopted a field strength limit of 47 dBuV/m for  X-licensees in the 2.3 GHz band. {O-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.55; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10864 (para. 159). If we were to extrapolate from the maximum field strengths  X-prescribed for PCS, GWCS, and the 2.3 GHz band to reflect the different frequency,  yO -ԍ These field strength limits were derived by using formula (7) contained in FCC Report No. R6406 (issued June 4, 1964) (the Carey Report). The 47 dBuV/m for PCS at 1900 MHz assumed a required receiver input power of 123.5 dBw. This same required receiver input power was then used in the formula to calculate the field strengths for these three bands. we would obtain a value of 75 dBuV/M for the 47 GHz band. As stated earlier, however, we are concerned that a limit calculated in this manner may not be optimum for the 47 GHz band in view of the frequencies involved and the nature of the services that we expect will be provided. Therefore, commenters who support a boundary limit should propose a specific value and explain the method they used in deriving it.  Xg-x129. P128EM  Finally, Section 27.64 of the Commission's Rules>g<  yO$-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.64.> states generally that Part 27 stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and"P2^ 0*&&ss" conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be noninterfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice and hearing, to require modifications to eliminate significant interference. In view of the variety of services that might be provided by Part 27 licensees, including services in the 47 GHz band, we solicit comment on whether we should retain this rule. We seek comment, for example, regarding whether interference protection can be guaranteed and whether this rule, if retained, should be changed to direct adjacent service area licensees to cooperate to eliminate or ameliorate interference. This alternative would require each licensee ultimately to assume responsibility for protecting its own receiving system from interference from transmitters in adjoining areas that meet our standards. We also seek comment on whether we should apply any changes with respect to  X -Section 27.64 to the 2.3 GHz band.x  {O -ԍ Cf. 47 C.F.R.  22.352, which governs predominantly mobile operations.x  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Z yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.53.> for the 2.3 GHz band.z\| {O-ԍ See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1085457 (paras. 136144). The Commission was required to adopt a more stringent level of attenuation in order to adequately protect satellite Digital Audio Radio Service  {On-reception, among other concerns, from WCS transmissions.  Id. at 10855 (para. 138).z We tentatively conclude that, unlike the situation in the 2.3 GHz band, there is insufficient likelihood for adjacent channel interference from operations in the 47 GHz band that would require different rules for different categories of service.  X-x131. P116TB  We propose to require licensees in the 47 GHz band to attenuate the power below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) or 80 decibels, whichever is less,  X|-for any emission on all frequencies outside the licensee's authorized channel.|2 {O -ԍ See Appendix B, Proposed Section 27.53(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  27.53(c). The Commission adopted this level in Section 27.53 for certain Part 27 operations, noting that this attenuation is commonly employed in other services and that it has been found to adequately  X7-prevent adjacent channel interference as a general matter.7V {O$-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.53(a)(3); see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10857 (para. 144), citing 47 C.F.R.  22.359(iii), 22.917(e), 24.238. We request comment on this"73B 0*&&ss" proposal and any other emission limits that commenters believe are appropriate, including the possibility of establishing an absolute power limit. We seek comment in particular on whether this proposed standard is appropriate in the context of the services likely to evolve in the 47 GHz band and, if not, what standard should be adopted. We also note that the specifications for standards will be especially important if power levels are adopted for each of the permitted services and these power levels are orders of magnitude different.  X_-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:1 yO -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.52.> subjects licensees and manufacturers to the RF radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission's Rules, which list the services and devices for which an environmental  X -evaluation must be performed. X {O-ԍ See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 1086162 (paras. 153154), citing 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093. The RF radiation exposure limits are set forth in 47 C.F.R.  1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093, as modified in Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 9362, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996); First Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17512  {O-(1997); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997) (RF Guidelines Second  {Os-Reconsideration Order). In adopting the rule, the Commission concluded that routine environmental evaluations for RF exposure are required by applicants desiring to use the following types of transmitters: (1) fixed operations, including base stations and radiolocation transmitters, when the effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than 1,000 watts; (2) all portable devices; and (3) mobile devices, if the ERP of the station, in its normal  Xy-configuration, will be 1.5 watts or greater.(yh {O$-ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10861 (para. 154 n.344), noting that 1,000 watts ERP equates  {O-to 1,640 watts EIRP. In the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission increased the  {O-exclusion threshold for mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts EIRP. RF Guidelines  {O-Second Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13514 (para. 51). N463V   XK-x133. With regard to RF safety requirements, we propose to treat services and devices in the 47 GHz band in a comparable manner to other services and devices that have similar operating characteristics. We tentatively conclude that the requirements in Section 27.52 that the Commission adopted for licensees in the 2.3 GHz band will apply to the same extent to licensees in the 47 GHz band. As the Commission has previously stated, the Commission is providing guidance on acceptable methods of evaluating compliance with the Commission's  X-exposure limits in OET Bulletin 65, which has replaced OST Bulletin No. 65.m"  {O"-ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10862 (para. 154 n.346). OET Bulletin No. 65 (Edition 9701) was issued on August 25, 1997. It is available for downloading at the FCC Web Site: www.fcc.gov/ oet/rfsafety. Copies of OET Bulletin No. 65 also may be obtained by calling the FCC RF Safety Line at (202) 4182464.m"4f0*&&ssS"Ԍ X-ԙx134. The Commission adopted the 1,000 watts ERP threshold for 2.3 GHz because of the flexibility with respect to use, power, location, and other factors, and determined that this power limit was appropriate to ensure compliance with the Commission's RF exposure  X-standards for most situations.& {O4-ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10862 (para. 154 n.345), noting that, in a pending petition for  {O-reconsideration of the RF Guidelines Report and Order, the Commission was considering whether to revise the threshold for requiring routine evaluation of mobile devices above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts. This  {O-change was made in the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order. Moreover, the Commission found the 1,000 watts ERP threshold consistent with its existing rules for transmitters and devices of comparable use and similar operating frequencies. For the same reasons, we propose to adopt the 1,000 watts ERP threshold for operations in 47 GHz band. Consistent with the modifications the Commission adopted for the 2.3 GHz band, we also propose to modify Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission's Rules to include services and devices applicable to the 47 GHz band. We invite comment on our proposals and any alternatives.  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  27.61.> should be applied to such stations.t X {O -ԍ Part 27 Report and Order, Appendix B, adopting 47 C.F.R.  27.61.t  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: 0*&&ss" licensees the greatest flexibility. Thus, in addition to our proposal to adopt the general small business standard the Commission used in the case of broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, and 39 GHz licenses, we propose to adopt the definition for very small businesses used for 39 GHz licenses and for the PCS F Block licenses: businesses with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of $15 million.  Xv-x150. We seek comment on the use of these standards for services licensed in the 47 GHz band, with particular focus on the appropriate definitions of small and very small businesses as they relate to the size of the geographic area to be covered and the spectrum allocated to each license. In discussing these issues, commenters are requested to address the expected capital requirements for services in the 47 GHz band. Commenters are invited to use comparisons with other services for which the Commission has already established auction procedures as a basis for their comments regarding the appropriate definitions for small and very small businesses. We also seek comment on whether the proposed designated entity provisions, if adopted and applied to this service, would be sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned by minorities and by women, and participation by rural telephone companies. To the extent that commenters propose additional provisions to ensure participation by minorityowned and womenowned businesses, we also invite them to address  Xb-how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of judicial review.b {O-ԍ See Adarand Constructors v. Pe9a, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); United States v. Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264 (1996).  X4-x151. In all other respects, we propose to apply the competitive bidding procedures  X-that the Commission adopted in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, subject to any  X-modifications the Commission adopts in response to the Second Further Notice of Proposed  X-Rule Making.wZ {O-ԍ See Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 386409 (paras. 1357).w  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:& {O #-ԍ See Appendix A.> We request written public comment on the analysis. In order to fulfill the mandate of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 regarding the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we ask a number of questions in our IRFA regarding the prevalence of small businesses in the affected industries.":0*&&ss;"Ԍ X-ԙx153. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this rulemaking proceeding, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the RFA.  X_-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet EMail. To obtain filing instructions for EMail comments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, get form  g q X-LE#&VxPQG&P#A؃g1p` P @ 0 p`P@0  !"#$%p&`'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO0-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603(a).> In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries  X -thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.6  {O;-ԍ See id.6  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:010*m(m(ss["  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: