WPC_ 2a BKf Z CG Times3|m2'=9Xw PE37XP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~dddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhddCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 5LHPLAS5L.PRS5Xw PE37\\"QXP2  Z  3|m2'HP LaserJet 5LHPLAS5L.PRS5C\  P6Q\\"QP S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;&P##&I\  P6Q&P#2vGpk-ka8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2^5vtPa2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2;  3  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 m,a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2&Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 24a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2%T3 !a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. 2,%)&*'Xl+(1+DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2(1)1'-*1X.+1/,n0LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ă23-XZ1.1/i320d2FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. 2-81j23233E54-7HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u 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   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2<58_86897:8Xp<INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle82f>9[<:[U=;[=<[ >SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<2WA=[>>>?pv@@q@VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1X.W Pn6ODocument Style=(&LW PH*&F.W \E?mn` ` ` 2X.W Qn6ODocument Style=(&LW QH*&F.W \E@o p . 2VCAeABeACSBDpB3X.W Rn6ODocument Style=(&LW RH*&F.W \EA qr 4X.W Sn6ODocument Style=(&LW SH*&F.W \EB st 5X.W Tn6ODocument Style=(&LW TH*&F.W \EC*uv   6X.W Un6ODocument Style=(&LW UH*&F.W \EDwx` ` ` 2EECFDGDHJE7X.W Vn6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EE8yz@   8X.W Wn6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EFA{|@` `  ` ` ` 9X.W Xn6ODocument Style=(&LW XH*&F.W \EG0} ~    10.W Yn6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EHJ` ` @  ` `  2 II FJFKGLBH11.W Zn6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EIS` `  @  12.W [n6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EJ\` `  @hh# hhh 13.W \n6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \EKe` `  hh#@( hh# 14.W ]n6ORight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersH*&F.W \ELn` `  hh#(@- ( 2KM=(&H*&F^8@   a228\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&F_A@` `  ` ` ` a328\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&F`J` ` @  ` `  2Hba^_b `c`daa428\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&FaS` `  @  a528\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&Fb\` `  @hh# hhh a628\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&Fce` `  hh#@( hh# a728\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&Fdn` `  hh#(@- ( 2dezbfpKcgqche,da828\E+&X.Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%>=(&H*&Few` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gf` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gg  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gh  2fiedj(ekpel+fDocument[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gi  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gj*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gk  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gl8 @  2pimfngohphRight Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gmA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gn0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O goJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gpS` ` `  @  2lqirXjsktkRight Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gq\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gre` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gsn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gtw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 2Boulvmw!nxnDocument[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O guF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gv&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gw&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gx*%&    2qytoz p{p|MqTechnical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gy''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gz&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g{4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g|&-.  . 2Nt}r~rrJssTechnical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g}&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Document~iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2Agendaa1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. 2{rttu2va3AgendaStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )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 2S~lC{|K}|}Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ 2l~%eStyle 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 2RStyle 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&Öpa21I.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 2eXߙa61I.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  2vqcdkϜReport 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#2ןmerNotesTrianglee 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 #  `  footnote reference# 2o lxlPfootnote text%Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font _Equation Caption_Equation Caption endnote referenceendnote reference44#Xx6X@DQX@##Xv6X@CX@#2B`~toc 1toc 1` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2 v(toc 5toc 5` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2f *Htoc 9toc 9` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2vlz captioncaption _Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` 2ټ}*a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.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# 28ѿbjla72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC 2j($$NORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpн` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly 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 (#2*lHjlT 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\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\: 24~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\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 (#2fl:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH Default Para,6%Default Paragraph FontO7V -*g4çFM7VE;1;2#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#2%2@toa heading,6%toa heading4=(g4O7V 9*g4çFM7VEIJ!(# ` hp x (#_Equation Ca,6%_Equation Captiong4O7V ;*g4çFM7VE;M;N#Xx6X@QX@##d6X@Q@#25wE~wKin6bTechnical Document StylewK@iH*G>FwE~wK\E&  . a127\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F8@   2WCa227\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FA@` `  ` ` ` a327\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FJa427\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>FS` `  @  a527\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>F\` `  @hh# hhh 2+va627\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fe` `  hh#@( hh# a727\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fn` `  hh#(@- ( a827\E+G>XwE~Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>>=(G>$H*G>Fw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp heading 4heading 4 2v+vvvheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2/v5}*endnote textendnote text head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` 2a;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 a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   2!da7Paragraph 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#NORMAL INDENDt—7!wB( >f`RK+P—!t >f—+b'4 <DL!T$#&n P&P##&n P&P#2Uw0v=enumlev1x(Dt—7!wB( >faRK+P—!t >f—+b$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—+b26 >fx(Dt—footnote text >ffRK+P—!t >f—+b* ??US2Q list>gendnote 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$7P#Highlightx(Dt—Middle Article HighlightlRK+P—!t >f—+b''#G x}'Y##\9> (P(YP#2'){Headlinex(Dt—Headline for newsletterfoRK+P—!t >f—+b''#> p})Y##\9> (P*YP#2nd line HeaDt—2nd line headline >fqRK+P—!t >f—+b''#b> p}+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics heaDt—Headlines for graphics>frRK+P—!t >f—+b** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# Graphics bodDt—chart data ( >ftRK+P—!t >f—+b** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# 2@YArticle headDt—Headline for new articlevRK+P—!t >f—+b*'#r"zp1C# #\9> (P2YP# 27 >x(Dt—Default Paragraph Font>fRK+P—!t >f—+bOO#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#HEADING 9x(Dt— 7!wB( >fRK+P—!t >f—+b'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#a129f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P8@   2raa229f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PA@` `  ` ` ` a329f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PJ` ` @  ` `  a429f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+PS` `  @  a529f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+P\` `  @hh# hhh 2k J <\a629f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pe` `  hh#@( hh# a729f—+b—!tRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberswH(RK+Pn` `  hh#(@- ( CG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicCG Times Bold Italic?x/c81,6c PE37P@3m=6,&m PE37&P.A2p=6, W&p_ pi7&.By.f81, f_ pi7C1k=6,Wp&k&_ x7&X DOA%!,zJA PE37JPEH<!,7,< PE37,PFz-b81,Ǝb&_ x7XG8wC;,WXw PE37XPl/m=6,'o&m*0 x]7&2+ f af -&"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSSz]SSuSg/gz\fgffg\yQzQyQfz\ff\z\\}=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\nn\\\sff=i\@"\i\\==n=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XznNm\\\====nzfnfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qnn\n\\zQQznfnnnzG\nQnnnn==\\\\\\\n=n\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8S]J]J;S].8].]S]]JA8]SxSSJSSSSSSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SS]SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSddSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔S88xdxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxodxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxdo]d]oJoAoJJxJA.Jo]]xJoSJxddSdSSoJxJodx]dddxoASxxdJdddd88SSSSxSSSxxxd8dSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k2Hf #,7M=C",tB^ f ^6=X\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\nnzni=Qzfznn\fnnff===\\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QzQQFQ\Q\\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3n\n\n\n\n\zzQnQnQnQnQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQn\\\\fQ\n\n\n\n\yQyQz\z\nnQn\n\nQ\\\\\\\>3\\\\\\\z\g3gBf\g3g3y\ny\z\\\znFnFn\\F\F\F\\gBg3f\\\\\\zf\gFgFgF\f\z\\\f\f\n=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\UU\\\\\\@\\\\@==\\\33\\nn\\\b\\=\\@"\[\\==n=\n\f\z\=\Q\iuUznNm\QQ====nnnfnfzQnFfQ\Q=3zQzffzQz\Qnn\n\\fQfQznnfnnnnn=\ffnQnnnn==\\\\n\\\fffn=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'K2^!%377bV%%%7b%%%%7777777777%%nbn1bOEKQEAOQ%+MEdQO?OI;EQOhOOG%%%77%17171%777V7777)+77O771171n777777%777777777O1O1O1O1O1bIK1E1E1E1E1%%%%Q7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7Q7Q7O7O1Q7O7O7O7Q7?7O0O7O0K0K0K7K7QBD0E7E7D0O7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7%7777P=77M7DD(E7DDQ7@Q7Q7O7O7bOI(I(I7;*;*;*;7D(DE7Q7Q7Q7Q7Q7hOO7F0F0F0Q7E7Q7;7E7O7B%77%%%WnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNOOO777%1--77a777bb7'7777b'%%997bnn77BBTn7n7O7AZZ==b%97h'"nnnnOOnnn7Onn9OObbnnn7bbnnnb7%%nnnnnOBnbOOOOOOOOOO%n7O7=7bnOnI7%7O17?OVGnnOOOOOOOOOOnnnnn3nOOOOnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnOOnnnnnnZIBVnOnnn/AOOOOnnnnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOOBE=B=I1E+G1Q7O1%M1I=d=Q1I7O1OB?7B77E1O1IBO=VBBBOEQ%7OOOB1BBBB%%7777OQ777OOOB%?71%nnr}c3wc}}yMMc>Bwgwgcccccc@XKKgg;;c\\\{I\waaIZQQOMXacccujygggpeyuVrQjQcccc3Qlc@uuccc;;ccccccccccccccccccccccnnnnnnnn#3#cccccj3cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrnnnnnnnnnnXXccccccllccVVVVuuccaaaaccZZuZVVVV5*FVcc"i~'K2^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H2H,D,D,E2E2J<>,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22<X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:- d(#8"the Goodman/Chan Order. Finally, we address certain issues relating to certain General Category SMR  T - d(#u!Licenses. By dismissing the outstanding pleadings filed against the Goodman/Chan Order, dismissing" +'',,\"  d(#G"the Receiver's December 1 Petition for Reconsideration of the November 20 Staff Letter and addressing  T- d(#W!these other issues, this Order removes the impediments to implementing the relief the Goodman/Chan  T-Order granted.   S6-G II. BACKGROUND Đ\  S- A.Rules Governing General Category Licensing (1) Construction and Loading Requirements  T-  2.` ` At the time the licenses at issue in this Order were granted, applications for General  T- d(#!Category SMR Licenses were processed in order of receipt, with no possibility of mutual exclusivity.NB xP9 -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.611 (1993).N  d(#t"Our rules provided for geographic service areas based upon the location of each licensed transmitter and  Tk - d(#f!required licensees of single channel ("conventional") systems%"k XB xPc- v /ԍA conventional system usually has a single channel (a frequency or frequency pair), but may be authorized  d(#[to operate on more than one channel. A conventional system user consciously chooses the channel on which to  d(#transmit and manually selects that channel. Trunking in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services for More Effective  zP-and Efficient Use of the Spectrum, PR Docket 87213, Report & Order, 5 FCC Rcd. 4016 (1990).% to construct and place their facilities in  T8 - d(#v operation no later than eight months from the date of the license grant.8 BB xP-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#47 C.F.R.  90.633(c) (1993).#Xj\  P6G;WXP#џ Consequently, the license  T - d(#"cancelled automatically for any station that was not placed in operation within eight months.]  B xPw-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.155, 90.633(d) (1993).] In August  d(#!1994, we adopted a uniform twelvemonth construction period for all CMRS providers licensed under  d(#"Part 90 of our Rules (including SMR licensees on General Category channels) to construct and place their  Tl- d(#!facilities in operation.a lb B zPn- v /ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, PR Docket No. 89553, Third Report  zP8-and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 7988, 8074,  177 (1994) (CMRS Third Report and Order); 47 C.F.R.  90.167(a) (1993).a Accordingly, with this revision to our rules, a license cancelled automatically  d(# "for any station that was not constructed and placed in operation within twelve months from the date of the license grant.   T- 3.` ` To prevent spectrum warehousing the Commission adopted loading standards for  Tm- d(# "conventional systems. m B zP- v ԍSee Implementation of 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93252, Further Notice  zP -of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd. 2863, 28778  68 (1994). A loading standard describes the number of mobile transmitting stations which  d(#"must be placed in operation on a given frequency pair (i.e. "channel") or group of frequencies. Licensees  d(#W!for a conventional system were granted exclusivity, foreclosing any further licensing on the channel,  T- d(#ibased on aggregate loading criteria of seventy mobile stations for each channel authorized.R B xP$-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(a) (1993). R " +'',,"  T- d(#!Additionally, the licensee was required to do this within eight months of license grant.o ZB xPh- v ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's rules to Release Spectrum in the 806 d(#821/851866 MHz bands and to Adopt Rules and Regulations which Govern their use, PR Docket No. 79191,  zP-Second Report and Order, 90 FCC 2d 1281, 1284 n.17. o Where a  d(#"licensee constructed the facility but failed to load a channel to seventy mobiles within eight months of the  d(#*!license grant, that licensee would retain its license, but the channel would then become available for  d(#e"assignment to other licensees on a shared basis. All authorizations for conventional systems were issued  d(#)"subject to this potential that a channel with loading of less than seventy mobile stations could be shared  T- d(#"among two or more licensees.WB xP -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).W While the CMRS Third Report and Order eliminated the channel loading  T- d(#"requirements in some situations,\zB zP - v ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. at 80828084,  192195. The CMRS Third Report and  zP - d(#<Order eliminated the requirement that loading be a prerequisite for conventionally licensed SMR licensees to obtain  xP} -additional channels, and the automatic cancellation element of our SMR loading rules at 800 MHz. #Xj\  P6G;WXP# our loading requirement with respect to conventional licensesQB xP -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).Q was not amended.   T6- 4.` ` Timely construction and loading of licensed SMR facilities ensured effective and efficient  d(#u!spectrum management in an environment where applicants were subject to minimal entry barriers and  d(# applications were processed in order of their receipt. In order to ensure strict compliance with the  d(#wconstruction and loading requirements, the Commission implemented a nationwide enforcement  d(#"mechanism to determine the status of the facilities' construction and loading at the relevant dates. At the  d(#V"end of the eightmonth construction and loading period, each SMR licensee was sent an FCC Form 800 d(#*!A, which inquired whether the licensee had timely constructed and loaded its stations pursuant to its  d(#!authorization. If the licensee failed to respond to the automated inquiry or responded that it had not  T - d(#9!constructed, its license automatically cancelled. . B xPl-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#47 C.F.R.  90.633(d) (1993).#Xj\  P6G;WXP#џ If the licensee responded that it had constructed its  d(#V"station, but had not loaded it to seventy mobile stations, then the Licensing Division could authorize the  T8-channel for sharing with other licensees.8 B xP-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).#Xj\  P6G;WXP#џ  (2) Interference Protection  Tl- 5.` ` Generally, sitebased SMR systems are given interference protection based on a fixed  T9- d(# mileage separation from cochannel systems.Q9N B xP'"-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b) (1993).Q The typical separation between cochannel systems is  T- d(#!seventy miles.B zP$- v ԍId. On certain mountain peaks in California and Washington, the separation between cochannel stations  zPN%-is 105 miles. Id. This mileage separation was derived from our finding that, generally, two cochannel  d(#!SMR systems will operate effectively if the 30 dB contour of one station does not overlap the 40dB":+'',,"  T- d(#v service contour of another station.B zPh- v ԍSee Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Permit the ShortSpacing of Specialized Mobile  zP2- d(#jRadio Systems Upon Concurrence from CoChannel Licensees, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 9034, 6 FCC  zP- d(#Rcd. 4929 (1991) (Report and Order); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Permit the Short zP- d(#{Spacing of Specialized Mobile Radio Systems Upon Concurrence from CoChannel Licensees, Corrected  zP-Memorandum Opinion and Order, PR Docket No. 9034, 7 FCC Rcd. 6069 (1992). This 40/30 dB contour standard is met if the two cochannel  T- d(#"facilities are separated by at least seventy miles.cB zP-ԍReport and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 4929,  4.c In certain situations, however, it is technically possible  d(#!and mutually desirable for cochannel SMR systems to locate their systems closer together than seventy miles.   T-  N6.` ` In July 1991, the Commission amended its rules to allow licensees, in two types of  d(#situations, to engage in such "short spacing" without first requiring them to seek a waiver of our  T- d(#"interference contour rule.:B zPO-ԍId.: The first situation, consensual short spacing, requires the licensee to obtain  Th- d(#"written consent from all affected cochannel licensees within the applicable area.hB zP-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(5) (1993). See Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. at 4930,  9. The other situation,  T5- d(# #technical short spacing, allows an applicant to short space upon a technical showing of noninterference.58 B zP -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4) (1993); Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. at 4931.ć  d(#"For this latter case, the Commission devised a table which reflects the permissible proximity between co d(#!channel licensees whose systems are separated by less than seventy miles. Systems in compliance with  d(#)"the terms of the table are permitted to short space on a nonwaiver basis down to a minimum separation  Ti -distance of fiftyfive miles.i B zP- v ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4) see CoChannel Protection Criteria for Part 90, Subpart S Stations Operating  zP-Above 800 MHz, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 7293, 72957296,  13 (1993).   T - (3) Transition to Competitive Bidding   T -  7.` ` Prior to our receipt of auction authority in 1993,G &B xPc-ԍ47 U.S.C.  309(j).G the Commission had few tools at its  d(# disposal for selecting among competing applications for the use of spectrum. Apart from licensing  T7- d(# through comparative hearings and lotteries,\7B zP -ԍSee e.g. 47 C.F.R.  1.972 (1994).\ the Commission attempted to avoid mutual exclusivity  d(# through licensing schemes that processed applications in order of receipt. Unlike licensing through  d(#competitive bidding, these prior licensing schemes were resource intensive, time consuming, and  d(#"substantially delayed service to the public because initial licenses were, in many cases, granted to parties"H+'',,"  T- d(#"who were not the ultimate service providers.B xPh- v ԍ Rulemaking to Amend Part 1 and Part 21 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz  zP0- d(#Frequency Band and to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service, Notice of Proposed  zP- d(#Rulemaking, Order, Tentative Decision and Order on Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd. 557, 563,  35 (1993); Section  zP- d(#257 Proceeding to Identify and Eliminate Market Entry Barriers for Small Business, Notice of Inquiry, 11 FCC Rcd. 6280, 6308,  42 (1996). Another unfortunate byproduct of licensing mechanisms  d(#"in use prior to our implementation of auction authority were schemes to defraud consumers through sales  T- d(#"of "investment opportunities" in cellular, wireless cable, paging and SMR licenses.~B zP- v NԍSee e.g. "Auction of 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Licenses," Public Notice, DA 971672  d(#(August 6, 1997); "Auction of Local Multipoint Distribution Service Auction Notice and Filing Requirements for  d(#986 Basic Trading Area ("BTA") Licenses in the 28 GHz and 31 GHz Bands, Scheduled for December 10, 1997,  zP - d(#-Public Notice, DA 972081 (September 25, 1997); "WTB's Enforcement Division Releases Consumer Brochure on  d(#Telecommunications Investment Scams," (October 31, 1996); and Application of Nancy Naleszkiewicz for a  d(#construction permit to establish a new cellular system to operate on Frequency Block A in the Domestic Public  zPl - d(#iCellular Telecommunications Radio Service to serve Kansas 3 RSA, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd.  d(#4829 (1991) (Wladimir Naleszkiewicz, Nancy Naleszkiewicz's husband, operated cellular lottery application mill by collecting several hundred thousand dollars from lottery investors and diverted such monies for private purposes). The Goodman/Chan  Th-Order found its origins in one such scheme involving 800 MHz General Category channels.   T- k8.` ` At the time the Commission was considering the appropriate disposition of the waiver  T- d(#G"requests that gave rise to the Goodman/Chan Order,UT B zP-ԍSee paras. 1015, infra.U we also were evaluating proposals for geographic  d(#area licensing and for selecting from among mutually exclusive applications through competitive  Tk- d(#"bidding." kB xP- v NԍAmendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in  zP-the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 8 FCC Rcd. 3950 (1993)." Since the adoption of the Goodman/Chan Order, the Commission has finalized geographic area  d(#"licensing and auction rules for the 800 MHz SMR service, and defined the rights of incumbents currently  T- d(#"providing service to the public on those channels.!$@B xP- v NԍAmendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in  zP- d(#\the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 19079 (1997)  zPx- d(#(800MHz SMR Second Report and Order), pet. for rev. pending, Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc., et al. v. FCC, No. 971459 (D.C. Cir., filed Aug. 1, 1997). Under the new rules, licensing of the 800 MHz band  d(#9!is divided into two phases. The Phase I auction of the 200 "upper band" channels was completed on  T - d(#-December 8, 1997." ,B zPl -ԍSee "800 MHz Auction Closes," Public Notice, DA 972583 (Dec. 9, 1997). In the Phase II auction, scheduled to occur later in 1998, the Wireless  d(# Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) will auction the 80 "lower band" SMR channels, and the 150  T: -General Category channels.#: B zP#-ԍSee "FCC Announces Spectrum Auction Schedule for 1998," Public Notice, DA 972497 (Nov. 25, 1997). " P#+'',,y"Ԍ T-  9. ` ` On October 4, 1995, the Bureau placed a freeze on the filing of new applications for  T- d(#9!General Category frequencies.$B zP5- v Nԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Licensing of General Category Frequencies in the 806809.750/851854.750 MHz Bands, Order, 10 FCC  zP-Rcd. 13190 (WTB 1995) (Freeze Order). At the time the Freeze Order was released, there was a steep rise in  d(#!demand for General Category frequencies, especially by SMR applicants and licensees, as a result of  Th- d(#v regulatory actions affecting certain 800 MHz frequencies.%h$B zP,-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Freeze Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 13190,  2.#&a\  P6G;&P# In a prior Further Notice of Proposed  T6- d(#u!Rulemaking,&\6B xP - v Nԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in  zPT - d(#the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd.  zP -7970 (1994) (Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making). the Commission tentatively concluded that revising the eligibility rules for the General  d(#Category and the 100 channels in the Industrial/Land Transportation and Business Categories  d(#H!(collectively, "Pool Channels") to prohibit SMR and nonSMR applicants from applying for the same  d(# "channels in the future would establish a clear demarcation between the allocation of spectrum for SMR  d(#V"and for other Part 90 services and eliminate the risk of SMR encroachment on nonauctionable spectrum  T8- d(# allocated for Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS)'8B xP- v ԍPMRS is defined as a mobile service that is neither a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) nor the functional equivalent of a service that meets the definition of CMRS. purposes.(82 B zP -ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8000,  53. In the Freeze Order, the Bureau  d(#!concluded that because of the pressure placed on the General Category channels, unless the processing  d(#7#of new applications was immediately suspended, the successful resolution of the spectrum allocation issues  T - d(#!raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking could be compromised.) B zP-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Freeze Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 13190,  3. In addition, the Bureau  d(# #believed that temporarily freezing acceptance of these applications would preserve the licensing landscape  T; -of the General Category.*; V B zP1-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id.#Xj\  P6G;WXP#ш   S - B.Goodman Waiver Request  To- ] 10.` ` On January 11, 1994, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a Complaint for a  d(##permanent injunction and other relief against a number of application preparation companies in the United  T - d(#!States District Court, Southern District of New York (U.S. District Court).+ B zP - v 0ԍ FTC v. Metropolitan Communications Corp., et al., No. 93 CIV 0142 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y., filed January  zP[!-11, 1994) (FTC v. Metropolitan Communications Corp). Prior to the FTC action,  d(# the application preparation companies used television commercials and telemarketing solicitations to  d(#!promote SMR licenses as "investment opportunities" for individuals with little or no experience in the  d(#"communications industry. In a typical solicitation, the company representative would tout the potential  d(#!value of SMR licenses, representing that, once obtained, the licenses could be resold for a profit. The  d(#!representative would then offer to prepare license applications for a substantial fee, usually $7,000 per  d(#"application. Typically, the company representative did not disclose obligations and restrictions that the"D++'',,"  d(#f!Commission's rules imposed on SMR licensees. In addition to the construction requirement discussed  d(#"above, the rules prohibited licensees from transferring a license prior to construction of the facilities and  T- d(#v commencement of operations.M,B xP-ԍ47 C.F.R.  609(b).M On January 14, 1994, the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary  d(#!injunction freezing the assets of the application preparation companies, and appointed Goodman as the  T4- d(#f!Receiver (Receiver) for four of these companies (Receivership Companies).-\4XB xP,- v /ԍGoodman was appointed Receiver for Metropolitan Communications Corp., Nationwide Digital Data Corp.,  zP- d(#-Columbia Communications Services, and Stephens Sinclair, Ltd. (Receivership Companies).  FTC v. Metropolitan  zP-Communications Corp. No. 93 CIV 0142 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y., filed January 11, 1994) at 15. The U.S. District Court  d(#"directed the Receiver to use all reasonable efforts to ensure that the licenses are either (1) constructed and  d(#8"placed in operation in a timely manner, in substantial conformance with our regulations, or (2) assigned  T-to an entity which will use reasonable efforts to do the same.B.|B zP -ԍId. at 67.B Specifically, the Court stated:  XNothing in this Order . . . shall prohibit the Receiver appointed herein on behalf of the defendant Nationwide Digital Data Corp. (NDD) from engaging in the following activities: . . .(4) NDD shall use all reasonable efforts, if possible, feasible and economic in the sole discretion of the Receiver, to ensure that the consumers' SMR licenses obtained through defendants Columbia/Metropolitan or any of the agents or affiliates of Metropolitan, Columbia, Nationwide, Sinclair and Donald Jackler (which licenses are the subject of the management agreements with NDD) are either (i) constructed and placed in operation in a timely manner, in substantial conformance with FCC regulations, or (ii) assigned to an entity which will use reasonable efforts to construct and place such licenses in operation in a timely manner. . . (5) NDD may continue to process those applications for SMR licenses purchased by consumers through defendants Columbia/Metropolitan (or any of the agents or affiliates of Metropolitan, Columbia, Nationwide, Sinclair and Donald Jackler) which were contracted for  T-and paid for as of January 18, 1994.:/B zP-ԍId.:(#   Tk-   11.` ` On March 15, 1994, and March 21, 1994, respectively, Dr. Robert Chan (Chan) and the  d(#Receiver filed petitions for waiver of section 90.633 of our rules to allow certain SMR licensees  T- d(#t"additional time to construct facilities and commence operation.F0xB xPE- v kԍLetter from Dr. Robert Chan, Managing Partner, Health Resource Associate to Kathy M. Garland, License  d(#Division, Consumer Assistance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, March 15, 1994 (Chan Petition);  d(#Request for a Temporary Waiver of Daniel R. Goodman, Esq., Receiver for Metropolitan Communications Corp.,  d(#Nationwide Digital Data Corp., Columbia Communications Services Corp. and Stephens Sinclair, Ltd. on Behalf  d(#of Certain Licensees, filed March 21, 1994 (Goodman Petition). While Chan is a member of the class of the  d(#<licenses on whose behalf the Receiver filed the Goodman Petition, Chan independently filed his petition prior to the filing of the Goodman Petition.F The Goodman Petition was brought on  T- d(#behalf of approximately 2500 individuals (Goodman/Chan Receivership)1B xPR%- v ԍBecause Chan's licenses are among the licenses in the list supplied by the Receiver, "Goodman/Chan Receivership" includes all of the licensees on the list that were supplied by the Receiver. who had obtained"81+'',,"  d(#V"approximately 4400 conventional licenses on 800MHz General Category channels by using the services  T-of one of the Receivership Companies.2B zP5- v ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Goodman/Chan Order at 10 FCC Rcd. at 85388539,  24. During the pendency of the Goodman/Chan  d(#waiver proceeding, approximately 2125 additional General Category SMR licensees requested an extension of their  d(#<construction deadlines on grounds similar to those advanced by the Receiver. In most instances, these licensees are  d(#individuals who obtained their licenses through SMR application preparation companies similar to the Receivership Companies, but did not hire one of the four companies that are the subject of the Goodman/Chan proceeding.   Tg-  12.` ` In his waiver petition, the Receiver requested an eightmonth extension of time for the  d(#"Goodman/Chan Receivership to construct their licensed facilities and commence operations, starting from  T- d(#the petition grant date.s3zB xP - v lԍGoodman Petition at 7. In addition, contemplating transfer or assignment of numerous licenses within a  d(#few days after filing the Goodman Petition, the Receiver also requested that the Commission immediately provide  d(#the licensees with at least 120 days from the date of the Goodman Petition to comply with the provisions of section  zPs - d(#90.633 of the rules.  Id. at 8. The Goodman Petition itself was internally inconsistent. At one point, the petition  zP=- d(#appeared to also request additional time to meet loading deadlines. Id. at 89. However, at another point, the  zP-petition expressly stated it was only requesting an extension of the construction deadline. Id. at nn.1213. s The Receiver explained that because he was in the process of finalizing  d(#u!negotiations with large SMR companies regarding the potential transfer or assignment of many of the  d(#"licenses, an additional eight months were required to allow the Goodman/Chan Receivership additional  d(#time for the construction of the facilities and thereby allow them to transfer their licenses in full  T5- d(#compliance with Commission regulations.B45 B zP-ԍId. at 89.B The Receiver also requested a Stay of all automatic  T- d(#t"cancellations of licenses during the pendency of the Goodman Petition.H5 B zP,-ԍId. at n.7.H The Receiver failed, however,  d(#"to identify the licenses and applications associated with the Goodman/Chan Receivership when he filed  T - d(#!the petition.6X B xPX- v 2ԍThe first list of the licensees comprising the Goodman/Chan Receivership was not filed with the  d(#Commission until April 29, 1994. Letter from Russell H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas to Ralph A. Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 29, 1994 (Supplemental Petition). On April 6, 1994, the Private Radio Bureau (PRB)p7X <B xPx- v ԍThe Private Radio Bureau was responsible for licensing of the General Category at the time the  d(#yGoodman/Chan petitions were filed. Its licensing functions were assumed by the Wireless Telecommunications  xP-Bureau in October 1994. #Xj\  P6G;WXP#p requested comments and replies on  Ti -both Goodman's and Chan's Petitions for waiver of section 90.633 of our rules.8i \B zPe - v ԍSee Public Notice, DA 94305 (Apr. 6, 1994). The FTC and many of the individual licensees filed  zP/!- d(#ycomments in support of the petitions. Goodman/Chan Order 10 FCC Rcd. at 8540,  7. The waiver petition was  zP!- d(#yopposed by SMR operators, frequency coordinators, and a number of trade associations. Id. Many of those who  d(#[opposed the granting of the waiver petition argued that the Receiver lacked standing to bring a waiver petition on  d(#jbehalf of individual SMR licensees. They pointed out that because there was no express agreement between the  d(#Klicensees and the Receiver authorizing representation of the licensees by the Receiver, and that because any monies  d(#received from the sale of the individual licenses would go directly to the licensees and not to the Receivership  zP%- d(#Companies, the Receiver had no interest that would be affected by the waiver petition. Id. at 85408541,  8, nn.1617. "i 48+'',,{ "Ԍ T-  ԙ 13.` ` On April 21, 1994, the Receiver requested a waiver of section 1.1102 of our rules,G9B xPh-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.1102.G  d(# which requires a waiver fee of $105 for each station named in the Goodman Petition, in order to  T- d(#H!minimize the expenditures of the Receivership Companies.:XB xP- v ԍLetter from Russell H. Fox, Esq. Gardner, Carton & Douglas to Ralph Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, April 21, 1994. On April 29, 1994, the Receiver filed a  Tg- d(#9!supplement to his March 21, 1994 waiver petition,L;gB xP-ԍSupplemental Petition at 1.L requesting that the PRB refrain from taking any  d(# #action that would result in the cancellation of the General Category licenses of the licensees who received  T- d(#(#their licenses through the Receivership Companies during the pendency of the Receiver's waiver request.C<@B zP -ԍId. at 2, 4.C  d(#"The Receiver also requested that the PRB suspend the mailing of automated letter inquiries to the affected  T- d(#"licensees concerning the construction and loading status of their licenses.@=B zP -ԍId. at 4.@ However, up until this point,  d(#"the Receiver had not made the identity of Receivership members known to the Commission. In the event  d(# that the Receiver's petition for waiver was denied, the Receiver requested that the PRB provide the  d(# licensees a period of 120 days from the date of such denial to comply with the provisions of section  T-90.633 of the rules.@>d B zP-ԍId.@   Ti - / 14.` ` In the Supplemental Petition, the Receiver filed his initial list of approximately 3,100  T6 - d(#"entities that had obtained their licenses or applications through the Receivership Companies (April List).N?6 B zP-ԍId., attachment. N  d(#Because the licensing system is fully automated, the granting of new licenses, the cancellation of  d(#"unconstructed licenses and the licensing of additional entities on General Category channels that were not fully loaded proceeded in accordance with the rules and system programming.  T7-  15.` ` On May 31, 1994, the Receiver filed a Request with the Land Mobile Branch of the  T- d(#8"Office of Operations for the PRB for the reconsideration of fourteen cancelled licenses.3@X B xP,- v ԍLetter to Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Radio Service [sic], Federal Communications Commission  d(# from Russell H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Attorney for the Receiver, May 31, 1994 (May 31 Reinstatement Request).3 The Receiver  d(#"contended that fourteen Goodman/Chan Receivership licenses were cancelled during the pendency of the  d(#"Goodman Petition and requested reinstatement on the grounds that their cancellation constituted a partial,  Tk- d(#"premature decision of the Goodman Petition and Supplemental Petition._AkB xP#-ԍMay 31 Reinstatement Request at 2._ On August 9, 1994, the PRB's  d(#!Office of Operations in Gettysburg issued a staff letter which responded to the May 31 Reinstatement"8 8A+'',,"  T- d(#xRequest.BB xPh- v ԍLetter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Deputy Chief, Licensing Division to Russell H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Attorney for the Receiver, August 9, 1994 (August 9 Staff Letter). The PRB dismissed the May 31 Reinstatement Request as moot because six of the  d(#f!Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees submitted written requests for cancellation of their respective  d(#"licenses and the remaining eight licenses cancelled automatically because their construction deadlines had  Tg- d(#u!passed before the Receiver filed the Goodman Petition.Cg B zP'- v ԍId. In addition, the May 31 request was well beyond the applicable date for reinstatement. See 47 C.F.R.  90.127(b) (1994). On September 8, 1994, the Receiver filed a  d(#!petition for further reconsideration of the PRB's refusal to reinstate the fourteen cancelled licenses and  T-of the August 9 Staff Letter.{DzzB xP - v #ԍPetition for Further Reconsideration, filed by Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver, September 8, 1994  d(#(September 8 Reinstatement Request). First, the Receiver argued that while six licensees did admit in their signed  d(#jautomated letter inquiries that their station was not in operation, they did not request cancellation and should not  d(#Zbe penalized for answering truthfully. Second, with respect to the eight licenses whose construction periods expired  d(#prior to the filing of the Goodman Petition, the Receiver argued that the Goodman Petition included these licenses  d(#and their cancellation on this basis was not in the public interest, nor appropriate in light of the backlog of the  zP-Commission's database. Id.{  S- C.Goodman/Chan Order  T5- 16.` ` On May 22, 1995, the Commission adopted the Goodman/Chan Order, providing the  d(#"General Category licensees who received licenses through the Receivership Companies an additional four  T- d(#"months to construct and commence operations of their licenses.hE B zP,-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8545,  20.h The Commission partially granted the  d(#"Goodman/Chan waiver petitions because during the pendency of the waiver petitions, it had changed the  d(#"construction period for all new CMRS licenses, including conventional SMR licenses, from eight months  T7 - d(#*!to twelve months.F7 N B Y%-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id. See also CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. at 8074,  177#Xj\  P6G;WXP#. Thus, the basis for granting the additional four months to these licensees was to  d(#"place them in the same posture as Part 90 CMRS providers licensed after January 2, 1995, when the new  T - d(# #rule took effect.hG B zPp-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8545,  20.h This fourmonth period was granted to augment their original eightmonth construction  d(#!period to the degree necessary to give them the same twelvemonth construction period then applicable  Tk- d(#)"to all Part 90 CMRS licensees.:HkB zP -ԍId.: However, the Commission also emphasized that all other requirements  T8- d(# "of the rules continued to apply.:I8#B zP"-ԍId.: In particular, the Commission stated that the Order did not waive the  d(# loading requirement, and reiterated that licensees on General Category channels would not retain  T- d(#V"exclusive use of their channels unless they satisfied the loading of seventy mobile stations per channel.fJB zP'&-ԍId. See 47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).f " GJ+'',,("  d(#(#To the extent petitioners had less than seventy such stations operating on each of their channels, additional  T-licensees could be licensed to use those channels.KB zP5-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8546,  20; 47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).  Tg- 17.` ` In the Goodman/Chan Order, the Commission explained that, from the inception of the  d(#"SMR service, the rules have required licensees to comply with strict time limits for constructing, placing  T- d(#in operation, and loading their systems.L&ZB zP- v ]ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8546,  21; See also Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's  d(#Rules to release spectrum in the 806821/851866 MHz bands and to Adopt Rules and Regulations Which Govern  zP - d(#=Their Use, PR Docket No.79191, Second Report and Order, 90 FCC 2d 1281 (1982) (Part 90 Second Report and  zPX -Order). Because these time limits promoted efficient use of the  d(#!spectrum and rapid deployment of service to the public, particularly in an era before we held authority  d(#H!to assign licenses by auction, the Commission strictly enforced these rules in order to recover unused  Ti- d(#"spectrum for relicensing.=Mj iHB zPQ- v ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8546,  21. The Commission compared the instant waiver request  zP- d(#to another case, Robert A. Baker, Receiver, Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 64400AL, released Apr. 18,  zP- d(#1986, review denied, FCC 86197, Apr. 21, 1986 (Baker), in which individuals had been solicited by American  d(#National Cellular, Inc. (ANC) to prepare and file applications in the cellular mobile service on their behalf. Shortly  d(#before the filing deadline, the FTC brought a fraud action against ANC and the court appointed Robert A. Baker  d(#(Baker), as Receiver of ANC to assist the victims of the alleged fraud. The receiver, in a request supported by the  d(#!FTC, sought a waiver of the filing deadline to provide the affected parties with additional time to submit  d(#/applications. In a decision affirmed by the Commission, the staff denied the waiver on the grounds that the  d(#individual applicants were responsible for the consequences of their decision to use an application preparation  zP_- d(#company. Goodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8547,  23, citing Baker at  7. The Commission concluded  zP)- d(#jthat the principles set forth in Baker were applicable to the instant case. Goodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8548,  24.= This strict enforcement policy resulted in the denial of construction extension  d(#"requests in a variety of circumstances where the failure of SMR licensees to comply with the construction  d(#u!requirement was the result of the licensees' own business decisions or risks commonly assumed by all  T- d(#"the Goodman/Chan licensees.NzB zP- v ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8546,  22. See Application For Review of Specialized Mobile  d(#-Radio Station WZC792, licensed to P&R Temmer, d/b/a Mobile Communications Service Company Brooklyn New  zP|- d(#York, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 93 FCC 2d 1051, 1060,  33 (1983), aff'd sub nom. P&R Temmer v. FCC,  zPF- d(#k743 F.2d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (P&R Temmer) (problems with site selection and marketing strategy were not  d(#jbeyond the licensee's control because they resulted from independent business judgments made by the licensee);  zP- d(#kBusiness Radio Communications Systems, Inc., 102 FCC 2d 714 (1985) (construction delay caused by zoning  zP- d(#challenge not a circumstance beyond licensee's control); Texas TwoWay, Inc., 98 FCC 2d 1300 (1984), aff'd sub  zPl - d(#nom., Texas TwoWay, Inc. v. FCC, 762 F.2d 138 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (licensee responsible for delay resulting from  d(#interference caused by construction adjacent to transmitter site because site selection was an independent business  zP!- d(#Mdecision); AAT Electronics Corporation, 93 FCC 2d 1034 (1983) (decision not to market service aggressively because of equipment uncertainties is within licensee's control). Consistent with the strict construction policy, the Commission concluded  d(#!that each licensee who hired a Receivership Company had to bear the responsibility for the decision to  Tj -rely on a third party to act on his or her behalf in meeting obligations imposed by the rules.Oj B zP%-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Goodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8548,  24. "7 zO+'',,k "Ԍ T- 18.` ` The Commission further explained that the purpose of the prohibition against the  T- d(#u!assignment or transfer of unconstructed licenses was to deter speculation and trafficking in licenses.PB zP5-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id. at 8549,  27.  d(# The Commission noted that even if it assumed that many of the Goodman/Chan Receivership in this  d(# situation were unaware or misinformed about this prohibition, the Receiver did not dispute that the  d(#!members of the Receivership in this instance were primarily interested in acquiring their SMR licenses  T- d(#G"as a form of investment that they could subsequently sell for a profit.aQZB zP-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id.a The Commission concluded that  d(#!it would be "incongruous to grant waivers [of the construction requirements] to these licensees on this  T- d(#!basis, when we have consistently denied them to licensees who had a bona fide intent to construct and  Ti- d(#"operate SMR systems but were unable to construct because of adverse business decisions."aRiB zP -ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id.a Finally, the  T6- d(#)"Order provided that by granting limited relief for the reasons stated, the Commission was not intending  d(#!"to reward and encourage further speculative activity by entities like the Receivership Companies and  T-possibly invite abuse of the Commission's processes."RS~B zP-ԍId. at 8549,  28.R  Tk - k19.` ` The Commission granted both the Receiver's Supplemental Petition and the Receiver's  T8 - d(#May 31 Reinstatement Request. T"8 B xP- v ]ԍThe Receiver's Supplemental Petition requested that we refrain from taking any action that would result  d(#in the cancellation of the licenses that were received through the Receivership Companies during the pendency of  d(#the Receiver's waiver request. The Receiver's May 31 Reinstatement Request requested that the Commission  zP@-reinstate fourteen cancelled licenses. Id. at 8550,  30.  The Commission also stated that the fourmonthperiod would  T - d(#t"commence upon publication of the Goodman/Chan Order in the Federal Register.U B Y-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Id. at 8551,  31.#Xj\  P6G;WXP# #X\  P6G;6P# As discussed below,  T -publication of the Goodman/Chan Order has not yet occurred.  Sn- D.PostAdoption Filings  T-  20.` ` On June 26, 1995, Brown and Schwaninger filed a petition for reconsiderationV B xPS- v ԍBrown and Schwaninger Petition. The Brown and Schwaninger Petition argues, in part, that the Receiver  d(#did not have standing to request relief; the Receiver's request was not ripe for consideration; the Receiver suffered  d(#Kno harm from the routine application of our rules; we were not justified in granting fee relief to the Receiver or the  d(#=Goodman/Chan Receivership; the action was contrary to our mandate; regulatory parity was not provided by the  d(#jaction; we are under a duty to follow our own rules; we acted on the basis of secret facts; and the public interest was not served by our action. Brown and Schwaninger Petition at iii. of the  T- d(# Goodman/Chan Order. On July 17, 1995, the Receiver filed both an Opposition to the Brown and  T- d(# #Schwaninger Petition&W#B xPf%- v ^ԍOpposition of Daniel R. Goodman, Esq., Receiver, filed by Daniel R. Goodman, Esq., July 17, 1995  zP.&-(Opposition). We will not consider the Opposition for the reasons set forth in para. 25, infra. & and an Emergency Motion for Clarification or StayHXF}B xP- v ԍIn its Motion for Clarification, the Receiver argues, in part, that the formulation of the relief provided by  zPX- d(#the Goodman/Chan Order did not contemplate nor provide for the impact of potential petitions for reconsideration  zP"- d(#or judicial appeal of the relief granted; the wording of the Goodman/Chan Order concerning the effective date of  d(#the Commission's decision could be interpreted to require the Goodman/Chan Receivership to make immediate  d(#investments to construct and load station facilities in order to avoid automatic cancellation of their authorizations;  zP|- d(#and the Commission should clarify the Goodman/Chan Order to make plain that the fourmonth period granted the  d(#LGoodman/Chan Receivership will run from the date on which the Commission's decision is no longer subject to administrative or judicial review or appeal. Motion for Clarification at 24. H of the Goodman/Chan Order. " X+'',, "  d(#" In addition, the Receiver and his counsel, over the course of several months following the release of the  T- d(#"Goodman/Chan Order, alerted our staff to the grant of a number of cochannel and shortspaced licensesY B xPC - v ԍThe Receiver has coined the term "overfiled" for these shortspaced and cochannel licenses. Specifically,  d(#an "overfiled" license is any nonGoodman/Chan Receivership license granted subsequent to a Goodman/Chan  d(#Receivership license that the Receiver alleges interferes or conflicts with the Goodman/Chan License due to its proximity.  T- d(#!concerning 342 of the Goodman/Chan licenses.Z B zP- v ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#See December 1 Petition at 4.#X\  P6G;6P# The Receiver maintains that at the time the petition was filed in March  zP- d(# 1994, the PRB orally agreed with the Receiver to preserve the status quo with respect to the Goodman/Chan  d(#ZReceivership licenses while the petition was pending. Thus, the Receiver contends that the PRB agreed not to grant  d(#lconflicting cochannel licenses to third parties at, or near, sites that were licensed to the Goodman/Chan  d(#Receivership. The Receiver contends that, notwithstanding this agreement, the PRB improperly granted additional  zP-General Category licenses that conflicted with Goodman/Chan authorizations.  Id.  The 342 licenses include 208 cochannel licenses, 42  d(#!shortspaced licenses, and 92 cancelled licenses. Through subsequent requests, the Receiver now also  T5- d(#!seeks to address issues concerning 296 other licenses licensees voluntarily cancelled.q[z5<B xP- v /ԍ The existence of the 296 licensees who voluntarily cancelled their licenses was first brought to our attention  d(#iJune 12, 1997. Letter to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Federal Communications Commission  d(#=from Russell H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Attorney for the Receiver, June 12, 1997 (Fox June 12  zPi- d(#jletter). However, at that time, the Receiver stated that there were 361 such licenses. Id. On February 3, 1998,  d(#the Receiver stated that there were 296 such licenses. Letter from Russell Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas,  d(#Attorney for the Receiver, to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, February 3, 1998 at 3, Appendix 4 (Fox February 3 letter).q On November  d(#G"20, 1995, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Office of Operations in Gettysburg issued a letter  d(# which addressed the following issues raised by the Receiver: (1) the Commission's granting of co d(#G"channel licenses in instances where the Goodman/Chan Receivership had not fully loaded their channel;  d(#(2) the Commission's granting of cochannel licenses between fiftyfive and seventy miles of a  d(#u!Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensee; (3) voluntary cancellations by members of the Goodman/Chan  d(#"Receivership; and (4) the Commission's treatment of cases where frequency coordinators made frequency  d(#!recommendations for other applicants for locations that were the same as, or within fiftyfive miles of,  T -a Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensee.\ ~B xP"-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Nov. 20 Staff Letter.#Xj\  P6G;WXP#є  T7 - {21.` ` Simultaneous with the release of the Nov. 20 Staff Letter, the Bureau submitted the  T - d(#X Goodman/Chan Order for publication in the Federal Register. In response, the Receiver's counsel  d(#I informed the Bureau that the Receiver would appeal the Nov. 20 Staff Letter and would also seek" \+'',,<"  T- d(#"injunctive relief should the Bureau attempt to publish the Goodman/Chan Order in the Federal Register.q]B xPh-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#Fox Nov. 24 letter.q  T- d(# #Even though the Commission in the Goodman/Chan Order granted an extension of the construction period  d(#!for approximately 4400 licenses, on November 27, 1995, the Receiver filed a motion with the United  Ti- d(#"States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to enjoin Federal Register publication of the Goodman/Chan  T7- d(#9!Order^7XB zP/-ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#See Daniel R. Goodman v. FCC, Case No. 951585 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 27, 1995). to obtain additional time to address licensing issues affecting 342 licenses. On December 1,  d(#"1995, the Receiver filed its December 1 Petition seeking reconsideration of the November 20 Staff Letter  T- d(#I and a request to stay publication of the Goodman/Chan Order pending revocation of the overfiled  T- d(#e"licenses._B Y* -ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#December 1 Petition; #X\  P6G;6P#Stay Request#Xj\  P6G;WXP#. The court subsequently held in abeyance the motion to enjoin Federal Register publication to  Tm- d(#"allow the Receiver and the Commission to seek a resolution of the issues.D`HmB xP - v ԍ#X\  P6G;6P#On December 22, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) granted a joint  d(#motion to hold in abeyance petitioner's emergency motion for stay, and deferred a motion for stay and petition for  zP8- d(#injunction until January 19, 1996. Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver v. FCC, No. 951585 (DC Cir. Dec. 22, 1995).  zP- d(#kThe D.C. Circuit Court extended the stay on January 18, 1996 until February 29, 1996. Daniel R. Goodman,  zP- d(#jReceiver v. FCC, No. 951595 (DC Cir. Jan. 18, 1996). On March 6, 1996, the D.C. Circuit Court ordered that  d(#the joint motion to hold the case in abeyance be granted and directed the parties to file status reports at sixtyday  zP^- d(#intervals beginning thirty days from the date of its order. Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver v. FCC, No. 951595 (DC Cir. Mar. 6, 1996).D On April 30, 1996, the D.C.  d(#"Circuit ordered that the case continue to be held in abeyance and directed the parties to file a status report  T- d(#)"sixty days from the date of this order and every sixty days thereafter.a B zPR-ԍDaniel R. Goodman, Receiver v. FCC, No. 951595 (DC Cir. Apr. 30, 1996). In the most recent status report,  T- d(# #we indicated that Bureau staff was in the process of drafting the present Memorandum Opinion and Order  T - d(#9!and Order on Reconsideration.b =B zP-ԍDaniel R. Goodman, Receiver v. FCC, No. 951595, Joint Status Report (DC Cir. May 1, 1998). The court also directed the parties to file motions to govern further  Tp - d(#f!proceedings within thirty days of the conclusion of the settlement negotiations.cp B zP-ԍDaniel R. Goodman, Receiver v. FCC, No. 951595 (DC Cir. Apr. 30, 1996). Since that time, the  T= - d(#!Receiver has submitted several letters and other filings requesting the resolution of various licensing  T -issues affecting the status of the licenses.nd aB zP - v |ԍSee Fox April 17 letter; Letter from Russell Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Attorney for the  d(#=Receiver, to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, November 18, 1997 (November 18 letter); Fox  d(#February 3 letter. On February 3, 1998, the Receiver filed a Petition for Reconsideration (February 3  d(#Reinstatement Petition) of certain licensing actions which cancelled the authorizations for 106 Goodman/Chan  d(#iReceivership licenses and requested their reinstatement. On March 23, 1998, in response to the Receiver's concern  d(#that the license term of some Goodman/Chan Receivership licenses might expire prior to the end of the additional  d(#fourmonth construction period, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice regarding license  zP$- d(#renewal procedures for the Goodman/Chan Receivership and similarly situated licensees. See Public Notice, DA  d(#98557 (Mar. 23, 1998); 63 Fed. Reg. 15844 (Apr. 1, 1998). On April 3, 1998, the Receiver filed an Emergency  d(#Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of the Public Notice (License Renewal Petition). In the License"&c+''&"  d(#Renewal Petition, the Receiver argues that it is unfair to require the Goodman/Chan Receivership to seek renewal  d(#jof their licenses before they have had an opportunity to benefit from the extended time period for construction of  zP - d(#those licenses which was granted in the Goodman/Chan Order, but has yet to commence. License Renewal Petition  d(#at i. The Receiver also requests that the Commission waive its standard renewal application processing fee for the  zP- d(#licensees, whether the applications are submitted individually or as a group. Id. See Appendix for a list of the pleadings and other filings submitted by the Receiver.n" Dd+'',,y"Ԍ T-  ԙ22.` ` On November 20, 1997, final judgements were entered by the U.S. District Court in FTC  T- d(# "v. Metropolitan Communications Corp. requiring Michael Flaherty, President of Stephens Sinclair, and  d(#!Sheldon Weaver, an administrator, to relinquish the FCC licenses they had acquired as employees and  Ti-officers of the corporate defendants.eiDB xPM - v N#X\  P6G;6P#эFTC News Release, "FCC License Investment Scheme Defendants Settle FTC Charges," November 25, 1997. Thus, the court resolved the matter for $1,825,000.f iB xP - v #X\  P6G;6P#эThis total includes $1.6 million from Defendant Sheldon Jackler, president of Columbia and Metropolitan,  d(#Kto victims of the scams, $20,000 from Defendant Joan Orth, vice president for sales for Metropolitan, for consumer  xP5- d(#redress, and $205,000 from Meehan Marketing Group and company officers David Weston and Glenn Morgenstern.   zN-Id.  S- III. DISCUSSION  T- .23. ` ` As noted above, after the adoption of the Goodman/Chan Order, we received a pleading  d(#by Brown and Schwaninger and a pleading by the Receiver. Before addressing the merits of the  T8-pleadings, we must determine the status of these filings under the Communications Act and our rules.Zg8 B xP\-ԍ47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.106.Z  S- A.Petition for Reconsideration and Motion for Clarification of the Goodman/Chan Order  Tn -(1)` ` Brown and Schwaninger Petition for Reconsideration  T - X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:u(9B zPy!- v ԍ47 U.S.C.  405; see Eagle Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 5105, 5106,  zPC"- d(#K5 (1997); Ray M. Stanfield, Receiver and Robeson/Suttles Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,  zP #- d(#12 FCC Rcd. 3345, 3347,  5 (1997); San Luis Obispo L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture  zP#-Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 9616, 9617,  34 (1996).#Xj\  P6G;WXP#> Furthermore, pursuant to section 1.106 of our  d(#"rules, if the petition is filed by a person who is not a party to the proceeding, the petition shall state with  d(#!particularity the manner in which the person's interests are adversely affected by the action taken, and  d(# "shall show good reason why it was not possible for the person to participate in the earlier stages of the" u+'',,K"  T- d(#"proceeding.LvB xPh-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(1).L Therefore, to petition for reconsideration the licensing issues raised in the November 20  d(#t"Staff Letter and submit subsequent letters, the Receiver must plead facts to establish that he is (1) a party  d(#!in interest or (2) any other person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected by our licensing  Tg-actions wgXB zP_- v ԍSan Luis Obispo, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 9616 (1996);  zP)-Rainbow Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 2839, 2844 n.24 (1994).  and (3) show good reason why he did not participate in the earlier stages of the proceedings.MxgB xP-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.106(b)(1).M  T-  30. ` ` First, in order to qualify as a party in interest, a petitioner for reconsideration generally  d(#!must have filed a valid petition to deny against the application whose grant the petitioner now seeks to  T- d(#!have reconsidered.yDB zP -ԍSan Luis Obispo, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 9616 (1996). In the petition, the petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the  Th- d(#I [action] would cause the petitioner to suffer a direct injury.3zhB zP- v ԍWireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 13233 (1995) citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733  zP-(1972); see Lawrence N. Brandt, 3 FCC Rcd. 4082 (1988); National Broadcasting Co, 37 FCC 2d 897, 898 (1972).3 Claims amounting to a "remote" or  T5- d(#!"speculative" injury are insufficient to confer standing.e{Z52 B zP- v ԍWireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 13233 citing KIRV Radio, 50 FCC2d 1010 (1975) (stating that  d(#="the claim of potential economic injury by a mere applicant for a broadcast facility is too remote and speculative to show standing as a 'party in interest'").e In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate  T- d(#!a causal link "between the claimed injury and the challenged action.|T B zP- v lԍWireless Co,. L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 13233 citing Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study  zP-Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 72, 78 (1978) (Duke). To demonstrate a causal link, a  d(#"petitioner must establish that: (a) these injuries fairly can be traced to the challenged action;" and (b) "the  T -injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief requested."P} B zP-ԍDuke, 438 U.S. at 74, 81.P  T6 - 31.` ` While the Goodman/Chan waiver requests were pending, the Bureau's former Licensing  d(#iDivision granted additional licenses to nonGoodman/Chan licensees on channels licensed to  T - d(#!Goodman/Chan licensees in accordance with our cochannel and shortspacing rules.U~ BB zP-ԍSee paras. 3648, infra.U The Licensing  d(#-Division also cancelled some Goodman/Chan licenses. Consequently, the Receiver requests  d(#t"reconsideration of the staff's grant of the additional licenses on channels licensed to nonGoodman/Chan  d(#V"licensees as well as cancellation of Goodman/Chan licenses. During the thirty day period following the  d(#"grant of these additional licenses, and the thirty day period following cancellation of the Goodman/Chan  d(# licenses, neither the Receiver nor the affected individual licensee members of the Goodman/Chan  d(#!Receivership objected to the grants or the cancellations of the licenses. As a result, the Receiver must  d(#8"not only establish that he is a party in interest or otherwise aggrieved by the staff's actions, but he must  d(#"show good reason why he did not participate in the earlier stages of these proceedings. The Receiver's"8~+'',,"  d(#participation in the waiver proceeding does not automatically confer party status in licensing  T-proceedings.B zP5- v 0ԍSee e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corporation Request for Permanent Waivers of 47 C.F.R.  73.3555(c)  zP- d(#of the Commission's Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 11785 (1996) (a party's participation  d(#Min earlier proceedings with Westinghouse does not entitle them to party status in a later proceeding involving  d(#Westinghouse because the later proceeding involved a new matter before the Commission and Westinghouse was not required to treat as parties in the later proceeding all those who participated in those prior proceedings).  Tg- z32. ` ` The Receiver's December 1 Petition states that he is acting on behalf of approximately  d(#G"2500 individuals holding approximately 4,400 licenses who obtained these licenses through the services  T- d(#"of the Receivership Companies.J|B xP -ԍDecember 1 Petition at 1.J However, the petition does not state how the interests of the Receiver  T- d(#"(as opposed to individual licensees) were injured by actions taken by the staff with regard to licenses that  d(#;the Receiver does not hold. Thus, the Receiver has failed to show how he or the Receivership  d(#V"Companies that he represents would suffer a direct injury if we did not cancel the licenses that our staff  d(#granted in accordance with our cochannel and shortspacing rules. Our records, and the records  d(#!provided to us by the Receiver, demonstrate that the Receivership Companies lost only one license as a  d(#"result of cancellation. Thus we find that the only direct injury suffered by the Receiver was as a result  d(#!of the cancellation of that one license. Although the Receiver now challenges our staff's action not to  d(# reinstate the license, the Receiver did not challenge the cancellation in the first instance. Thus, the  d(# Receiver must show good reason why he did not object to the cancellation within thirty days of the  d(#!cancellation. The petition is devoid of any reason why the Receiver did not object to the cancellation  d(#f!earlier. Consequently, the Receiver has failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section  d(#g 1.106 of our rules to show that he has standing to challenge our staff's actions with regards to the cancellation of the Receivership Companies' license.  T-  33.` ` Therefore, although the Receiver, in his December 1 Petition, raises issues that directly  d(#G"affect 342 of the Goodman/Chan licenses, the Receiver has only raised one issue that affects one license  d(#"of the Receivership Companies, and that objection was not timely raised under section 1.106 of our rules.  d(#We conclude that because the Receiver represents the Receivership Companies and not the other  d(##individual licensees, he has not been aggrieved by the Bureau's licensing actions concerning the remaining  d(#"341 Goodman/Chan licenses. Accordingly, the Receiver does not have standing under section 405 of the  d(#!Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to raise issues concerning the licenses that the Receivership Companies do not hold.  T9- ]!34.` ` We emphasize that the Receiver cannot derive standing simply from his position as  T- d(#Receiver." B xP - v lԍNeither our rules nor the U.S. District Court's Order authorize the Receiver to challenge these licensing  zPz!- d(#matters. See FTC v. Metropolitan Communications Corp. at 67. The authority granted the Receiver by the U.S.  d(#<District Court did not include the right to attempt to resolve individual licensing problems or challenge actions taken by the Commission. In the Goodman/Chan Order, we concluded that for the purpose of "administrative  T- d(#"convenience" the Receiver should be deemed to have standing to file the Goodman Petition.h B zPj%-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8541,  10.h Although  d(#!this case involved numerous licenses, we noted that weighing the merits of the waiver request for each" +'',,<"  T- d(#"licensee involved evaluating a common fact situation rather than a diverse set of facts for each licensee.FB zPh-ԍId.F  d(##Therefore, we found that it was in the public interest to consider the Receiver as representing the interests  T- d(#"of all licensees whose interests were affected by the FTC's action against the Receivership Companies.:ZB zP-ԍId.:  d(#X In contrast, because the licensing issues raised by the November 20 Staff Letter and the Receiver's  T4- d(#v subsequent letters involve multiple fact situations and multiple licensees, there is no administrative  d(# convenience that would be gained by granting the Receiver standing with respect to the individual  d(# licensing issues. Moreover, the licensing issues raised by the Receiver following the release of the  T- d(#Goodman/Chan Order are independent of the waiver request and are particular to each licensee.  d(#!Therefore, we conclude that there is no public interest benefit to be gained by granting the Receiver  d(# standing as a matter of convenience to raise these licensing issues regarding licenses not held by the Receivership Companies.   T -  "35.` ` Although we do not grant the Receiver standing, we will use our discretion and resolve  Tj - d(#G"these issues on our own motion in this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration.  d(#*!We believe it is in the public interest to resolve these issues prior to commencement of the 800 MHz  d(#!SMR Phase II auction scheduled for later this year. Consistent with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997,  d(#!expeditious resolution of these matters will provide prospective bidders with sufficient information in  d(# "advance of the auction to prepare business plans, assess market conditions, and evaluate the availability  Tl- d(#!of equipment for the relevant services.PlB zP-ԍSee para. 8, supra.P Accordingly, because it is in the public interest to resolve all  d(#(#outstanding issues concerning these General Category licenses expeditiously, we will address the licensing  d(#"issues raised by the Receiver on our own motion. We will also address here the waiver requests of other  d(#!General Category licensees for an extension of time to construct their facilities. Accordingly, we will  d(#"provide general guidance on the following issues: (1) the cochannel licensing rules; (2) the shortspacing  Tm- d(#!rules; (3) the license cancellation rules; (4) the license renewal rules; (5) the prohibition on the transfer of unconstructed licenses; and (6) the waiver requests filed by other General Category Licensees.  T-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:ԍRosalind K. Allen, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Russell  d(#H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Counsel for the Receiver, on June 15, 1995. The letter stated, in part,  zP- d(#"We construe the Order to provide the covered licensees with an additional four months to load as well as construct  zP-their stations." Id. at 2.  While subsequently written  d(#staff letters cannot impose a novel interpretation on previously released Commission Orders, we  Tj- d(# "acknowledge that the June 15, 1995 letter is misleading.~jB zP- v ԍSee Mary Ann Salvatoriello, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. 4705, 47074708,  22 (1991)  d(#(where an applicant relied on incorrect advice from a Commission employee, we refused to grant the relief requested  d(#because it would be contrary to the clear requirements of our rules); Texas Media Group, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd. 2851,  zPJ- d(#z2852,  8 (1990); aff'd sub nom. Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (1991) (it is the obligation of  d(#interested parties to ascertain facts from official Commission records and files and not rely on statements or informal  zP- d(#.opinions of the staff); and Amor Family Broadcasting Group v. FCC, 918 F.2d 960, 962 (1990) (divergent views taken by agency "minions" do not diminish the authority of the agency as an entity). Although some confusion may have existed  d(#f!on the part of the Receiver as to whether the Commission waived the loading requirements in section  T- d(# "90.633(b) of our rules,,B zP- v ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993). In a letter written contemporaneous with the release of the Goodman/Chan  zP- d(#Order, even counsel for the Receiver states his belief that: "The [Goodman/Chan] Order also states that all other  d(#requirements in the regulations continue to apply and that Affected Licensees are still required to load their facilities  d(#in order to obtain exclusive use of their licensed channels. Moreover, the Order states in several instances that the  d(#Affected Licensees were not granted, nor did they request (through the Receiver) an extension of the time to load  d(#Zthe station facilities." Letter, Russell H. Fox, Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas, Counsel for the Receiver to David  d(#-L. Furth, Esq., Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, on May 31, 1995 (Fox May 31 Letter).  zP%- v ?While it appears that the Receiver now claims that the Goodman/Chan Order did grant the Receivership  d(#.four months to construct and load, it is evident that the Receiver knew otherwise at the time. It is unclear why"&+''&"  d(#counsel for the Receiver chose to write a letter to the Deputy Chief of the Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division  d(#voicing his dissatisfaction with the loading issue instead of filing a timely petition for reconsideration of the  zP - d(#<Commission's Goodman/Chan Order. As noted above, a Commissionlevel resolution of an issue cannot be altered through a Divisionlevel rule interpretation.  it is important to emphasize that in the Goodman/Chan Order the Commission"B+'',, "  d(#!clearly granted the affected licensees a four month extension to construct their licenses and commence  T- d(#e"operations. The issue of whether the Goodman/Chan Order also provided for an additional four months  d(#!to achieve loading of seventy mobiles is far more uncertain. While certain of the Receiver's pleadings  d(#!appear to seek additional time to construct and load each system, some of the same pleadings appear to  T5- d(#H!ask for more limited relief that would simply avoid license cancellation.Z5BB xP - v ԍFor example, at one point the Receiver requests that the licensees be granted eight months to construct and  d(#load their authorized facilities. Goodman Petition at 7. However, in the same pleading the Receiver states that he  zP -is merely asking for an extension of the construction deadline. Id. at n.12. Also see note 51, supra. Similarly, throughout the  T- d(#!Goodman/Chan Order, there is language that appears to emphasize that we are not waiving the loading  T- d(#!requirements.d B zP-ԍGoodman/Chan Order at 85458546, 85488549,  20, 26. Some of this same language could, however, be read to simply state that if a licensee  d(# did not achieve loading of seventy mobiles at the end of the four month construction extension, the  Tj-channel should accommodate additional licensees.&j B zP- v {ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993). See Abraham Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order,  zP- d(#11 FCC Rcd. 11372, 11374,  5 (1996); Michael McDermott d/b/a McDermott Communications Co., Memorandum  zP- d(#Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 5750, 5755,  20 (1996); Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's  zP^- d(#Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Memorandum  zP(- d(#[Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 6690, n.38 (1993); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Permit  d(#yExclusiveUse Systems to Conduct Secondary Fixed Signaling and Alarm Operations Without Conforming to the  zP- d(#Provision of Section 90.235, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd. 4574, n.11 (1992); Amendment of Part 90 of the  d(#Commission's Rules to Permit ExclusiveUse Systems to Conduct Secondary Fixed Tone Signaling and Alarm  zPL- d(#Operations Without Conforming to the Provisions of Section 90.235, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 6 FCC Rcd. 6898, 68986899,  4, n.10 (1991).&  T- >&39. ` ` The Commission granted the Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees an opportunity to  d(#)"avoid license cancellation eight months after license grant through the extraordinary relief of providing  d(#(#additional time to construct and place their facilities in operation. Although it may be ambiguous whether  d(#"the Receiver either requested or received additional time for licensees to obtain exclusivity, it is clear that  d(#t"each Receivership licensee certified to place seventy mobiles in operation within eight months of license  d(#"grant, but failed to do so. The Receiver did not seek a stay of further licensing on each affected channel  d(#!despite the facts that (1) our rules provide that General Category channels are not automatically subject  d(#G"to exclusive use, and (2) the Receivership licensees lost their ability to prevent further licensing on each  d(# of their channels when they failed to satisfy their commitment to achieve loading of seventy mobile  T9- d(#stations on or before eight months after license grant.s9B zPu$-ԍ See Goodman Petition at 7; Supplemental Petition at 4.s Moreover, there is nothing in our  T- d(#!Goodman/Chan Order that can be read to prevent additional licensing on the channels at issue. While  d(#"many conventional initial licensees represented that they planned to place seventy mobile stations on their".+'',,"  d(# !channel by the end of their eightmonth, and now oneyear, loading period, our rules do not require  d(#licensees to load seventy mobiles on their channels and not everyone fulfills this requirement for  T- d(#!exclusivity.IB zP-ԍ See para. 4.I Some licensees have more modest assessments of what their loading will be, and, prior  d(#!to the freeze on licensing of General Category channels, we granted cochannel licenses on channels  d(#*!where the incumbent licensee did not fully load. While the Goodman/Chan Receivership claimed to  d(#!intend to place seventy mobiles on each of their channels, as we have noted, ample facts in the record  d(#"demonstrate that members of the Goodman/Chan Receivership had no plans to do so, nor were they even  T-aware of the requirement for exclusivity.WZB zP -ԍ See Goodman Petition at 2.W  T5- '40.` ` While the petitions were pending, and prior to the release of the Goodman/Chan Order,  d(# the Licensing Division, in accordance with its standard procedure, sent out automated inquiries to a  d(#9!number of Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees to determine the extent to which the licensees had  T - d(#)"loaded their channels. In 208 instances, Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees responded that they had  d(#!not loaded their channels with seventy mobile stations, and, as a result, the Licensing Division granted  T7 - d(# additional licenses to share the channels with these licensees,J7 B xP-ԍFox April 17 letter at 2.J pursuant to section 90.633(b) of our  T - d(#"rules.Q |B xP -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1994).Q Because none of these 208 licenses were fully loaded, our staff did not rescind any cochannel  d(# licenses already authorized on the same channels with these Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees.  d(#However, in an additional thirtyeight instances in which Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees  Tk- d(#H!responded that they had not fully loaded their channels, our staff did not process applications for co T8- d(#"channel use and agreed not to grant the thirtyeight pending applications for cochannel use.U8 B xP-ԍNovember 20 Staff Letter at 2.U However,  d(# #in accordance with our conclusion that these licensees had no entitlement to exclusive use of the channels,  d(#"we find that the agreement not to review and process the thirtyeight pending applications for cochannel  T- d(# use was in error because the Goodman/Chan Order did not freeze new licensing on these channels.  d(#YTherefore, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau should have reviewed and processed these applications pursuant to the Commission's rules.  T- (41.` ` Although we granted the Receiver's Supplemental Petition, we find no contradiction  d(#W!between the grant of the Supplemental Petition and our licensing of cochannel licensees on channels  d(#u!licensed to Goodman/Chan licensees. Thus, we affirm the Licensing Division's decision to decline to  d(#"rescind cochannel licenses granted on channels occupied by Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees who  d(#"reported that they had not fully loaded their channels. The Supplemental Petition requested that we (1)  d(#*!issue a stay of any cancellation of the affected General Category licenses during the pendency of the  d(#"waiver request; (2) suspend the mailing of automated inquiries to the affected General Category licensees;  d(#"(3) grant the affected licensees a 120day period to comply with section 90.633 of our rules if we denied  d(#the waiver petition; and (4) grant such other relief that is consistent with the relief sought in the  T - d(#G"Supplemental Petition.O B xPE&-ԍSupplemental Petition at 2, 4.O The actions of our staff are consistent with the Goodman/Chan Order because" , +'',,!"  d(#<the Commission did not grant a freeze of additional licensing on these channels, nor did the  d(#H!Goodman/Chan licensees file timely petitions for reconsideration of the additional cochannel license  d(#!grants. Further, the staff did not cancel any Goodman/Chan licenses through issuance of cochannel  d(#8"licenses to entities who presumably sought to provide service on the same channels licensed to members  d(#"of the Receivership. We also conclude that the Division's mailing of automated inquiries was proper and  d(#"did not harm the Goodman/Chan licensees because the information received from the responding licensees  d(#G"indicated that, eight months after license grant, they had not placed into operation the minimum number of seventy mobiles needed to retain exclusivity.  T5-(4)` ` ShortSpaced Channels  T- )42.` ` The Receiver contends that some new licensees were granted licenses for sites in violation  T - d(#v of our mileage separation criteria.d B xP -ԍDecember 1 Petition at 4; Fox April 17 letter at 3;d We disagree. For conventional systems, the Bureau assigned  Ti - d(#!frequencies in accordance with our applicable loading criteria.Mi XB xPa-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(a)(2).M Thus, the staff permitted cochannel  d(#!licensing where the channel was not licensed exclusively to one licensee because the licensee failed to  d(#G"load at least a minimum of seventy mobile stations on the channel. However, when a licensee loaded at  d(#V"least seventy mobile stations on a channel, section 90.621(b) of our rules required that the fixed mileage  T - d(#!separation between cochannel systems be a minimum of 113 kilometers (seventy miles). B zP%-ԍSee Susan Jacobs Designs, Inc., Order, 9 FCC Rcd. 2854,  2, n.1 (1994).Ď Applicants  d(#f!were permitted to locate cochannel systems closer than seventy miles if (1) the channel was not fully  T7- d(#"loaded,s7zB zPQ-ԍSee Cochannel Licensing section, paras. 3641, supra.s (2) the applicant complied with either the consensual shortspacing rule, or the technical short T-spacing rule,Q B xP-ԍ47 C.F.R. 90.621(b)(4), (5).Q or (3) the applicant received a waiver of the mileage separation rule.   T- *43.` ` The consensual shortspacing rule allowed an applicant to place a cochannel system at  d(# any distance within the minimum separation distance as long as each cochannel licensee within the  d(#8"specified separation consented to accept any interference resulting from the reduced separation between  T- d(# the systems.MB xPA-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(5).M The technical shortspacing rule allowed cochannel licensing between fiftyfive and  d(# #seventy miles, but only if the applicant proposed to operate at reduced power and antenna height pursuant  T- d(#G"to a table set forth in our rules., B xPk!- v kԍOur shortspacing rules do not allow cochannel licensing within fiftyfive miles of an existing, fully loaded  d(#site, unless the applicant submits a detailed interference analysis demonstrating that cochannel interference will not  d(#occur or the licensees submit letters of concurrence indicating that the applicant and each cochannel licensee within  d(#the specified separation area agree to accept any interference resulting from the reduced separation between their  zP$- d(#systems. 47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4), (5). See Hawaiian Wireless Partners, Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 21192, n.11 (1996)  zPU%-(Hawaiian Wireless). Applicants could also request a waiver of the mileage separation rule"+'',,"  d(#H!by submitting an interference analysis that showed the cochannel stations would receive the same or  T-greater interference protection than provided in the technical shortspacing rule.TB xP5-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4) (1993).T  Tg-  +44.` ` In the November 20 Staff Letter, the staff concluded that the Receiver failed to provide  d(# !substantiation on the shortspacing issue at the time of its request and there was no evidence that the  d(# Licensing Division erred in granting these licenses. The Receiver has not submitted any additional  d(#"information that would persuade us otherwise. Accordingly, we now decline to cancel or modify any of the shortspaced licenses identified by the Receiver.   T5- ,45.` ` The Licensing Division found that it granted 188 shortspaced applications for channels  T- d(#"licensed to Goodman/Chan licensees, not 318, as argued by the Receiver.XB xP - v ԍ In his discussions with the PRB prior to the release of the November 20 Staff Letter, the Receiver argued  d(#xthat there were 318 such instances. November 20 Staff Letter at 2. However, in the Letter from Russell Fox, Esq.,  d(#Gardner, Carton & Douglas, attorney for the Receiver, to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division,  xPR- d(#KWireless Telecommunications Bureau, April 17 1996 (Fox April 17 letter), the Receiver contends that this situation  xP-occurred in 247 instances. Fox April 17 letter at 3. Furthermore, the staff found  d(#!that in 146 of the 188 shortspaced licensing instances, the Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees had,  d(#"through properly executed shortspacing agreements, consented to sharing a channel with other licensees,  Ti - d(#!and thus the frequency coordinations were proper.Ui B xP-ԍNovember 20 Staff Letter at 2.U Such "shortspaced" frequency recommendations  d(#!are permitted when the requesting applicant submits documentation showing consent from the licensee  T - d(##whose station is to be affected by the shortspacing. B zP;-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(5). See Hawaiian Wireless, 11 FCC Rcd. at 21194, n.11. Consequently, the licensing decisions with respect to these 146 channels was in full accord with the cochannel and shortspacing rules.  Tj- l-46.` ` In the remaining fortytwo instances where no shortspacing agreement existed, the  d(#"applicant must comply with the technical shortspacing rule or receive a waiver of the mileage separation  T- d(#"ruleM* B xP-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4).M if the licensee licensed on the channel has loaded the channel with at least seventy mobile stations.  d(# #The staff concluded that although the fortytwo remaining instances were apparently granted in error due  d(#u!to lack of shortspacing agreements, the licenses should not be set aside. Our staff concluded that the  d(#"frequency coordinators should work with the Goodman/Chan Receivership licensees to reach an equitable  T8- d(#t"solution to the mileage separation problem.U8 B xP -ԍNovember 20 Staff Letter at 2.U The staff agreed to closely scrutinize the construction and  d(#;loading performance of the licensees who received shortspaced licenses to the Goodman/Chan  d(#"Receivership Licensees and to cancel these licenses, pursuant to our rules, in cases where our construction  T- d(#!requirements were not timely met.:J B zP$-ԍId.: Through the monitoring of these fortytwo licenses, the staff has"+'',,"  d(#!determined that fourteen have fulfilled their construction requirements. The rest were automatically  T-cancelled pursuant to section 90.633(d) of our rules.B xP5-ԍThe licensees that were not constructed, automatically cancelled. 47 C.F.R.  90.633(d) (1993).  Tg- .47.` ` The Receiver argues that the Licensing Division's decisions with respect to the fourteen  T4- d(#9!licenses where no shortspacing agreements existed are in direct contravention to the Goodman/Chan  T- d(#!Order.JXB xP-ԍDecember 1 Petition at 5.J Technical shortspacing allows applicants to locate their systems closer together than seventy  T- d(# !miles upon a technical showing of noninterference.s\B zPX - v ^ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.621(b)(4) (1993); Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. at 4931. See CoChannel Protection  zP" - d(#Criteria for Part 90, Subpart S Stations Operating Above 800 MHz, Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 7293, 7295 xP -7296,  13 (1993).s Although the staff believed that the fourteen  d(#"licenses may have been granted in error because the recommendations of the frequency coordinator could  Tj- d(#!not be substantiated by short spacing agreements,Kj B xP-ԍNovember 20th Letter at 2.K our review of the records shows that the fourteen  d(#: Goodman/Chan licenses were not fully loaded. As discussed above, a conventional SMR licensee  d(# receives eight months to load a minimum of seventy mobile stations on its channel in order to retain  d(#"exclusivity. However, if the channel does not have a minimum of seventy mobile stations on its channel  T - d(# at the time the eight month period expires, another licensee may be granted on that channel.Q B xP-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.633(b) (1993).Q As a  d(# !result, even though these fourteen licensees did not agree to be shortspaced, our Licensing Division  d(#!correctly granted a license within seventy miles because the channels were not exclusive and were not  d(#!entitled to the standard seventy mile separation between cochannel systems. Therefore, we affirm the  d(#f!decision of the Licensing Division to allow the fourteen nonGoodman/Chan Receivership licenses to remain.  T9- /48.` ` The Receiver also has requested that we lift the General Category Freeze to allow  d(#t"Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees to apply for new licenses in instances where proper shortspaced  T- d(#!or cochannel licensees are on Goodman/Chan Receivership channels.d, B xP-ԍNovember 18 letter (proposed draft order,  15).d The General Category Freeze  T- d(#f!was imposed to effectuate a transition to geographic area licensing of General Category channels and  d(# "resolution of mutually exclusive applications for geographic area licenses through competitive bidding.  d(#V"The Receiver has provided no reason to justify lifting the freeze in instances where our rules were fully  d(#e"complied with to the detriment of the Goodman/Chan licensees. We specifically stated that we did "not  d(#)"intend to reward and encourage further speculative activity by entities like the Receivership Companies  T- d(# and possibly invite abuse of [our] processes."h B zP"-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8549,  28.h Granting the Receiver's request might reward or  d(# encourage further speculative activity or invite abuse of our processes. Thus, we decline to lift the General Category freeze.   T-(5)` ` Cancelled Licenses"N +'',,y"Ԍ T- Mԙ049.` ` The Receiver seeks reinstatement of 106 Goodman/Chan Receivership Licenses where  d(#!the licenses were cancelled based on the licensees' failure to respond to automated inquiry letters from  d(#Jthe staff seeking confirmation that the licensees had constructed their facilities and commenced  Tg- d(#operations.qgB xP-ԍFebruary 3 Reinstatement Petition; Fox February 3 letter at 2. q The Receiver argues that these licenses were improperly cancelled because the  T4- d(#"Goodman/Chan Order granted the Receiver's request that the Commission not send construction inquiries  T- d(#"to Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees after March 21, 1994.ZXB xP- v ԍFebruary 3 Reinstatement Petition at 3. The Receiver's request in its Supplemental Petition that we cease  d(#sending Enforcement Letters to the licensees during the pendency of Goodman Petition was granted in the  zP -Goodman/Chan Order. See Goodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8550,  30. The staff was not, however, provided  d(#"with the data necessary to identify the Receivership licenses, and thereby modify the automated licensing  T- d(# !system to prevent sending automated inquiries to Receivership licensees. The Goodman/Chan Order  Tj- d(# expressly provided for reinstatement of fourteen licenses under these circumstances.hjzB zP -ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8550,  30.h Thus, these  T7-licenses will be reinstated upon publication of the Goodman/Chan Order in the Federal Register.  T- 150.` ` The Receiver also alerted us to the existence of an additional ninetytwo cancelled licenses  T - d(#"on February 3, 1998.o B xPK-ԍFebruary 3 Reinstatement Petition; Fox February 3 letter at 2.o We will reinstate all of these licenses granted prior to January 2, 1995.; B zP- v ԍThe CMRS Third Report and Order, which changed the construction period for all new CMRS licenses from  zP-eight months to twelve months, took effect on January 2, 1995. See CMRS Third Report and Order at 8167,  414.; We  d(#)"have determined that approximately sixty of the ninetytwo licenses were granted after January 2, 1995  d(#!and therefore received a twelvemonth construction period. Because the basis for the relief granted in  T - d(#u!the Goodman/Chan Order was to place the Goodman/Chan licensees in the same posture as other Part  d(#W!90 CMRS providers who were given a twelvemonth construction period, these sixty licenses are not  d(# eligible for relief and therefore will not be reinstated. We agree to reinstate the remaining licenses  d(#"because they are similarly situated to the original fourteen cancelled licenses that the Commission agreed  T;- d(#!to reinstate in the Goodman/Chan Order.h; B zP-ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8550,  30.h We will not, however, cancel any cochannel license that  d(#!has since been granted on a channel that we reinstate with this Order for the reasons discussed in para.  T-41, supra.  Tq- .251.` ` The Receiver also identifies 296 licensees who voluntarily cancelled their licenses while  d(#"the Goodman Petition was pending, after which they reapplied for and received new licenses at the same  T - d(#!locations.  B zP5"- v PԍNovember 18 letter (Receiver's proposed draft order,  16); See Appendix; February 3 letter at 3,  zP"-Appendix 4. Also see note 91, supra. As a result, these licensees were not among those licensees who were granted extensions  T- d(#W!of the construction deadline by the Goodman/Chan Order. The Receiver requests that these licensees"+'',,"  T- d(#v receive the same extended construction period as other Goodman/Chan Licensees. B xPh- v ԍFox February 3 letter at 3. We note that the Receiver previously agreed that Goodman/Chan Licensees who  d(#yvoluntarily cancelled their licenses by a properly executed Private Radio Application for Renewal, Reinstatement  d(#and/or Notification to Change to License Information, FCC Form 405A would be deleted from our database. November 20 Staff Letter at 2. We deny this  T- d(#W!request. These licensees affirmatively chose to cancel their licenses while the Goodman Petition was  d(#!pending because they preferred to obtain new licenses with oneyear construction periods, rather than  d(#V"continue to press their extension requests. We conclude that, as a result of their decision to cancel their  T4- d(#!licenses, these licensees no longer have standing to obtain relief under the Goodman/Chan Order. We  d(#!conclude that their rights as licensees are determined by their subsequent authorizations. Furthermore,  d(#e"these licensees obtained their new licenses after January 2, 1995, and therefore received a twelvemonth  T- d(#!construction period.B zP -ԍSee CMRS Third Report and Order at 8167,  414; 47 C.F.R.  90.167(a). Because the purpose of the additional fourmonth construction period provided  Ti- d(#9!for in the Goodman/Chan Order was to place the Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees in the same  d(#!posture as other Part 90 CMRS providers, and thereby give them a total of twelve months to construct,  d(#9!these 296 licensees do not require and are not eligible for such relief. Therefore, we find that these licensees will not be granted an additional four months to construct.  Sk - C.Related General Category Matters  T -(1)` ` Extension of License Renewal Period  T - 352.` ` The license term of some Goodman/Chan Receivership licenses will likely expire prior  Tl- d(#t"to the end of the additional four month construction period.zlBB xPN- v ԍFox February 3 letter at 4; Request for Emergency Relief, filed Mar. 11, 1998; License Renewal Petition.  d(#=On March 23, 1998, our Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public Notice notifying all of the 800  d(#MHz conventional SMR licensees on General Category channels that received an extension of time from eight  d(#Lmonths to twelve months to construct their facilities and commence operation that it is the responsibility of each  zPn- d(#-licensee to apply for renewal of its license prior to the expiration date of the license.  See Public Notice, DA 98557  d(#l(Mar. 23, 1998). On April 3, 1998, the Receiver filed a petition for reconsideration of the public notice. Emergency Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification filed by Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver (April 3, 1998). Pursuant to section 90.149(a), the license  T9- d(# term for General Category channels is five years.J9 B xP]-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.149(a).J Because our rules do not allow for renewal of  T- d(#"unconstructed licenses,B xP- v 0ԍNormally, licenses automatically cancelled when the licensee failed to construct within eight months of the license grant. 47 C.F.R.  90.633(d) (1993). the Receiver requests that the terms of such licenses be extended to enable these  d(#8"licensees to complete construction on the same basis as other licensees, so that they will then be eligible  T-for renewal.RlB xP#-ԍFox February 3 letter at 4.R  T:-  453.` ` It is the responsibility of each licensee to apply for renewal of its license prior to the  d(# expiration date of the license. According to the Commission's rules, 800 MHz SMR licensees will"+'',,"  d(#"receive an Application for Renewal of Private Radio Station License Form (FCC Form 574R) in the mail  T- d(#e"from the Commission.LB xP5-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.926(a)(1).L If within sixty days before the scheduled expiration of the license, the licensee  d(#W!has not received FCC Form 574R, the licensee should file a Private Radio Application for Renewal,  d(#"Reinstatement and/or Notification of Change to License Information Form (FCC Form 405A) before the  T4- d(#)"expiration date of the license to renew the license.@4XB zP,-ԍId.@ Thus, failure of a licensee to receive a FCC Form  d(#!574R from the Commission is no excuse for failure to file a renewal application. The license renewal  d(# !application should be filed no more than ninety days nor less than thirty days prior to the end of the  T- d(#"license term in accordance with the Commission's rulesJB xP% -ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.127(b).J and the instructions for the appropriate form.  d(#"In accordance with our rules, failure to file a license renewal application prior to the license expiration  T5- d(#!date results in the automatic cancellation of the license on its expiration date.5zB xPO- v ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.149 (a) and (b); Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the  zP- d(#ZConstruction, Licensing, and Operation of Private Land Mobile Stations, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 90481,  zP- d(#6 FCC Rcd. 7297, 7300,  19 (1991) (Report and Order). Furthermore, in this instance, cancelled licenses would  zP- d(#not be reassigned because of the General Category licensing freeze. See Licensing of General Category Frequencies  zPu-in the 806809.750/851854.750 MHz Bands, Order, 10 FCC Rcd. 13190 (1995). However, because of  d(##the unique circumstances of this case, if the licensee has timely filed the appropriate license renewal form,  d(#(#we will toll the expiration of the license until the end of the fourmonth construction period. If at the end  d(#"of that time, the licensee has fully constructed its authorization and commenced operations, we will grant  d(#"the license renewal. We will not grant any renewal application if the licensee fails to construct or place the station in operation before the expiration of the fourmonth period.  T -(2)` ` Transfers and Assignments of Unconstructed Licenses  Tj- /554.` ` To assist in the potential recovery by members of the Goodman/Chan Receivership of  d(#"their monetary losses, the Receiver requests that we facilitate efforts by the Goodman/Chan Receivership  d(#"to assign their licenses to other SMR operators prior to the expiration of the construction period for such  T- d(#!licenses.N2 B xP-ԍFox February 3 letter at 34.N In the 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order, we temporarily waived the provisions of  d(# section 90.609(b) of our rules to facilitate the relocation of Incumbent licensees from the upper 200  Tl- d(#"channels to the lower 230 channels as well as to facilitate geographic licensing.l B zP-ԍ800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 1909619098,  4044. Thus, we allowed the  d(# assignment or transfer of unconstructed licenses on the lower 80 and General Category channels "to  d(#"encourage [the] rapid migration of incumbent [licensees], preferably through voluntary negotiations, from  T- d(#u!the upper 200 channels to lower band 800 MHz channels."MT B zP#-ԍId. at 19096,  40.M In addition, the Commission stated that  T- d(#"relaxing our transfer restrictions facilitates geographic licensing of the lower channels themselves.MB zP&&-ԍId. at 19097,  41.M The"x+'',,"  d(#"Commission also advised incumbents to modify their holdings in advance of the auction through transfers  d(#"or channel swaps and new entrants to position themselves for the auction by acquiring existing licenses  T-in areas where they intend to bid.:B zP-ԍId.:  T4- 655. ` ` Under this waiver, the Bureau accepted transfer applications for unconstructed licenses  T- d(#!on these channels until six months after the conclusion of the 800 MHz upper band auction, i.e., until  T- d(#V"June 8, 1998.ZB zP-ԍId. The upper band 800 MHz auction concluded on December 8, 1997. We further provided that in the event of a transfer or assignment, the transferee would  d(#be subject to the same construction deadline as the transferor, unless the transferee had extended  Ti- d(#!implementation authority.miB zP - v _ԍId. at 19097,  42 n.93. For a list of SMR licensees with extended implementation authority, see  d(#MAmendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the  zP - d(#<800MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, Order, DA 971059 (May 20, 1997).  Extended Implementation  zPQ- d(#Authority allows a license to obtain an extension of its construction deadline upon appropriate justification. See 47 C.F.R.  90.629.m In the latter case, we stated that we would allow licensees to apply their  T6-systemwide construction deadlines to licenses acquired by transfer within their preexisting footprint.6B zPx-ԍSee 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 19097,  42 n.93.  T- =756.` ` We determine that the Goodman/Chan Receivership and similarly situated nonGoodman  T - d(#"Chan General Category SMR licenseesZ 4 B xPq- v ԍSimilarly situated nonGoodman/Chan General Category SMR licensees are those consumers who purchased  d(#[and received application preparation services which resulted in the grant of an 800 MHz SMR General Category  zP-license with an eight month construction period. See note 50, supra. who have not yet constructed may, during the ninety day period  d(#t"beginning on the day the Goodman/Chan Order is published in the Federal Register, apply to transfer or  T7 - d(#)"assign unconstructed licenses that have received construction extensions pursuant to the Goodman/Chan  T - d(#V"Order and this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration. V B zP-ԍA transferee must also comply with 47 C.F.R.  90.127(b); see paras. 5253, supra. We believe the same  T - d(#"special circumstances that existed in the 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order that facilitated the need  d(# to temporarily waive section 90.609(b) of our rules exist here; namely, the need to encourage rapid  d(#F#migration of incumbents, preferably through voluntary negotiations, from the upper 200 channels to lower  T;- d(# band 800 MHz channels, and facilitate geographic licensing as set out in the 800 MHz SMR Second  T - d(#"Report and Order. Accordingly, we believe it is in the public interest to allow transfers and assignments  d(#"that will facilitate the relocation of incumbent licensees from the upper 200 channels to the lower band  d(# 800 MHz channels or geographic licensing of the lower channels themselves. All such transfer and  d(#"assignment requests require prior Commission approval pursuant to section 310(d) of the Communications  T>- d(#G"Act, as amended.>B zP#-ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  310(d); 47 C.F.R.  90.609(b); see also paras. 2735, supra. All such transfer and assignment requests must be made by the individual licensees,">z+'',,"  T- d(#t"as the Receiver does not have standing to file such requests.B zPh- v ԍSee FTC v. Metropolitan Communications Corp. at 67; Standing of the Receiver discussion, paras. 2735,  zP2-supra. If the transfer or assignment is approved, the transferee will be subject to the same  d(#!construction deadline as the transferor, unless the transferee has preexisting extended implementation  d(#authority and the license to be transferred is within the geographic footprint of the extended  T4- d(#implementation system. For purposes of this order, we define the "footprint" using the 18 dB  T- d(# "interference criteria established for lower band systems in the 800 MHz Second Report and Order; i.e.,  d(#V"any site will be considered in the extended implementation licensee's footprint if it is within the 18 dB  d(#!interference contour of an existing site that is part of the system for which the transferee has received  Ti- d(# extended implementation authority.i$B zP- -ԍ800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. at 19105,  67. In such cases, the transferee may incorporate the transferred  d(#e"license into its extended implementation authorization, and apply the construction deadline applicable to the system as a whole.  T -  ?857.` ` We recognize that the ninety day period is much shorter than the six month period  Tj - d(#V"authorized by the 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order. In providing a shorter period, we weighed  d(#t"the competing interests of licensees who desire to bid at auction for the geographic licenses in the lower  d(#V"230 SMR channels against the interests of the Goodman/Chan Receivership to receive a fair opportunity  d(#8"to construct their channels. Thus, although we will allow the Goodman/Chan Receivership ninety days  T - d(# to transfer and assign unconstructed licenses, we will not accept FCC Form 175s B xP- v ]#X\  P6G;6P#э47 C.F.R.  1.2105 requires an applicant to submit an FCC Form 175 together with any appropriate filing fee to be eligible to bid in an auction. for the Phase II  Tl- d(#)"auction before January 15, 1999, which is over five months after release of this Order.ZlB zP- v ԍWe note that parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order.  d(#Thus, in addition to providing certainty with regards to the available spectrum, we must also resolve these outstanding petitions concerning our rules for the lower 230 channels before accepting the shortform applications. This delay in  d(#"accepting FCC Form 175s will permit the four month construction period to run as intended. We believe  d(#!that this accommodation for the Goodman/Chan Receivership will allow prospective bidders to obtain  d(#accurate and complete information concerning the lower 230 SMR channels while providing the  d(#G"Goodman/Chan Receivership with the full four month period to construct. The Balanced Budget Act of  d(#"1997 requires that we provide prospective bidders with sufficient information in advance of an auction  d(# #to prepare business plans, assess market conditions, and evaluate the availability of equipment for relevant  T- d(#!services.x0 B zP-#X\  P6G;6P#эSee para. 35, supra.x Therefore, in order to give prospective bidders sufficient time to prepare in advance of the auction, the present matter needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.  Tn- 958. ` ` If the Goodman/Chan licensee shares the General Category channel, the assignee would  d(#H!acquire the same shared status. To the extent that a Goodman/Chan licensee is the sole occupant of a  d(#"General Category channel, that licensee has de facto exclusive use: the General Category licensing freeze" +'',,k"  T- d(#)"has been in place now for more than a year, precluding any new licensing.B zPh- v 0ԍSee Seminole County, Florida Request for Waiver of the General Category Freeze, Order, 11 FCC Rcd.  d(#4105 (1996) (grant of the waiver provided increased safety because it enabled Seminole to improve its public safety  zP- d(#Kcommunications service); State of Florida Request for Waiver of the General Category Freeze, Order, 12 FCC Rcd.  d(#11567 (1997) (waiver will facilitate the construction of a statewide 800 MHz public safety communications system  d(#Mwhich will provide increased safety to the citizens of Florida and is consistent with the Commission's goal of  zPT- d(#-promoting efficient and effective public safety communications); In the Matter of Wackenhut Corporation, Order,  d(#DA 981196 (June 19, 1998) (Wackenhut demonstrated that granting its waiver request is in the public interest  d(#because it facilitates operation of a system that enhances safety of the general public located within its service area and results in more efficient use of the spectrum).  Moreover, new licensing  d(# of General Category channels will not occur for several months, when the Commission conducts an  d(#u!auction to award geographic area licenses. The transferee of this type of Goodman/Chan license thus  d(#e"acquires an expectancy of achieving exclusive channel use. The expectancy would be met provided that  d(#!the assignee or transferee incorporates the channel into an aggregately loaded system, or demonstrates  T-loading at the constructed site of seventy mobiles.\B zP?- v ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.633, 800 MHz SMR Second Report and Order at 1909719098,  4344, Fleet Call,  zP - d(#Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd. 1533, recon. dismissed, 6 FCC Rcd. 6989 (1991); see also Letter from Ralph Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau to David Weisman, DA 921734, 8 FCC Rcd. 143 (1992).  T-(3)` ` Construction Period for Other General Category Licensees   T5- :59.` ` Although the Goodman/Chan Order does not extend relief to any licensee other than the  T- d(#9!Goodman/Chan Receivership, we conclude that similarly situated General Category SMR licenseesP B zPe-ԍSee note 50, supra.P  T- d(#"should receive the same fourmonth construction period extension granted therein. In the Goodman/Chan  T - d(#)"Order, we based our limited grant of relief on the fact that during the pendency of the petition, we had  d(#u!replaced our eightmonth construction requirement with a twelvemonth construction requirement for  T9 - d(# SMR licensees licensed in the General Category.m9 T B zP--ԍGoodman/Chan Order, 10 FCC Rcd. at 85458546,  20.m We granted the Goodman/Chan Receivership  d(#!Licensees a fourmonth extension to their original eightmonth construction period to place them in the  T -same posture as other SMR licensees who had obtained twelve months to construct.^ B zPY-ԍId. at 85488549,  2526.^  Tm- ;60.` ` We believe the same relief should be extended to similarly situated nonGoodman/Chan  d(#W!General Category SMR licensees. However, in order to be granted this limited relief, these licensees  d(#!must have originally been granted an eightmonth construction period and must have a valid extension  T- d(#"requestxB xP"- v !ԍIn order to be entitled to relief, similarly situated nonGoodman/Chan General Category SMR licensees  zP#- d(#=must have been granted their license prior to January 2, 1995. See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd.  d(#at 8074, 8167,  177, 414. In addition, such licensees must have filed their waiver request prior to the expiration  d(#of their original construction deadline because under section 90.633(d) of our rules in place at that time, their  zP&- d(#licenses automatically cancelled after that eight month period if the station had not been placed in operation. See 47 C.F.R.  90.633(d) (1993). on file with the Commission.IB xP-ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.151.I Eligible licensees will receive the same fourmonth period to"!X+'',,"  T- d(#"construct that we granted to the Goodman/Chan Receivership, which is a period of four months to begin  T-upon publication of the Goodman/Chan Order in the Federal Register.   Sh-J IV. CONCLUSION Đ\  T- j<61.` ` In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we dismiss the Receiver's December 1 Petition.  d(#8"We find that the Receiver, Daniel R. Goodman, does not have standing to file the December 1 Petition.  d(# "Individual licensees are therefore responsible to address the Bureau with individual licensing problems.  d(# We also conclude that both the Goodman/Chan Receivership and other similarly situated General  d(# Category Licensees shall have four months to construct and commence operation of their licensed  T- d(#G"facilities from the date that the Goodman/Chan Order is published in the Federal Register. We will not  d(#I cancel any subsequently granted licenses on channels occupied by members of the Goodman/Chan  d(# Receivership who reported that they had not fully loaded their channels. We also decline to cancel properly granted cochannel licenses.  T - =62.` ` We direct the Bureau to reinstate the fourteen licenses reinstated by the Goodman/Chan  T - d(#"Order, as well as thirtytwo of the additional ninetytwo licenses identified by the Receiver on February  d(#7#3, 1998. We will allow the Goodman/Chan Receivership and other General Category licensees to transfer  To- d(#!unconstructed licenses until ninety days after the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and  T=- d(#!Order on Reconsideration. Lastly, on our own motion, for those licensees whose license is scheduled  d(#"to expire prior to the end of the fourmonth construction period, we will toll the license term to coincide  d(#(#with the last day of the fourmonth construction period, so long as the affected licensees previously timely  d(#!filed a license renewal application. We deny the Receiver's February 3 Reinstatement Petition, to the  Tr- d(#"extent provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration. We also dismiss  d(#e"both the Brown and Schwaninger Petition and the Receiver's Motion for Clarification as untimely filed.  d(#"In conjunction with the D.C. Circuit action holding in abeyance the stay request brought by the Receiver,  T- d(#(#our Office of General Counsel has stated to the Court that the Goodman/Chan Order will not be published  T- d(#f!in the Federal Register until the Court has an opportunity to consider the pending Motion for Stay.6ZXB zP- v lԍSee e.g. FCC Opposition to Motion for Stay and Petition for Injunction and Emergency Motion for Stay,  d(#filed Dec. 4, 1995, at 9, n.11; Motion for Leave to File Response to Emergency Motion for Stay, filed Dec. 4, 1995, at 9.6  Tu- d(#V"Accordingly, as a matter of courtesy, we instruct the Secretary not to submit this Memorandum Opinion  TC- d(# and Order and Order on Reconsideration and the Goodman/Chan Order to the Office of the Federal  d(#W!Register for publication in the Federal Register until twenty days after the release date of this Order.  d(#"This twentyday deferral of submission will afford the Receiver an opportunity to advise the Court of its  d(# "intention with respect to the stay request and, should the Receiver pursue that litigation, the Court will have an opportunity to rule.  S-0 V. ORDERING CLAUSES Đ\  T- [>63.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act,  Ty- d(#9!as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), the Goodman/Chan Order, which will trigger commencement of the  TG- d(#e"fourmonth construction period extension we granted in the Goodman/Chan Order, will be implemented  T - d(#!by publication in the Federal Register. The Secretary shall submit a summary of the Goodman/Chan" "z+'',,%"  T- d(#f!Order and this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration for publication in the  T-Federal Register twenty days after the release of this Order.@B zP6-ԍId.@  Th- B?64.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the  d(# Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's  d(#u!rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, Daniel R. Goodman's Petition for Reconsideration filed December 1, 1995, IS DISMISSED.  Ti- B@65.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the  d(# Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's  d(# rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Receiver's Petition for Reconsideration filed on February 3, 1998, IS  T-GRANTED to the extent provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  Tk - #A66.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 5 and 309 of the  d(#e"Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 155, 309 and section 0.331 of the Commission's  d(#e"rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, any requested actions concerning issues affecting the individual licensees must be filed with the Commission by the individual licensees.  Tl- BB67.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the  d(# Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's  d(#"rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, Brown and Schwaninger's Petition for Reconsideration filed on June 26, 1995, IS DISMISSED.  Tm- BC68.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the  d(# Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's  d(# rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Receiver's Emergency Motion for Clarification or Stay, filed July 17, 1995, IS DISMISSED.  Tn- D69.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) of the Communications Act,  d(#!as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), the Receiver's Request for Emergency Relief, filed March 11, 1998,  T-IS DENIED to the extent provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  T- BE70.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the  d(# Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's  d(#!rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Receiver's Petition for Reconsideration, filed April 3, 1998, IS DENIED  T -to the extent provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. "#Z+'',,!"  T- =F71.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4 and 303 of the Communications  d(#*!Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154, 303, and section 90.151 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   d(#W!90.151, the relief requested by the nonGoodman/Chan General Category Licensees IS GRANTED to  Tg-the extent provided in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCq ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas  T6-` `  hhCSecretary#Xj\  P6G;WXP# $t   $t