WPC 2MB%RK<3|a!'Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNQ\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\HP4M (PCL) (Addnal); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRS&a\  P6G;\"\&P\njc\2 KX Z? 3|a "i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\HP LaserJet 4 lpt2:ional)HPLA4AD0.PRSX\  P6G;\$jP2gK XK"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\X01Í Í,0Í ÍTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2KKp/q"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\1_?'`;6/sDocument Style=(w2'` ;*w2_?'`E` ` ` 2_?'`<6/sDocument Style=(w2'` <*w2_?'`E  . 2eBe p3_?'`=6/sDocument Style=(w2'` =*w2_?'`E  4_?'`>6/sDocument Style=(w2'` >*w2_?'`E  5_?'`?6/sDocument Style=(w2'` ?*w2_?'`E*    6_?'`@6/sDocument Style=(w2'` @*w2_?'`E  ` ` ` 2A n 7_?'`A6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E8 @   8_?'`B6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`EA@` `  ` ` ` 9_?'`C6/sDocument Style=(w2'` C*w2_?'`E 0     10_?'`D6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E J` ` @  ` `  2   <11_?'`E6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E S` `  @  12_?'`F6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E \` `  @hh# hhh 13_?'`G6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E e` `  hh#@( hh# 14_?'`H6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`En` `  hh#(@- ( 2" !"15_?'`I6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 16_?'`J6/sDocument Style=(w2'` J*w2_?'`EF  *  ׃  17_?'`K6/sTechnical Document Style'` K*w2_?'`E&!"  . 18_?'`L6/sTechnical Document Style'` L*w2_?'`E&#$  . 21%"X##$19_?'`M6/sTechnical Document Style'` M*w2_?'`E*%&    20_?'`N6/sTechnical Document Style'` N*w2_?'`E''(   21_?'`O6/sTechnical Document Style'` O*w2_?'`E&)*   22_?'`P6/sTechnical Document Style'` P*w2_?'`E4+$,     2'c%%nm&&23_?'`Q6/sTechnical Document Style'` Q*w2_?'`E&-.  . 24_?'`R6/sTechnical Document Style'` R*w2_?'`E&/0  . Bibliogrphy6/sBibliography2=(w2'` S*w2_?'`E12 Tech InitT6/sInitialize Technical Style` T*w2_?'`E34 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2j*'(A))a1Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w245$6     a2Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2*78    a3Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2'9:   a4Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2&;<   2,* !+!+"+,a5Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2&=>  . a6Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2 &?@  . a7Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2!&AB  . a8Technical+w2_?Technical Document StyleJ2=(w2'` U*w2"&CD  . 2/#,$-%.&'/Doc Init`V6/sInitialize Document Style'` V*w2_?'`E#EF    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2$FGH *  ׃  a2DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2%*IJ    a3DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2&0K L    21'q/(e_0)e0*p)1a4DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2'M N . a5DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2( OP a6DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2) QR a7DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2*ST` ` ` 27+p1,;2-e6.p67a8DocumentE+w2_?Document Style J2=(w2'` [*w2+UV` ` ` Pleading`\6/sHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper*w2_?'`E,>WX   ,#Xj\  PG;XP##Xj\  PG;XP##Xj\  PG;XP# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Heading 2`6/sUnderlined Heading Flush Left`*w2_?'`E-YZ Heading 1a6/sCentered Heading(w2'` a*w2_?'`E.[ \* à  2v</s70K81F92:Bullet List6/sIndented Bullet List'` b*w2_?'`E/]^` ` ` footnote ref6/sfootnote reference2'` c*w2_?'`E0_`Default Para6/sDefault Paragraph Font'` d*w2_?'`E1abDocument 86/sDocument 8J2=(w2'` e*w2_?'`E2cd2C3<4L>5?6|ADocument 46/sDocument 4J2=(w2'` f*w2_?'`E3ef  Document 66/sDocument 6J2=(w2'` g*w2_?'`E4ghDocument 56/sDocument 5J2=(w2'` h*w2_?'`E5ijDocument 26/sDocument 2J2=(w2'` i*w2_?'`E6kl2 M7FC8JD9J(H:rKDocument 76/sDocument 7J2=(w2'` j*w2_?'`E7mnRight Par 16/sRight Par 12=(w2'` k*w2_?'`E8~otpX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 26/sRight Par 22=(w2'` l*w2_?'`E9~qtrX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 36/sDocument 3J2=(w2'` m*w2_?'`E:st2dZ;JJWRight Par 36/sRight Par 32=(w2'` n*w2_?'`E;~utvX` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 46/sRight Par 42=(w2'` o*w2_?'`E<~wtxX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 56/sRight Par 52=(w2'` p*w2_?'`E=~ytzX` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 66/sRight Par 62=(w2'` q*w2_?'`E>~{t|X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2g?JZ@J]AT*aBP~dRight Par 76/sRight Par 72=(w2'` r*w2_?'`E?~}t~X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 86/sRight Par 82=(w2'` s*w2_?'`E@~tX` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 16/sDocument 1J2=(w2'` t*w2_?'`EAyX` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 56/sTechnical 52=(w2'` u*w2_?'`EBwX` hp x (# ` hp x (#2qCPhDPkElFPnTechnical 66/sTechnical 62=(w2'` v*w2_?'`ECwX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 26/sTechnical 22=(w2'` w*w2_?'`EDTechnical 36/sTechnical 32=(w2'` x*w2_?'`EETechnical 46/sTechnical 42=(w2'` y*w2_?'`EFwX` hp x (# ` hp x (#2}GrHPsIPvJJ:zTechnical 16/sTechnical 12=(w2'` z*w2_?'`EGTechnical 76/sTechnical 72=(w2'` {*w2_?'`EHwX` hp x (# ` hp x (#Technical 86/sTechnical 82=(w2'` |*w2_?'`EIwX` hp x (# ` hp x (#toc 1'`}6/stoc 1 J2=(w2'` }*w2_?'`EJ~t!(#B` hp x (#2ފKJ}LJMJJNJtoc 2'`~6/stoc 2 J2=(w2'` ~*w2_?'`EK~t` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3'`6/stoc 3 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EL~t` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4'`6/stoc 4 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EM~t !(# ` hp x (#toc 5'`6/stoc 5 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EN~th!(# ` hp x (#2OJPZQJRJFtoc 6'`6/stoc 6 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EO~t!(#` hp x (#toc 7'`6/stoc 7 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EPtoc 8'`6/stoc 8 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EQ~t!(#` hp x (#toc 9'`6/stoc 9 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`ER~t!(#B` hp x (#2BSJ–TJ UJVVindex 1'`6/sindex 1 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`ES~t` !(# ` hp x (#index 2'`6/sindex 2 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`ET~t` !(#B` hp x (#toa_?'`6/stoap J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EU~t!(# ` hp x (#caption'`6/scaption J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EV2ԦWtX YZ)_Equation Ca6/s_Equation Captionw2'` *w2_?'`EWendnote refe6/sendnote referencew2'` *w2_?'`EXhead1'`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EY'#2pC #25_?'`6/sfootnote reference2'` *w2_?'`EZS2d[\]^p26_?'`6/sDefault Paragraph Font'` *w2_?'`E[PP27_?'`6/s_Equation Captionw2'` *w2_?'`E\PP28_?'`6/sendnote referencew2'` *w2_?'`E]SS29_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`E^` ` ` 2d_q`eaelbѫ30_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`E_  . 31_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`E`  32_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`Ea  33_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`Eb*   2Ȯcpdef334_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`Ec` ` ` 35_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Ed8@   36_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`EeA@` `  ` ` ` 37_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`Ef0    2ghiKj38_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`EgJ` ` @  ` `  39_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`EhS` `  @  40_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Ei\` `  @hh# hhh 41_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Eje` `  hh#@( hh# 2ʴklmnE42_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Ekn` `  hh#(@- ( 43_?'`6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`Elw` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 44_?'`6/sDocument Style=(w2'` *w2_?'`EmF *  ׃  45_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`En&  . 2Fopqr46_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Eo&  . 47_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Ep*    48_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Eq'   49_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Er&   2Żsxt(uv250_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Es4$     51_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Et&  . 52_?'`6/sTechnical Document Style'` *w2_?'`Eu&  . Citator'`6/sFormat Secretary's Citator Output File2_?'`Ev;#d6X@7@# XX  XX #d6X@7@# XX #d6X@7@# XX #d6X@7@# XX #Xj\  P G;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@ 7@# XX *  2.wxymBzFormat Downl6/sFormat Downloaded Document` *w2_?'`EwU XX    X\ #d6X@ 7@#MACNormal6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`Ex    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# .,., US#:}D4PXP#Footnote`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`Eyfootnote tex6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`Ez'#FxX  PCXP#2O{m`|}`~mheader'`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E{   #FxX  PCXP# reference6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E|;#FxX  PCXP#itemize'`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E}* F r#FxX  PCXP#header2'`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E~ `    #FxX  PCXP# 2`bS6}heading 36/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E #FxX  PCXP# footer'`6/s, J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E!#X\  PG;P#54_?'`6/sFormat Downloaded Document` *w2_?'`EU XX    F\ #d6X@7@#55_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E$ 2K56_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E/` ` ` 57_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E:` ` `  58_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`EE  ` ` `  59_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`EP  ` ` ` hhh 2&}c60_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E[  61_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`Ef 62_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`Eq 63_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E$ 2t-64_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E/` ` ` 65_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E:` ` `  66_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`EE` ` `  67_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`EP` ` ` hhh 2Z68_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`E[ 69_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`Ef  70_?'`6/s1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)` *w2_?'`Eq!" heading 46/sheading 4J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ#P$2heading 56/sheading 5J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ%P&heading 66/sheading 6J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ'P(heading 76/sheading 7J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ)P*heading 86/sheading 8J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ+P,2QSUendnote text6/sendnote text2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ-P.71_?'`6/sfootnote text=(w2'` *w2_?'`EZ/P0toa heading6/stoa heading2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.1$2(#` hp x (#Heading'`6/sChapter Heading=(w2'` *w2_?'`E33 4 *  ׃  2dd\Right Par6/sRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*w2_?'`E<56@    Subheading6/sSubheadingJ2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.7 8  HIGHLIGHT 16/sItalics and Bold(w2'` *w2_?'`E9: DRAFT ON`6/sHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*w2_?'`EA;< X 8#B#Xj\  PG;XP##Xj\  PG;XP##Xj\  PG;XP#`+ (#DDRAFTă `(#CD3 1, 4D  #2'cc&cDRAFT OFF6/sTurn Draft Style off'` *w2_?'`ED=>    LETTER LAND6/sLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 *w2_?'`E ?@ '3   LEGAL LAND6/sLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5` *w2_?'`E AB 'A   LETTER PORT6/sLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11` *w2_?'`E CD 3'   2cndpLEGAL PORT6/sLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14'` *w2_?'`E EF A'   TITLE'`6/sTitle of a Document'` *w2_?'`EGH* ăBLOCK QUOTE6/sSmall, single-spaced, indented*w2_?'`EIJ HIGHLIGHT 26/sLarge and Bold=(w2'` *w2_?'`EKL 2MjpI<HIGHLIGHT 36/sLarge, Italicized and Underscored*w2_?'`E M NLETTERHEAD6/sLetterhead - date/margins'` *w2_?'`E!O P X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   INVOICE FEE6/sFee Amount for Math Invoice *w2_?'`EQR \, $0  MEMORANDUM6/sMemo Page Format(w2'` *w2_?'`EST  * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy 2_<<XINVOICE EXP6/sExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*w2_?'`EUV ,p, $0INVOICE TOT6/sTotals Invoice for Math Macro*w2_?'`EWX p,p, $0INVOICE HEAD6/sHeading Portion of Math Invoice*w2_?'`EYZ   p,X 9B#Xj\  PG;XP# XX #Xj\  PG;XP# XX #Xj\  PG;XP# XX  * $HHީ  ӧ   XX B#Xj\  PG;XP# XX #Xj\  PG;XP# XX #Xj\  P G;XP# XX  * $HHީNORMAL'`6/sReturn to Normal Typestyle` *w2_?'`E[\2[[[G[SMALL'`6/sSmall Typestyle=(w2'` *w2_?'`E]^FINE?'`6/sFine Typestyle=(w2'` *w2_?'`E_`LARGE'`6/sLarge Typestyle=(w2'` *w2_?'`EabEXTRA LARGE6/sExtra Large Typestyle'` *w2_?'`Ecd2@[/ZdHVERY LARGE6/sVery Large Typestyle'` *w2_?'`EefENVELOPE`6/sStandard Business Envelope with Header2_?'`Egh V,  X  , 8B#Xj\  P!G;XP#  #Xj\  P"G;XP#  #Xj\  P#G;XP#    `   A, B,'`6/sUppercase Lettersw2'` *w2_?'`E ij.72_?'`6/s_Equation Caption12'` *w2_?'`EPkPl2p r2_?'`6/s J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EPmnSMALL'`6/sSMALL J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EPoPpNORMAL'`6/sNORMAL J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.q$rX` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains 6/sbly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 aw3s)tX` hp x (#` hp x (#2 R  Technical6/s Technical 42=(w2'` *w2_?'`E1u'vX` hp x (# ` hp x (#T 2_?'`6/sT 2 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.w$xX` hp x (#` hp x (#C:\mw3022.6/sC:\mw3022.tmp=(w2'` *w2_?'`EPyPz:\mw3022.tmp6/s:\mw3022.tmp2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EX{|` hp x (## P$7P# 2x"73_?'`6/sC:\mw3022.tmp=(w2'` *w2_?'`EP}P~~C:\DOCS\CO6/s~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\2'` *w2_?'`E.$ p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPW6/s:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\(w2'` *w2_?'`E.$ p x (#` hp x (#:_?'`6/s:8 J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.$` !(#B` hp x (#2!R ZJ!:\mw3024.tmp6/s:\mw3024.tmp2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.$ !(# ` hp x (#w_?'`6/swb J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E.$` !(#B` hp x (#_?'`6/sp J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`EPP1, 2, 3,` 6/sNumbers J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E1.2$!q""m#Chapter'` 6/sChapter Heading=(w2'` *w2_?'`E9  ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body6/sMain Text of Report'` *w2_?'`E  TitleNotes6/sTitle Page Notes(w2'` *w2_?'`E''#Z*f9 x%X# #Z*f9 x&X#?'`6/sTriangle J2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E2&B$%%R&Works Cited6/sWorks Cited Page(w2'` *w2_?'`E99          Page Title6/sPage TitleJ2=(w2'` *w2_?'`E#   `  Style 14`6/sSwiss 8 Pt Without Margins` *w2_?'`E''#Co> P'QP##)a [ P(QXP#Style 12`6/sDutch Italics 11.52'` *w2_?'`E''#)^ `> Xi)QXX##)a [ P*QXP#2_;*'s81::Style 11`6/sInitial Codes for Advanced II*w2_?'`E<#)a [ P+QXP# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ P,QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P-QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P.QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi/QXX#`e%&Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ P0QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P1QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P2QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi3QXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ P4QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P5QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P6QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi7QXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ P8QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P9QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P:QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi;QXX#   Page `e%'Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3'`6/sDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*w2_?'`E#)a [ P<QXP# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4'`6/sSwiss 8 Point with Margins` *w2_?'`EG#Co> P=QP# dd  #  Style 1'`6/sDutch Roman 11.5 Font'` *w2_?'`E7#)a [ P>QXP# dn 2>;<<\=Style 2'` 6/sDutch Italic 11.5w2'` *w2_?'`E'#)^ `> Xi?QXX#Style 5'`"6/sDutch Bold 18 Point'` "*w2_?'`E''#T~> p@Qp##)a [ PAQXP#Style 7'`$6/sSwiss 11.5J2=(w2'` $*w2_?'`E''#)ao> PBQXP##)a [ PCQXP#Style 6'`&6/sDutch Roman 14 Point'` &*w2_?'`E''#w [ PDQP##)a [ PEQXP#24>Opa sStyle 10`(6/sInitial Codes for Advanced` (*w2_?'`EF#)a [ PFQXP# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PGQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PHQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PIQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiJQXX#`e%'Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PKQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PLQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PMQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiNQXX#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    #)a [ POQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PPQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiRQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   #)a [ PSQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PTQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PUQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiVQXX#   Page `e%'Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8'`-6/sInitial Codes for Beginning -*w2_?'`EF#)a [ PWQXP# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ PXQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PYQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PZQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi[QXX#`~e%'Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P\QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P]QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ P^QXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi_QXX#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide    #)a [ P`QXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PaQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PbQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XicQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   #)a [ PdQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PeQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PfQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XigQXX#   Page `e%'Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9'`26/sInitial Codes for Intermediate*w2_?'`ED#)a [ PhQXP# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ PiQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PjQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PkQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XilQXX#`e%%Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PmQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PnQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PoQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XipQXX#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PqQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PrQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PsQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XitQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage   #)a [ PuQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PvQXP# ## b, oT9 #)a [ PwQXP# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XixQXX#   Page `e%'Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Update'`76/sInitial Codes for Update Module*w2_?'`EU#)a [ PyQXP# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PzQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P{QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P|QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi}QXX#`]e%"Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ P~QXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide    #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   #)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ PQXP# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQXX#   Page `e%'Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2qlq݅qNa1AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2%DD/  a2AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2a3AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2a4AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w22qqbqӇqDa5AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2a6AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2a7AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w2a8AgendaE+w2_?Agenda Itemsd J2=(w2*w22eya177E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w28@   a277E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2A@` `  ` ` ` a377E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2J` ` @  ` `  a477E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2S` `  @  2M ԍa577E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2\` `  @hh# hhh a677E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2e` `  hh#@( hh# a777E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2n` `  hh#(@- ( a877E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2U׎ia175E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w28@   a275E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2A@` `  ` ` ` a375E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2J` ` @  ` `  a475E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2S` `  @  2=ēa575E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2\` `  @hh# hhh a675E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2e` `  hh#@( hh# a775E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2n` `  hh#(@- ( a875E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2}ǔD̕_a1Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2$ a2Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2/` ` ` a3Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2:` ` `  a4Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2E` ` `  2/ؗKa5Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2P` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2[ a7Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2f a8Paragraph+w2_?1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)2=(w2'` *w2q 2ŜGٚta176E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w28@   a276E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2A@` `  ` ` ` a376E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2J` ` @  ` `  a476E+w2_?Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw2'` *w2S` `  @  2^0]K}KKXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanX2pC 22 d6X@7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)d6X@7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)d6X@7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)d6X@7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)Xj\  P G;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXd6X@ 7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)d6X@ 7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT):}D4P XP4D4A`Arial (TT)X:}D4P XP4D4A`Arial (TT)X:}D4PXP4D4A`Arial (TT)X:}D4PXP4D4A`Arial (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XFxX  PCXP*X   `*Times New Roman (TT)XX\  PG;P%\  `*Times New Roman (TT)d6X@7@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)Xj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  P G;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  P!G;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  P"G;XP%\  `$Times New RomanXXj\  P#G;XP%\  `$Times New RomanX P$7P2 `*Times New Roman (TT)Z*f9 x%X*f9 `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)Z*f9 x&X*f9 `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)Co> P'QP*o> A`Arial (TT))a [ P(QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi)QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P*QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P+QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P,QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P-QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P.QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi/QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P0QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P1QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P2QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi3QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P4QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P5QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P6QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi7QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P8QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P9QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P:QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi;QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P<QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)XCo> P=QP*o> `)a [ P>QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi?QXX! `> `XT~> p@Qp#~>  *Times New Roman (TT))a [ PAQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)ao> PBQXP)o> `X)a [ PCQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)Xw [ PDQP$ [  `*Times New Roman (TT))a [ PEQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PFQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PGQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PHQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PIQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiJQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PKQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PLQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PMQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiNQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ POQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PPQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiRQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PSQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PTQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PUQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiVQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PWQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PXQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PYQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PZQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi[QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P\QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P]QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P^QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi_QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P`QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PaQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PbQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XicQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PdQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PeQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PfQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XigQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PhQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PiQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PjQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PkQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XilQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PmQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PnQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PoQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XipQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PqQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PrQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PsQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XitQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PuQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PvQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PwQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XixQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PyQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PzQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P{QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ P|QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> Xi}QXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ P~QXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)a [ PQXP" [  `*Times New Roman (TT)X)^ `> XiQXX! `>  `6Times New Roman Italic (TT)X&G\  P&P%\  `$Times NewRoman&Xj\  PG;XP%\  `$Times New RomanX"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7Yy.X80,X\  P6G;PZy.\80,T\4  pG;\2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P[2e=5,&e4  pG;&]7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP\_0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XP:% ,J:\  P6G;JPW!B(#,}hB4  pG;h\5hC:,%-Xh*f9 xr G;XX (H5!,,5\  P6G;,P\){,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X 6jC:,<MXj9 xOG;Xz-X80,<X9 xOG;'P:% ,0J:\  P6G;JP\&0_=5,% (&_*f9 xr G;&X1a=5,<&a9 xOG;&2\aL ^Yy.X80,X\  P6G;PZy.\80,T\4  pG;\2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P[2e=5,&e4  pG;&]7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP\_0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X `P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPaH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\b{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X1a=5,<t&a9 xOG;&Yy.X80,X\  P6G;PZy.\80,T\4  pG;\2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P[2e=5,&e4  pG;&]7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP \_0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X `P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPaH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\b{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X~1a=5,<t&a9 xOG;&7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,X,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H S-)`# S-  #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`g(#FCC 98214 ă  yxdddy )  Њ#&a\  P6G;&P#P3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă Q In the Matter ofSL ) SL )  S-Implementation of Section 207 of theSL )hppCS Docket No. 9683 Telecommunications Act of 1996SL ) SL ) Restrictions on OvertheAir Reception Devices:SL ) Television Broadcast Service and SL ) Multichannel Multipoint Distribution ServiceSL )  S -P ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION TP  SX-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: (#( Paragraph  S-  XxPI.xINTRODUCTION p"(#R1  S-XxPII.xORDER ON RECONSIDERATION   S-XxX` ` xA.` ` Commission discretion to not preempt all restrictions ` p"(#R3  Sx-XxX` ` xB.` ` The Public Safety Exception `  SP-XxX` ` X ` ` 1. The definition of the safety exception p"(#R8  S(-XxX` ` X ` ` 2. Nongovernmental safety restrictions pp"(#L13  S-XxX` ` xC.` ` Exclusive jurisdiction over Section 207 enforcement ` pp"(#L16  S-XxD.X` ` Reliance on the BOCA Code restrictions ` pp"(#L27  S-XxX` ` xE.` ` Prohibition of permit requirements ` pp"(#L39  S-XxX` ` xF.` ` Painting of reception devices ` pp"(#L43  S`-XxX` ` xG.` ` Grace periods to comply with rulings ` pp"(#L46  S8-XxX` ` xH.` ` Definition of signal impairment ` pp"(#L50  S - ` pXxX` ` xI.` ` Other technologies that provide overtheair reception of video programming services ` pp"(#L54  S!-XxX` ` xJ.` ` Transmissiononly antennas that assist reception antennas ` pp"(#L57  S"-XxX` ` xK.` ` Districts eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places ` pp"(#L60  Sp#-XxX` ` xL.` ` Limits on fees and costs ` pp"(#L62  SH$-XxM.X` ` Service of petitions and pleadings ` pp"(#L66  S %-XxX` ` xN.` ` Placing statements from the Report and Order in the Section 207 rules ` pp"(#L72" %0*&&88&"Ԍ S- ` pXxX` ` xO.` ` Application of the Section 207 rules to renters who have the owner's permission to install an antenna ` pp"(#L77  S-XxX` ` xP.` ` Property under the exclusive use of the viewer ` pp"(#L78  S-xQ.` ` Common Antenna Proposalpp"(#L82  S`-III.xFINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSISpp"(#L90  S8-IV.XxPAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 ANALYSIS p"(#F105  S-XxPV.xORDERING CLAUSES p"(#F107 Appendix A List of Petitioners and Commenters  S-Appendix B The OvertheAir Reception Devices Rule (47 C.F.R.  1.4000)  S-  SH - I.XxINTRODUCTION (#  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x  S - ` Բx1.` ` In this Order on Reconsideration, we grant in part and deny in part petitions for  xreconsideration of the Commission's implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of  S - x1996 ("1996 Act")` H yO-ԍPub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 114 (Feb. 8, 1996).` in its Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of  S - xProposed Rulemaking ("Report and Order" and "Further Notice") released on August 6, 1996.$ XH {Oh- xԍSee In re Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth Stations, and In re Implementation of Section  x207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Restrictions on OvertheAir Reception Devices: Television Broadcast  {O- xService and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, IB Docket No. 9559, CS Docket No. 9683 (consolidated), 11 FCC Rcd 19276 (1996). Among  S^- xother things, the Report and Order adopted a set of rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.4000 (the "Section 207 rules"),  xthat generally prohibit both governmental and nongovernmental restrictions that impair the installation,  S- xzmaintenance or use of overtheair reception devices covered by Section 207 ("Section 207 devices"),F0H yO- xԍSection 207 expressly covers overtheair reception devices used to receive television broadcast signals  x("TVBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution service ("MMDS"), and direct broadcast satellite services ("DBS").  {O\- xIn addition, in the Report and Order, we found that our rules implementing Section 207 should also cover: (1) any  xtype of multipoint distribution service, including not only MMDS but also instructional television fixed service  x("ITFS") and local multipoint distribution service ("LMDS"); (2) mediumpower satellite services using antennas of  xone meter or less, even though such services may not be technically defined as DBS elsewhere in the Commission's  {O~- x<rules; and (3) DBS antennas of over one meter in Alaska (smaller DBS antennas do not work in Alaska). Report  {OH-and Order at paras. 2832.  x=unless the restriction is necessary for safety or historic preservation reasons and is no more burdensome  S-than necessary to achieve those objectives.SZ* H {Ov - x-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.4000, Restrictions Impairing Reception of Television Broadcast Signals, Direct Broadcast  xSatellite Services or Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services, and amending 47 C.F.R.  25.104, Preemption of Local Zoning of Earth Stations. S "80*&&88"Ԍ S- `  x2.` ` Seven petitions for reconsideration of the Report and Order were filed raising  S- x[approximately 15 issues for reconsideration,H yOB- xԍFive reply comments were filed. A list of the parties filing petitions for reconsideration and replies thereto is attached as Appendix A. and, in light of these petitions for reconsideration, we raise  S-on our own motion approximately three issues for reconsideration. H {O^- xԍSee 47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R. 1.108; Central Florida Enterprises v. FCC, 598 F.2d 37, 48 n.51 (D.C. Cir.),  {O(-cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 957 (1979). In this Order on Reconsideration, we  Sd- ` Xx(1) X` ` reaffirm our decision not to prohibit all restrictions on a viewer's ability to install, maintain and use Section 207 reception equipment; (#`  S- ` PXx(2) X` ` decline to adopt petitioners' proposal that an exception be provided only for "compelling"  ` $safety objectives; but adopt a proposal to remove the appearance of a device from the  ` factors we examine to determine the validity of a safety objective, and amend our Section  ` 207 rules to examine how a safety objective treats other objects that pose a similar or greater safety risk;(#`  S -Xx(3) X` ` decline to exclude nongovernmental entities from using the safety exception; (#`  S - ` Xx(4) X` ` reaffirm our decision not to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of our Section 207 rules at this time; (#`  S4- ` CXx(5) X` ` reaffirm our decision that the permit requirements of the Building Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc. ("BOCA") code are reasonable safety restrictions; (#`  S- ` Xx(6) X` ` decide that permit requirements designed to enforce placement restrictions are preempted by our rules; (#`  SD-Xx(7) X` ` decline to adopt a per se restriction on DBS antenna painting requirements; (#`  S- ` ~Xx(8) X` ` adopt a proposal that a viewer be given at least 21 days during which to comply with a  ` court or Commission order upholding a restriction before any fine or penalty may be imposed if the viewer's claim is not frivolous; (#`  SV- ` Xx(9) X` ` reaffirm our standard for signal degradation that qualifies as an impairment under the Section 207 rules; (#`  S- ` Xx(10) X` ` reject the proposal that our Section 207 rules protect certain antennas not specifically  ` olisted in the Section 207 rules and decide that proponent of a new antenna must make a particular showing that the antenna should be covered by the Section 207 rules; (#` "fh0*&&88"Ԍ S- ` Xx(11) X` ` adopt a proposal that our Section 207 rules protect antennas that have only transmission  ` capability if these transmission antennas are used in conjunction with antennas that receive video programming; (#`  S`- ` Xx(12) X` ` decline to remove the protections of our Section 207 rules from districts eligible to be  ` listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and amend our rules to protect historic properties as they are defined in the National Historic Preservation Act; (#`  S- ` Xx(13) X` ` decline to adopt a proposal that we declare that no fee for installing a Section 207 device  ` is reasonable and that we set a maximum cost that regulations may impose on installation that will impair, but decide that certain fees are unreasonable; (#`  S - ` Xx(14) X` ` clarify that declaratory judgments and petitions for waivers must be served on all interested parties; (#`  S -Xx(15) X` ` amend our Section 207 rules to reflect certain statements made in the Report and Order; (#`  SX- ` Xx(16) X` ` clarify the rights of a tenant under our Section 207 rules where the tenant has the permission of the property owner to install an antenna;(#`  S- ` Xx(17) X` ` clarify that a viewer with a direct or indirect ownership interest in property over which  ` the viewer exercises exclusive use is protected by our Section 207 rules even though the viewer may not exercise exclusive control over the property; and (#`  S@- ` BXx(18) X` ` clarify that an association or a landlord may prohibit viewers from installing individual  ` $Section 207 devices under our current Section 207 rules if the association or a landlord  ` provides the tenant access to a central antenna facility that does not impair the viewers' rights under our Section 207 rules. (#`  Sx-We address each of these issues separately below.  S-II.XxORDER ON RECONSIDERATION(#  S-  S- xA.` ` Commission discretion to not preempt all restrictions  S`-x` ` 1. Background  S -x3.` ` Section 207 provides in full:  XxWithin 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, pursuant  Qto Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, promulgate regulations to prohibit  restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through  `devices designed for overtheair reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services. "!%0*&&88&"Ԍ x[ԙSection 303 authorizes the Commission to issue rules and regulations "as public convenience, interest, or  S-necessity requires.";H yO@-ԍ47 U.S.C.  303.;  S- ` #x4.` ` Under this statutory authority, we promulgated Section 207 rules to preempt restrictions  xthat "impair" a viewer's ability to install, maintain or use a covered reception device. Under our rules, a restriction impairs a viewer's Section 207 rights if it:   Xx(1) unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance, or use [of a covered Section 207   |reception device], (2) unreasonably increases the costs of installation, maintenance or use [of a   covered Section 207 reception device], or (3) precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal  Sp-[by the device].ApXH yOT -ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a).A(#  xlIn addition, our rules create exceptions for restrictions that promote safety objectives and historic  S -preservation.A H yOX-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b).A  S - ` x5.` ` Two petitioners argue that by imposing a reasonableness standard as to whether a  xrestriction impairs and by creating exceptions for safety and historic preservation, the Commission  xMimproperly failed to preempt all restrictions on viewers' ability to install, maintain or use a reception  S0- xdevice covered by Section 207._ X0PH yO - x-ԍBellSouth Corporation ("BellSouth") Pet. at 5; Philips Electronics Corporation et al. ("Philips") Pet. at 10  x(proposing that the Commission adopt a definition of the term "impair" that means any burden on a viewer is prohibited, regardless of whether the burden is reasonable). _ BellSouth argues that it was inappropriate for the Commission to weigh  S- xother interests, such as public safety, when considering which restrictions to preempt,> \H yO-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 47.> and Philips argues  S- xthat the Commission impermissibly imposed a reasonableness standard on the level of impairment.  H yOD- xKԍPhilips Pet. at 10 ("Commission has impermissibly altered Congress' directive by imposing a reasonableness standard on the level of impairment of a viewer's ability to receive video programming."). Both  xpetitioners suggest that the Commission's exercise of discretion under Section 207 runs contrary to  S-Congress' intent. " H {O8 - xԍSee BellSouth Pet. at 6 ("If Congress intended the Commission to consider other factors [than those listed in  xSection 207], surely it would have included them in the statute itself or discussed them in its legislative history.");  x/Philips Pet. at 1011 ("Commission's rule goes beyond scope of authority granted by Congress because it impermissibly limits and modifies the plain language of the 1996 Act."). "h 0*&&88"Ԍ S-xa` ` 2. Discussion   S- ` x6.` ` We decline to revise our Section 207 rules as urged by BellSouth and Philips. Section  x2a07 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations pursuant to Section 303 of the Communications  x]Act. While BellSouth argues that Section 303 merely provides the Commission with authority to  S9- x\promulgate regulations,}X9H yO- xԍBellSouth Pet. at 5 (Commission "went beyond" objectives of antenna preemption rule in its Section 207 rules  xhby inferring that Congress did not mean to prevent Commission from considering local health and safety regulations under the "public convenience, interest or necessity" considerations of Section 303).} we note that Section 303 expressly authorizes the Commission to prescribe  S- xregulations as public convenience, interest and necessity requires.;H yO -ԍ47 U.S.C.  303.; If petitioners were correct, there  xzwould have been no reason for Congress to direct the Commission to adopt rules at all because, under  xtheir argument, no discretion would have been granted to the Commission. Moreover, we note that the  S- xklanguage of Section 207 does not require the Commission to prohibit all restrictions. We reaffirm our  Ss- xconclusion in the Report and Order that Congress, by explicitly invoking Section 303, intended that the  xCommission exercise its discretion when determining which restrictions should be preempted under  S% -Section 207.O% dH {O-ԍReport and Order at paras. 6, 22.O   S - ` x7.` ` In addition, we believe that petitioners' proposal that the Commission should prohibit all  xyrestrictions that impair a viewer's ability to use a Section 207 reception device would lead to incongruous  xresults. It cannot have been Congress' intent, nor can it be in the public interest, for our Section 207 rules  xto override legitimate safety concerns. Under petitioners' statutory reading, for instance, a local  xgovernment would not be able to prohibit its citizens from installing wireless cable antennas in contact  xwith electric power lines. In addition, if our rules did not allow an exception for the public interest  xembodied by the laws establishing the National Register of Historic Places, our rules might run afoul of  S- xthose laws protecting properties listed on the Register.H {O+- xԍ See National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C.  470f; see also 16 U.S.C. 470a(b)(3)(F) and (I). Similarly, were the Commission not to establish  xsome limits on the type of restrictions that will be preempted, the Commission might find itself in the  xposition of striking down restrictions that in no way impair the viewer's ability to receive video  SE- x/programming.;E( H yO-ԍ47 U.S.C.  303.; For example, if the viewer can receive the same strength signal in the back yard as in  xthe front yard, then it would be an unnecessary interference with the legitimate prerogatives of local governments to preempt a restriction limiting the placement of the reception device to the back yard. " 0*&&88"Ԍ S-  xB.` ` The Public Safety Exception  S-x` `  1. The definition of the safety exception (#`  Sa-x` `  a.  Background (#  S- ` x8.` ` Under our Section 207 rules, a restriction is permitted if "it is necessary to accomplish a  S- xclearly defined safety objective."DH yOQ-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b)(1).D Several petitioners request that the Commission alter the rule to require  S- xa "compelling" safety objective."XH yO - xhԍBellSouth Pet. at 1516 ("The Commission has overlooked the simple requirement that a safety objective must  xKbe compelling, not merely clearly defined."); National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative ("NRTC") Reply  {O5 - xComments at 3; see Network Affiliated Stations Alliance ("NAS") Pet. at 3 (recommending that Commission require objective to be a justifiable objective). Petitioners argue that, without a more stringent standard, cities,  xlandlords, and homeowners' associations could disguise improper restrictions under the guise of safety  Sq- xobjectives.q.H {O+- xԍSee NAS Pet. at 3; BellSouth Pet. at 16 (homeowner's associations may disguise aesthetic concerns as a safety  yO- xrestriction because a restriction may clearly define a safety restriction even if the stated objective lacks merit); NRTC  {O- xReply Comments at 3 (under the current definition a non-safety issue could be disguised as a safety objective). But  {O- xsee Community Associations Institute ("CAI") Reply Comments at 5 (asserting that many community association rules are adopted precisely to protect the safety, health, and wellbeing of residents). Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. ("WCA") argues that cable operators may  xMrequire real estate developers to add purported safety restrictions ("safety boilerplate") to restrictive  xcovenants and association restrictions in order to keep competitors out of the neighborhood rather than  S -to meet genuine safety objectives.gX H yOU- xYԍWCA Pet. at 24 ("If nongovernmental restrictions . . . can be enforced merely by wrapping them in prosafety  xhrhetoric, it will not take long for franchised cable operators . . . to develop boilerplate `safety' language to immunize otherwise impermissible restrictions from preemption.").g  S - ` `x9.` ` In scrutinizing safety objectives, the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association  x("CEMA") recommends that, in order to ensure that appearance is not used as a pretext, the Commission  SY- x\not consider the appearance of items covered by a safety objective.^XY H yO- x{ԍCEMA Pet. at 4 (by eliminating "appearance" from the final text of the rule, "the Commission's  x,nondiscrimination policy will remain clear, and the Commission will confirm that safety restrictions cannot be used as pretext for imposing restrictions based on aesthetic concerns").^ Under the current rule, CEMA  xpoints out that the Commission will permit safety restrictions so "long as they do not discriminate among  S -devices that are comparable `in size, weight and appearance.'"} H {O}"-ԍCEMA Pet. at 4 (quoting portions of 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b)(1) with emphasis).} "f0*&&88"Ԍ S- x` `  b.Discussion   S- ` x 10.` ` We decline to adopt the petitioners' proposal that we permit only compelling safety  x0exceptions to our Section 207 rules. We believe that the factors we adopted for examining safety  xyobjectives address petitioners' concern that the safety exception will be abused. To fall within the safety  S8- xexception, the safety objective must be "clearly defined"D8H yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b)(1).D and "serve legitimate safety goals,"E8XH yO-ԍReport and Order at para. 24.E and the  x proponent of the safety restriction must prove that it is neither discriminatory nor more burdensome than  S- xnecessary to achieve the safety objective.H {OH -ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b)(3), (e); see also Report and Order at paras. 2425. Ć In addition, if it appears, as petitioners allege, that real estate  S- xdevelopers add "safety boilerplate" to restrictive covenants for anticompetitive reasons,7RH yO -ԍWCA Pet. at 24.7 the Commission  xLwill weigh this factor heavily in determining whether the restriction is necessary, nondiscriminatory, and no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the objective.  S - ` x 11.` ` On reconsideration, we will adopt CEMA's proposal that the term "appearance" be deleted  xfrom the list of potential attributes that should be examined to determine whether a safety restriction is  x!being applied in a discriminatory manner. Given the other factors the Commission will consider,  xappearance adds little to the assessment of whether a covered device poses a safety risk. Instead of  xexamining whether a restriction applies to fixtures or devices of comparable appearance, we will amend  xour rules to examine whether a restriction would be applied to fixtures or devices posing a similar or  x greater safety risk as the Section 207 device. Our new rule will ask whether the restriction would be  xapplied to the extent practicable in a nondiscriminatory manner to other appurtenances, devices, or  S-fixtures, considering factors such as size, weight, and safety risk.WH {O:-ԍSee Appendix B for full text of new rule.W  S- ` x 12.` ` We note that, although we decided in the Report and Order that a safety objective must  Sj- xjbe "legitimate,"OjLH {OB-ԍSee Report and Order at para. 24.O the Section 207 rules do not reflect this decision; therefore, in order to bring the Section  SB- x207 rules into accord with the Report and Order, on our own motion, we will modify our rules to include  S-the term "legitimate" in the definition of a safety objective.\ H yOr - xԍIn light of pending petitions for reconsideration in this proceeding, the Commission retains jurisdiction to  {O:!- xreconsider its rules on its own motion. See 47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R. 1.108; Central Florida Enterprises v. FCC,  {O"-598 F.2d 37, 48 n.51 (D.C. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 957 (1979).  " 0*&&884"Ԍ S-XxAX` `  2. Nongovernmental safety restrictions (#`  S-x` `  1.XBackground (#  Sa- ` Px 13.` ` BellSouth and WCA request that the Commission prohibit nongovernmental entities, such  S9- xas homeowners' associations, from establishing safety restrictions under our Section 207 rules.Y 9H yO-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 1315; WCA Pet. at 2125. Y WCA  xarAgues that a blanket preemption of all private, nongovernmental restrictions will implement Congress'  S- xclear intent in enacting Section 207.!XH yO - x,ԍWCA Pet. at 22, 25 (while proposing that nongovernmental entities be permitted to petition the Commission for a waiver in exceptional circumstances). WCA argues that nothing in the legislative history indicates that  S- xZCongress intended to uphold homeowners' associations safetyrelated restrictions.Z"ZH {O - xԍId. at 23 ("There is absolutely nothing in the legislative history of Section 207 that suggests that Congress  xg intended to exempt a nongovernmental restrictive covenant or [homeowners association rule] from preemption merely because it purports to be safetyrelated.").Z To the contrary, WCA  x[argues that the legislative history provides that "[e]xisting regulations, including . . . restrictive covenants  Sq- x=or homeowner's associations rules shall be unenforceable to the extent contrary to this section."s#qH {O-ԍId. at 22 (quoting with omissions H.R. Rep. No. 204 at 12324).s While  xMgovernments may be entitled to deference in safety matters, WCA argues that private restrictions are  S! - xgenerally put in place by real estate developers, who are not entitled to the same deference.A$X! ( H yO- xԍWCA Pet. at 24 ("While state and local government may be entitled to deference [when invoking safety  xYconcerns], . . . private restrictions are generally put in place by real estate developers, who are certainly not entitled to the same deference.").A Similarly,  S - xBellSouth argues that private entities have no expertise with respect to safety issues=% 4 H yO-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 13.= and that allowing  S - xboth governments and private entities to control safety is redundant.1& H {O -ԍId.1 WCA argues that the Commission  x[should not permit nongovernmental entities to impose safety restrictions that are more burdensome than  S -those imposed by the government.9' .H yO;-ԍWCA Pet. at 22. 9  S1- ` x 14.` ` In reply, CAI asserts that, contrary to petitioners' claims, Section 207 and its legislative  xhistory does not distinguish between governmental and nongovernmental restrictions, and that the right"  '0*&&88+"  S- xof private entities to impose safety restrictions therefore should be upheld.(H yOh- xYԍCAI Reply Comments at 5 ("Congress equated state and local governmental restrictions with nongovernmental restrictions."). Moreover, CAI argues that  S-association rules are adopted to protect the health and safety of its members.2) H {O-ԍId. 2  S-x` `  2.Discussion  S8- ` x15.` ` We decline to revise our rules as proposed by WCA and BellSouth. We agree with CAI  xthat Section 207 and its legislative history do not distinguish between governmental and nongovernmental  S- x\regulations.1*H {O -ԍId.1 Moreover, as noted above, Section 303 permits the Commission to consider the public  x/interest, convenience and necessity in fashioning our rules under Section 207. We still believe, as we  S- xstated in the Report and Order, that Section 303 permits the Commission to consider and minimize the  Sr- ximpact of our rules on local associations and governments.+rH {O- xYԍReport and Order at para. 6 ( [Section 207] also permits the Commission to minimize any interference caused  {O-to local governments and associations as a result); see also id. at 22. In exercising our discretion under Section  xL303 to consider local concerns, we agree with CAI that community associations have legitimate concerns  S" - xyabout the health and safety of their members.@," dH yO-ԍCAI Reply Comments at 5.@ If we did not permit private safetybased restrictions we  xwould effectively be preempting portions of state tort liability law. Tort law provides property managers  xand their insurance carriers with a legitimate interest in safety matters and gives them an incentive to be  xyprofessional in the imposition of restrictions. Safety standards associated with the insurance process are  xNa traditional and respected means of protecting the public. Because homeowners' associations by  xdefinition are focused on the problems that face a particular area or development, we believe that they are in a unique position to assess the safety needs of their individual communities.  S- xC.` ` Exclusive jurisdiction over Section 207 enforcement  S-  S-XxX` ` 1. Background (#`  Sk-  SC- ` ax16.` ` In the Report and Order, we adopted a rule providing concurrent jurisdiction to the  xCommission and to courts of competent jurisdiction to hear petitions for a declaratory ruling to determine  S- xywhether a particular restriction is permissible or prohibited under our Section 207 rules.-Z H {Oa!- xԍReport and Order at para. 58; see 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(d) ("Parties may petition the Commission for a declaratory  xruling under Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2., or a court of competent jurisdiction, to determine whether a particular restriction is permissible or prohibited under this rule.").  In response to  xarguments that we should assert exclusive jurisdiction, we stated that "we see no reason to foreclose the" -0*&&88"  S- xability of parties to resolve issues locally."K.H {Oh-ԍReport and Order at para. 58.K We did note that, if a case were brought before a local court,  xMwe believed that the court would look to our expertise and, "as appropriate, refer to us for resolution  S- xquestions that involve those matters that relate to our primary jurisdiction over the subject matter."1/ZH {O-ԍId.1 We  xnoted that we did not believe that Congress had mandated that we exercise exclusive jurisdiction or  S`-suggested that courts could not adequately handle Section 207 issues.10`H {O-ԍId.1  S- ` Cx17.` ` Several petitioners request that the Commission reconsider its decision not to exert  S- xexclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of its Section 207 rules.y1VH yO -ԍPhilips Pet. at 210; BellSouth Pet. at 1819; CEMA Pet. at 89; NAS Pet. at 69.y First, Philips argues that Section  x-207 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations pursuant to its authority under Section 303, and that  xSection 303(v) mandates that the Commission shall "[h]ave exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision  Sp- xof directtohome satellite services."c2pH {O-ԍPhilips Pet. at 23 ( (citing 47 U.S.C.  303(v)).c Philips argues that this provision is significantly different from  SH -other parts of the 1996 Act in which Congress explicitly granted concurrent jurisdiction.3H PH yO$- xԍPhilips Pet. at 6 (for example, in Section 332(c)(7), concerning the placement of facilities for certain mobile  xservices, Congress provided, "Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local  xgovernment . . . that is inconsistent with this subparagraph, may . . . commence an action in any court of competent  xYjurisdiction."). In fact, the courts have exclusive jurisdiction over challenges under this section unless the complaint concerns a regulation based on the environmental effects of RF emissions.  S - ` 3x18.` ` Second, several petitioners argue that if local courts are permitted to give their opinion  S - xon the application of the Commission's rule, a patchwork of inconsistent decisions will develop.z4x H yOH- xԍBellSouth Pet. at 18 (" [A]llowing local courts to interpret and apply Section 1.4000 will almost certainly result  xin a chaotic patchwork of decisions variously interpreting Section 1.4000 that ultimately would frustrate the intention  xof Congress."); CEMA Pet. at 8 (allowing local courts to hear claims "will exacerbate consumer confusion and  xfrustration, and will subvert Congress's goals by creating a patchwork quilt of local rules"); NAS Pet. at 78 ("This  xcould lead to a patchwork of interpretation that differs from state to state, or even from town to town."); WCA Pet.  xat 26 (arguing that the record compiled in International Bureau Docket No. 9559 showed many inconsistent state court rulings with respect to CBand antennas).z Philips  xcites Section 207's legislative history which states that "[f]ederal jurisdiction over DBS service will ensure  S - xLthat there is a unified, national system of rules reflecting the national, interstate nature of DBS service."5 H {O$"-ԍPhilips Pet. at 4 (quoting H. Rep. No. 104204 (Part 1), 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 123 (1995) (emphasis added)).  xPhilips argues that the Commission's failure to exercise exclusive jurisdiction ignores this mandate and"Z 50*&&88i"  S- x=prevents a unified, national system of rules from developing.6H yOh- xԍPhilip Pet. at 5 ("By permitting concurrent jurisdiction over Section 207 disputes, the Commission not only destroys the integrity of this statutory scheme, but undermines a fundamental purpose of the Act."). Moreover, some petitioners argue that if  xcourts issue decisions that are inconsistent with the way the Commission views the rule, the Commission  S- xwill have no opportunity to harmonize them.n7 H {O\- xԍSBCA Pet. at 89 (arguing that the holding in Town of Deerfield, New York v. FCC, 992 F.2d 420, 428 (2d  x=Cir. 1993) "will prevent the Commission from having the opportunity to rule on the legitimacy of the local  xrestriction"); Philips Pet. at 7 ("[O]nce disputes arising out of Section 207 are brought in a local court of competent  xjurisdiction, the judgment of that court is likely to have a preclusive effect and will not be reviewable by the  {O~ -Commission.") (citing Deerfield).n Petitioners further assert that there is no reason to believe  xjthat courts will refer cases brought to them to the Commission or even that the courts have the authority  S`-to refer cases to the Commission.8 `H yO - xԍDIRECTV Pet. at 1516 (nothing in Section 1.4000 provides courts with notice that the FCC expects such a  xreferral); WCA Pet. at 26 (there is no assurance that local courts will accept the Commission's invitation to refer  xcases to the Commission); NAS Pet. at 7 (arguing that prior to the enactment of Section 207, the record does not suggest that courts referred matters regarding preemption of restrictions on satellite dishes to the Commission).  S- ` x19.` ` Third, petitioners argue that not enough money is at issue to make it worthwhile for the  S- x[viewer to respond to a case in court.9 H yO- xԍDIRECTV Pet. at 16 ("Today's antenna users have no economic incentive to engage in litigation before a court."). Petitioners argue that if a viewer is sued in a local court, he or she  S- xkwill likely relinquish the antenna rather than incur the expenses associated with defending a lawsuit.:  H yO$- xԍSBCA Pet. at 67 ("Faced with this choice [between litigation and giving up their satellite dish], most  xconsumers will forgo the legal battle and give up their efforts to receive programming via" directtohome satellite  xequipment); Philips Electronics at 9 ("Consumers may lack the resources and wherewithal to challenge local authorities where the cases are litigated in state courts and involve steep attorney's fees.").  xUnlike the Commission's paper hearing, where the petitioner and respondent do not even need to retain  Sp- xattorneys, petitioners assert that court procedures will involve hearings and more formal procedures.;XpH yO- xԍBell South Pet. at 19 ("[U]nlike the `paper hearing' procedure established by the Commission for Section  x;1.4000 matters, a local proceeding even if properly conducted would invariably involve far greater costs to the parties to the extent that such proceedings include a hearing or other formal procedure.").  x.Furthermore, even if cases are referred to the Commission, petitioners argue that Commission processes  S -will supplement the court case and, in the end, increase costs.< H yOd - xYԍSBCA Pet. at 7 ("For those hardy few who choose to continue to fight in court . . . the Commission's processes will supplement rather than replace the court battle."). " <0*&&88 "Ԍ S- ` Ax20.` ` Petitioners also express concern that, unlike the Commission, local courts have no interest  S- xin advancing the purpose of Section 207.=ZH yO@- xԍNAS Pet. at 8 ("Adjudicating antenna placement restrictions in courts is extraordinarily unfriendly and  {O- xburdensome to consumers."); see also id. at 9 ("Any contrary result [to exclusive Commission jurisdiction] plays into the hands of those parties with no official or demonstrable interest in advancing the objective of Section 207."). Petitioners argue that local authorities and landlords will go  S- xto local courts because they believe local courts are the more favorable forums.>H yO&- xZԍSBCA Pet. at 4 ("If given the choice, local authorities are far more likely to choose the forum they view as most favorable to their position the local courts."). BellSouth claims that,  S-as a result of their local biases, local courts will disrupt business.Y?.H {OB -ԍId.; see BellSouth Pet. at 19. Y  S8- ` Px21.` ` In reply, CAI argues that concurrent jurisdiction should be maintained.@@8H yOp -ԍCAI Reply Comments at 1.@ CAI asserts that  xrequiring parties to file papers in Washington, D.C., places administrative burdens on associations outside  S- xZWashington.A( H {O- xԍId. at 3 (stating that, for example, the Code of Federal Regulations and public records are not readily available in most libraries). By contrast, CAI states that telecommunications providers have experience with declaratory  S- xjudgments before the Commission and have access to knowledgeable counsel and records.3Bn H {O-ԍId. 3 In addition,  xCAI states that community associations are creatures of state law, and if the Commission exercises  Sp-exclusive jurisdiction, it would be required to master every state's law governing associations.1Cp H {O-ԍId.1  S - x` ` 2.  Discussion   S - ` Bx22.` ` Most of petitioners arguments were made, considered, and rejected in the Report and  S - xOrder.ND jH {O-ԍReport and Order paras. 5658. N Nevertheless, we will briefly address them here. First, we disagree that the Communications Act  xrequires us to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. Section 303(v) states that the Commission  S]- x\shall [h]ave exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of directtohome satellite services.7E]H yO-ԍSection 303(v).7 In  xresolving disputes involving directtohome satellite services, courts are not "regulating" those services.  xRather they are applying the relevant provisions of the Communications Act and our regulations to  xparticular disputes. We therefore reaffirm our decision that we have the discretion to decide that it is in  S-the public interest at the current time to share jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes with the courts.SFdH {O$-ԍSee Report and Order at paras. 5758.S " F0*&&88"Ԍ S- ` ԙx23.` ` In our discretion, we reject, as we did in the Report and Order, petitioners concern that  S- xa patchwork of court decisions will develop to destroy Congress unified scheme.DGH {OB-ԍId. at para. 56.D We believe that the  S- xjuniform scheme envisioned by Congress was established by our Section 207 rules. We reiterate what we  S-stated in our Report and Order:   XxWe have no basis to believe, and Congress has not suggested, that disputes and controversies   Parising over such restrictions should or must be resolved by this agency alone or cannot be  S-adequately handled by recourse to courts of competent jurisdiction.>HZH {O -ԍId. at para. 58.> (#   xIn this regard, we did not, and do not, believe that we should "foreclose the ability of parties to resolve  St- x{issues locally."1ItH {O -ԍId.1 We retain discretion to provide, on our own motion or in response to a petition,  xjinterpretive guidance for the future based on our expertise in developing and applying the statute and the  S$ -rules.J$ VH {O- x<ԍSee Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 84243 (1984) ("a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made" by the agency charged with administering the statute).   S - ` x24.` ` Furthermore, we reiterate our statement made in the Report and OrderKK H {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 58.K that a court may  S - xkrefer an issue to us under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,L\  H {OT- xԍSee, e.g., Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 609 F.2d 355, 36366 (9th  {O- x;Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 (1980) (district court should have stayed the action before it and referred the plaintiffs' claims to the FCC because the FCC had primary jurisdiction over the matter). which promotes proper relationships  S - x=between courts and administrative agencies}M * H {O<-ԍNader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290, 303 (1976) (citation omitted).} and is "specifically applicable to claims cognizable in court  S^- xthat contain some issue within the special competence of an administrative agency."YN^ H {O-ԍReiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268 (1992).Y Where cases involve the determination of novel issues, we encourage courts to refer those issues to the Commission.  S- ` x25.` ` We do not discount the expense associated with court proceedings, and, if a viewer is  xconcerned about the cost of court proceedings, our rules attempt to alleviate this concern by giving the  xviewer an opportunity to seek assistance from the Commission by filing a petition for a declaratory  Sn- xruling.AOn&H yO $-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(d).A We recognize that the filing of a petition with the Commission may not preclude the respondent  x/in the Commission proceeding from unnecessarily increasing litigation costs by filing in a local court. "FO0*&&88"  xIn order to avoid court litigation costs, the petitioner in the Commission proceeding has a viable  xjalternative in requesting that the court allow the Commission to resolve the dispute under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.  S`- ` x26.` ` Petitioners have not shown that concurrent jurisdiction is not generally functioning as we  xintended. Nevertheless, we note that we have the prerogative to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over  xSection 207 disputes and may do so in the future if concurrent jurisdiction proves unworkable. We believe it premature, however, to do so at this time.  S- xD.` ` Reliance on the BOCA Code restrictions  SH -x` ` 1. Background   S - ` `x27.` ` In the Report and Order, we adopted rules that reflected the Building Officials & Code  xAdministrators International, Inc. ("BOCA") code permit provisions on antenna height and set back  S - xrequirements because we believed them to be safetyrelated.P& H {O- x<ԍReport and Order at para. 37. The BOCA code is a building code that has been adopted in seventeen states  {O- x<and includes provisions for antenna installation. Id. at para. 34. Because masts are often a necessary part of an  xiMMDS receiving device, we included masts in our definition of MMDS antennas, thus subjecting MMDS masts to  {Oo-these BOCA restrictions. Id. at para. 37. In particular, we stated that we did not  xbelieve it to be unduly burdensome to require an antenna user to obtain a permit if he or she intends to  xinstall an antenna that would extend more than twelve feet above the roofline, or that was taller than the  S3- xdistance between the antenna and the lot line.2Q3H {Ou-ԍId. 2 We quoted with approval BOCA's exemption that  xantennas that were no taller than the distance between the antenna and the lot line would not require a  S- xpermit.PR4H {O-ԍId. at para. 37 n.101.P Some petitioners ask the Commission to reconsider these rulings regarding the BOCA code's  S-permit requirements.RSH yO-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 810; WCA Pet. at 1218.R  Sk- ` 3x28.` ` BellSouth and WCA argue that the Commission had insufficient evidence to determine  SC- xthat the BOCA restriction on antennas exceeding 12 feet in height is reasonable.T C. H yO- xZԍBellSouth Petition at 89 ("The record provides no reasoned basis for restricting all antennas to twelve feet  xabsent a permit and such a requirement is thus arbitrary."); WCA Pet. at 1213 (arguing that no one alleged or  xdemonstrated that requiring a permit for the installation of an antenna exceeding 12 feet is no more burdensome than necessary to assure the safe installation of a wireless cable antenna).  WCA argues that the  x12 feet limitation was adopted 40 years ago, long before wireless cable was invented, and that there are  S- xnow less onerous mechanisms for ensuring safety.=U H yO$-ԍWCA Pet. at 14.= For instance, rather than issuing a permit for each"~U0*&&88%"  S- x>installation, local authorities could approve an operator's installation procedures in advance.VH {Oh- xԍId. at 15 ("The local authorities could preapprove the procedures that are generally employed in order to avoid the need for a casebycase permit requirement except where customized installations are required."). In the  xalternative, WCA argues that even if the Commission were to find that casebycase permits are  xappropriate for antennas over 12 feet, the Commission should scrutinize whether the permit process is  S-intended to raise revenues or truly to advance public safety.WZ"H {O6- xԍId. at 16 ("Before the Commission can determine whether a local permit requirement is necessary to accomplish  xa clearly defined safety objective and therefore entitled to an exemption . . . the Commission has to examine whether the safety objective is truly advanced by the specific local permit process.").  S8- ` x29.` ` Moreover, with respect to the BOCA height restriction, WCA argues that there is no  S- xreason to be concerned about wireless cable antennas that are installed professionally.X"0H {O - xԍId. at 14 (building authorities can safely rely upon professional installation of properly preengineered antennas  xin accordance with specifications up to some height greater than 12 feet without jeopardizing safety concerns) (citing  xDeclaration of David B. Hattis (hereinafter "Hattis Declaration"), President of Building Technology, Inc., October 4, 1996, at para. 10). WCA argues that  xwireless antennas are safer than DBS antennas because wireless antennas are installed professionally while  xDBS antennas are usually installed by the viewer. WCA argues that upholding a permit requirement under  xthese circumstances for wireless antennas is discriminatory because such a requirement is not required for  Sp-DBS antennas.YZp H {O- xxԍId. at 18 ("[T]he BOCA model code is discriminatory professionally installed wireless cable antennas that  xJpresent little danger of causing damage are subject to a burdensome permit process while potentially more dangerous DBS antennas can be installed by `do it yourself' homeowners without any governmental review."). x  S - ` x30.` ` Regarding the setback requirement, WCA argues that the Commission did not understand  x{the BOCA code when it stated, "[W]e believe that the BOCA code guideline regarding permits for  S - xsetbacks is safetybased, is reasonable, and does not impose an unreasonable burden."fZ  H {Op-ԍId. at 8 (citing Report and Order at para. 37). f WCA asserts that  xthe BOCA set back restriction does not discuss permits, but rather flatly forbids the placement of the  S - xjantenna where the height of the antenna is longer than the distance between the antenna and the lot line.3[ H {O-ԍId. 3  SX- xBecause the BOCA setback restriction may operate as a per se bar on installation, WCA argues that it can  xonly be enforceable as a safety restriction under our Section 207 rules where the proponent has  x demonstrated that the restriction is nondiscriminatory and is no more burdensome than necessary to  S- x\achieve the safety objective.9\H {O~"-ԍId. at 9. 9 WCA argues that nothing in the record suggests that anyone has tried,  S- xmuch less succeeded, to carry this burden.1]H {O$-ԍId.1 To the contrary, WCA argues that the BOCA setback" ]0*&&88"  xrequirement would not pass muster under the Commission's standard. First, WCA argues that the BOCA  xsetback requirement is discriminatory because it does not apply to flagpoles or to signs which may be  S- xinstalled right on the lot line.n^H {O-ԍId. at 11 (citing Hattis Declaration at paras. 56).n WCA argues that wireless antennas are no more likely to collapse onto  xadjoining structures than flagpoles or rooftop signs and, accordingly, that no valid safetyrelated reason  S`-exists for treating wireless cable antennas more harshly.b_`ZH {OF-ԍId. (citing Hattis Declaration at paras. 56).b   S- ` 2x31.` ` WCA also states that there are less burdensome means to obtain BOCA's stated objective  S- x>of avoiding a collapse of the antenna onto neighboring property.;`H {OL -ԍId. at 1112.; For instance, WCA proposes: (1)  xestablishment of appropriate technical standards designed to ensure safe installations; (2) government pre xapproval of the general procedures employed by a wireless cable operator to install its antennas; and/or  xk(3) government reliance on experts at places such as the BOCA Evaluations Services, Inc. or National  SH -Evaluation Service to preapprove the standards.1aH VH {O*-ԍId.1  S - ` x32.` ` While most petitioners argue against reliance on the BOCA code, NAS requests that the  x.Commission adopt all of the safety provisions relating to antennas of a single building code. Otherwise,  S -NAS argues that it will be difficult for local governments to determine which regulations are permissible.b H yO- xԍNAS Pet. at 56, n.5 (urging the Commission to specify an existing code containing acceptable regulations to avoid subsequent modifications of codes intended to frustrate the purposes of Section 207).  SX-x` ` 2. Discussion  S1-  S - ` x 33.` ` The principal challenge to the Report and Order regarding the BOCA code is that its  x?permitting process for antennas exceeding 12 feet in height above the roof is based on insufficient  S- xevidence that it reflects legitimate safety concerns. In adopting the present rules in the Report and Order,  xwe concluded, based on the evidence available to us, that tall antennas pose a safety concern that local  xauthorities should be allowed to address through local restrictions including a building permit, prior  xapproval type of process. In the absence of superior information from those engaged in the installation  x[or use of antennas, we accepted the widely used and long established BOCA criteria as the best available  S- xcutoff point.Mc H {O -ԍReport and Order at para. 34. M At the same time we did not intend this 12 foot height standard to be an absolute limit  xbut rather simply a trigger for an application process. We invited parties to work with BOCA to develop  S- xLcode provisions that would apply to taller masts and obviate the need for a permit process.d H {O#- x<ԍSee Report and Order at para. 37 n.100 ("It would not be inappropriate for parties to work with BOCA to develop a uniform model code that would apply to taller masts and obviate the need for a permit."). Although" d0*&&88"  x\we continue to have concerns that the BOCA process should be updated to take into account current  xinformation as to the realistic safety issues associated with antenna installations, there is not adequate  xLinformation in the record to establish a generally acceptable alternative that addresses the relevant safety  S- xjconcerns. We therefore reaffirm our conclusion in the Report and Order that the BOCA code provisions  xregarding permits for height and setback requirements qualify as legitimate safety objectives under our  x[Section 207 rules. We reiterate, however, that our acceptance of the BOCA code is limited to the permit  S-requirement and does not constitute a blanket per se prohibition of masts of a particular height.  S- ` x!34.` ` We decline to adopt WCA's proposed alternatives to a permit process. The record is  xinadequate for the Commission to establish the parameters for procedures to enforce safety objectives.  xWe do think that the intent of Section 207 is best served by more flexible installation standards than those  xprovided by the BOCA code that would obviate the need for a permit process and reflect universal  S$ - xstandards. To date, efforts by BOCA and WCA to work together have proven unfruitful.eZ$ H yO - xԍWCA proposed to BOCA for adoption an installation method for a 30 foot antenna that WCA asserts would  xbe as safe as BOCA's current 12 feet above the roof standard, but BOCA denied the proposal. WCA asserts that  {O-BOCA failed to give the proposal adequate consideration. WCA ex parte presentation (May 13, 1997). While we  xare prepared to adjudicate the current BOCA standard on a case by case basis to determine whether it  ximpairs an individual viewer's installation, maintenance or use of a Section 207 reception device, we are  xconcerned that the overall issues will not be adequately resolved through case by case challenges by individuals, and we urge BOCA and WCA to renew their efforts to develop a workable standard.  S4- ` x"35.` ` Based on the record before us, we disagree with WCA that BOCA discriminates by  xrequiring permits for wireless cable antennas but not for DBS antennas. Under the new standard adopted  S- x[in this Order, safety restrictions must not discriminate between fixtures that are "comparable in size and  S- xweight and pose the same or a similar safety risk as" the device that is restricted. fH {O4- xԍSee Appendix B at para. (b)(1). Note that 47 C.F.R.  25.104, which governs satellite antennas larger than one meter in diameter, provides different rules for pole mounting than Section 1.4000 of our rules.  We believe that a  x[local authority could reasonably conclude that a mast exceeding twelve feet with a wireless cable antenna  xattached to the top, or a television antenna exceeding twelve feet, might pose a different safety risk than  xan 18 inch DBS antenna that is not on a mast. Similarly, we believe that a local authority could  xLreasonably conclude that a television antenna or wireless cable antenna might pose a different safety risk  xthan a flagpole, even if all three objects exceed twelve feet in height. To the extent that a local authority  xLapplies BOCA in a discriminatory manner by not requiring permits for items that pose similar or greater  x\safety risks, such discrimination may be challenged in a particular case, and would, if not justified, be deemed impermissible under the rules.  S.- ` x#36.` ` Regarding WCA's disagreement with our conclusion in the Report and Order that BOCA  xrequires a permit where the height of an antenna is longer than the distance between the antenna and the  S- xlot linelg0H {O#-ԍSee Report and Order at para. 37 n.101 and discussion therein.l and WCA's argument that instead BOCA flatly forbids the installation under such circumstances,  xeven if WCA's interpretation is correct, our rules would preempt the BOCA requirement as interpreted  S- x{by WCA. In the Report and Order, we specifically stated that "we would find unenforceable any"g0*&&88"  S- x>restriction that establishes specific per se height limits."KhH {Oh-ԍReport and Order at para. 37.K If a local authority created a per se bar to antennas over a certain height, the restriction would be prohibited.  S- ` ox$37.` ` Regarding NAS's request that the Commission adopt the provisions of a single building  xcode, we have already done so by giving preliminary approval to the provisions contained in BOCA. We  xagree with NAS that having one building code will lead to less confusion for viewers, local governments and service providers.  S- ` %x%38.` ` In addition, while the Report and Order includes masts in its definition of MMDS  S- x[antennas, the Section 207 rules do not.iZH yO - xԍ"Because masts are very often a necessary part of an MMDS receiving device, we include them in our  {OJ -definition of MMDS antennas. Report and Order para. 37. To bring the Section 207 rules into accord with the Report and  Sv- x]Order, on our own motion, we will modify our rules to include masts in the definition of MMDS antennas.  S - xE.` ` Prohibition of permit requirements  S -xPx` ` 1. Background  x  Sa- ` Px&39.` ` Several petitioners ask the Commission to adopt a rule prohibiting all permit requirements  S9- xor to establish strict time periods after which a permit must be approved.j9H yOe- xԍBellSouth Pet. at 1013; DIRECTV Pet. at 79; United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. ("USSB") Reply Comments at 45. DIRECTV argues that the  S- xrules should state that any regulations that require the approval of a third party prior to installation are per  S- xse unreasonable.ckH {O[-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 8; see also USSB Reply Comments at 4.c BellSouth argues that the Commission's ruling that permits required for safety reasons  xbe processed "expeditiously" is vague and asserts that the Commission should either prohibit permits  S- xaltogether or set a precise limit on the number of days an entity may take to process a permit.hlbH {O-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 1113; see Report and Order at para. 37.h In  xaddition, DIRECTV argues that permit requirements discriminate against DBS in favor of traditional cable  SM- xservice which generally does not require a permit,@mM H yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 7, n.10.@ and BellSouth argues that permit requirements  S%-disadvantage wireless cable companies because permits are generally not required for cable and DBS.jnX%\ H yO "- x<ԍBellSouth Pet. at 11, n.27 (arguing that wireless cable operators would suffer a competitive disadvantage at  xthe hands of traditional cable and DBS systems, who generally are not subject to a permitting process, because "potential customers will choose the [provider] they can have `now'").j "hn0*&&88C"Ԍ S-  ~'40.` ` DIRECTV argues that any delay at all in the DBS market is unreasonable.:oH yOh-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 7.: According  d(#to DIRECTV, DBS providers are successful competitors to cable, in part, because a viewer may purchase  d(#and install a DBS antenna on the same day, whereas to obtain cable there may be delays in installations.  d(#Requiring a DBS viewer to obtain a permit unreasonably delays the viewer's installation and destroys the  S`-DBS provider's competitive advantage. p`XH {OD- xԍId. ("Massmarketed antennadelivered services such as DIRECTV are successful competitors to cable television in part because they allow the consumer to purchase the system and install it on the same day.").   S-` ` 2. Discussion  R-   S-  (41.` ` We generally reaffirm our decision in the Report and Order that permit requirements are  S- d(#ypermissible to ensure compliance with restrictions that serve safety or historic preservation objectives.QqH {O -ԍReport and Order at para. 17.Q  d(#kOutside of these contexts, we clarify that blanket permit requirements (i.e., requiring any viewer who  d(#wants to install an antenna to obtain a permit) are generally impermissible because they cast too wide a  d(#net. By their nature, blanket permit requirements burden not only those who would otherwise place their  d(#[reception device in an improper location, but also those whose placement would be entirely proper. For  d(#Lthis latter category of viewers, a blanket permit requirement imposes unreasonable delay and expense on  d(#their ability to install, maintain or use a Section 207 reception device. Under our Section 207 rules, it is  d(#an unreasonable delay to subject viewers who install reception devices in lawful locations to the delay and  S[- d(#expense of obtaining a permit in order to protect against the potential illegal actions of others.r^[H {O- xjԍOn this issue, we hereby affirm the decisions previously made by the Cable Bureau. See In re Michael J.  {O- xMacDonald, DA972189, slip op. at para. 27 (Oct. 14, 1997); In re CS Wireless Systems, Inc., DA 972187, slip  {O-op. at para. 19 (Oct. 14, 1997); In re Star Lambert and SBCA, DA 971554, slip op. at paras. 2327 (July 22, 1997). By  d(#contrast, in the case of safety and historic preservation, the interests at stake are so significant that a shift  d(#in the permit framework is justified. This is consistent with the context of our rules that restrictions based  d(#on safety or historic preservation objectives are enforceable even if they impair a viewer's ability to install, maintain or use a Section 207 reception device.  Sk- )42.` ` We reject BellSouth and DIRECTV's argument that our Section 207 rules improperly  d(#harm their competitive positions. Section 207 mandates that the Commission remove restrictions that  d(#kimpair a viewer's ability to receive certain video programming services, not to attempt to calibrate the  d(#competitive advantages among various multichannel video programming providers. The Section 207 rules implement Congress' directive. ". r0*&&88"Ԍ S- F.` ` Painting of reception devices  S-` ` 1. Background  S-  Sa- _*43.` ` Several petitioners seek reconsideration of the Commission's policy set forth in the Report  S;- d(#and Order that "a requirement to paint an antenna in a fashion that will not interfere with reception so  S- d(#.that it blends into the background against which it is mounted would likely be acceptable."sH {O}-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 14; WCA Pet. at 1920; see Report and Order at para. 19. According  d(#to BellSouth, the Commission did not have an adequate record on which to assert that an antenna could  S- be painted without impairing reception.tZH yO - d(#ԍBellSouth Pet. at 14 ("The Commission simply has no adequate record to opine on whether an antenna could, in fact, be painted without impairing antenna performance.").   Su- +44.` ` Similarly, WCA argues that painting requirements may impermissibly impair the  d(#installation, maintenance and use of a wireless cable antenna in several ways: (1) a requirement to use  d(#\dark colored paint might destroy the antenna because the antenna and its attendant parts require light  S - d(# colored paint to reduce and dissipate heat;7u H yO'-ԍWCA Pet. at 19.7 (2) a requirement to use optically reflective paint might  S - d(#ydestroy the antenna because the sun might become focused on the assembly and overheat or destroy it;2v H {O{-ԍId. 2  d(#L(3) a requirement that the viewer paint the antenna with the same paint that was used to paint the house  d(#=could destroy reception because paint used on a wireless antenna must be completely transparent to RF  S]- d(#energy or completely reflective and house paint does not meet these requirements;9w]H {O-ԍId. at 20. 9 (4) a requirement that  d(#an antenna be covered by a radome will increase the cost because if a conductive coating is required on  S - d(#the antenna, then the coating on the radome must always be nonconductive;4x  H {O-ԍId.  4 (5) a requirement to  d(#duplicate the wide array of colors in which houses are painted would require custom painting at increased  S- d(#=costs, because the industry could not stock the wide array of colored antennas that would be required;hy H {O- d(#[ԍId. WCA argues that, as a result, the industry could either develop a central painting facility (increasing  d(#overhead and the number of truck rolls necessary to complete the installation) or have each installer custom paint  d(#antennas as necessary. Both of these methods will greatly increase the time and cost of each installation. Without  d(#examining the cost of painting and maintaining paint on an antenna, WCA argues that the Commission's conclusions  {O -are arbitrary. Id.h  d(#and (6) because most antennas are coated by the manufacturer so that they may be stored for extended"4y0*&&88"  d(#periods of time, painting requirements may require that some manufacturers strip and repaint antennas as  S-they are sold.zH {O@- d(#ZԍId. (other manufacturers contend that it will be necessary to first apply a primer coat and then at least one finish coat, again increasing the time and cost of installation).  S-c` ` 2. Discussion  Sa-  S9-   ,45.` ` We decline to reconsider the statement in the Report and Order regarding the painting of  d(#acntennas. On its face, the statement only applies to painting requirements "that will not interfere with  S- d(#Mreception."K{"H {O -ԍReport and Order at para. 19.K If complying with a painting requirement causes an impairment of a viewer's ability to  d(#yinstall, maintain or use a Section 207 reception device, the requirement will be prohibited under our rules.  d(#If a regulation or rule required painting a Section 207 reception device in a manner that unreasonably  d(#lincreases costs or impairs the ability of the device to receive a signal, then the regulation would be  SK - d(#.impermissible under our Section 207 rules.K|K H {Ow-ԍReport and Order at para. 18.K The record does not demonstrate that a per se prohibition of painting requirements is necessary or desirable.  S - G.` ` Grace periods to comply with rulings   S -` ` 1. Background   S6- -46.` ` Under the current Section 207 rules, fines cannot accrue while a proceeding is pending  d(#.to determine the validity of a restriction, but an initial fine can be imposed if the restriction is ultimately  S- d(#jupheld.}H {O- d(#ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(a) ("No fine or other penalties shall accrue against an antenna user while a proceeding is pending to determine the validity of any restriction."). Petitioners request that no fines be permitted whatsoever so long as the viewer complies with  S- d(#/an adverse court or Commission ruling within a 21 day grace period.o~dH yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 11; USSB Reply Comments at 3; NRTC Reply Comments at 4.o According to DIRECTV, the  d(#prohibition on the accrual of fines does not remove the deterrent effect of a single fine on a viewer, for  d(#>viewers may not feel comfortable subscribing to DBS service if they fear immediate enforcement and  SF- d(#liability.=F H yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 11. = In addition, SBCA requests that viewers who install their antennas not knowing that a  d(#[restriction has been upheld by the Commission or a court be given a 21day grace period to comply with  S-the restriction.\ H yO"- d(#ԍSBCA Pet. at 14 (consumer should be given a reasonable time to comply with the rule before a fine is imposed); DIRECTV Pet. at 11. " 0*&&88$"Ԍ S-c` ` 2. Discussion   S- .47.` ` The Report and Order states that viewers are generally permitted to install, maintain and  d(#cuse a Section 207 reception device while the validity of a restriction is being reviewed, except where  Sc- d(#safety and historic preservation restrictions are at issue.KcH {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 53.K We do not believe it would be consistent with  d(#the purpose underlying this rule to permit a viewer to be fined when the validity of an arguably invalid  d(#regulation has not yet been determined, and we agree with petitioners that the potential threat of a fine  d(#or penalty could operate as a substantial deterrent to viewers exercising their right to install an antenna  d(#while such a restriction is under review. We agree that a viewer should be given at least 21 days to  d(# comply with an adverse ruling issued in a proceeding before a fine may be collected from the viewer,  d(#unless the proponent of the restriction can show in the same proceeding that the viewer's claim was  d(#frivolous. We believe that 21 days is a reasonable time to give most viewers the opportunity to move  d(#Section 207 devices and that allowing the device to remain 21 days does not unreasonably burden a  d(#government or community association's interests. During this grace period, no additional fines or penalties  d(#=shall accrue against the viewer, but if at the end of the grace period the viewer has not complied with the adverse ruling, then the initial fine may be imposed.  S[- /48.` ` Regarding SBCA's proposal, we decline to grant a grace period to every viewer who  S3- d(#unknowingly violates a restriction that has already been upheld in a proceeding pursuant to our rules.P3ZH {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(c), (d).P  S - d(#\Nevertheless, if a viewer believes that the restriction is invalid as applied to the particular viewer and  S- d(#challenges a previously upheld restriction in a proceeding as provided for in our rules,@H yOI-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.4000(d).@ and the viewer  d(#does not have a frivolous claim that the upheld restriction is invalid as applied to the particular viewer, then the viewer may be granted at least a 21 day grace period.  SE- A049.` ` In addition, as with fines and penalties, some associations attempt to collect from viewers  d(#the attorney's fees expended by the association in its efforts to enforce a restriction even while a  d(#Lproceeding is pending to determine whether the association's restriction constitutes an impairment under  S- d(#.our rules.TH {O-ԍSee, e.g., In re James Sadler, CSR5074O, slip op. at para. 41 (DA 981284, rel. July 1, 1998). Because this question is related to the accrual of fines during the pendency of a proceeding,  d(#we raise on our own motion whether attorney's fees are collectible under our Section 207 rules while a  d(# petition for a declaratory ruling is pending. The Section 207 rules provide that viewers are generally  d(#permitted to install, maintain and use a Section 207 reception device while the validity of a restriction is  S-- d(#being reviewed, except where safety or historic preservation restrictions are at issue.A-H {O"-ԍReport at para. 53.A Moreover, the  d(#Section 207 rules provide that "[n]o fine or other penalties shall accrue against an antenna user while a"P0*&&88k"  S- d(#proceeding is pending to determine the validity of any restriction."BH yOh-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a). B As with fines or other penalties, the  d(#zattempt to assess attorneys fees while a proceeding is pending, and the validity of an arguably invalid  d(#restriction has not yet been determined, would undermine the purpose underlying both the Section 207  d(#rules and the petition process. Thus, we will modify our rules so as to prohibit the assessment or  S`-collection of attorney's fees while a proceeding is pending.W`XH {OD-ԍSee Appendix B; 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a).W  S-  H.` ` Definition of signal impairment   S-` ` 1. Background   Sq-  150.` ` Under our current rules, a regulation will be deemed to impair a viewer's ability to receive  SI - d(#/video programming signals if it precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal.KI H {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 20.K For example, a  d(#signal does not have an acceptable quality where "reception would be impossible or would be substantially  S - d(#degraded."1 TH {O-ԍId.1 CEMA proposes that the Commission state that signal reception is impaired if any signal  S - d(#degradation exists.w H yO1-ԍCEMA Pet. at 5 (other than exempted safety and historicdistrict restrictions).w NAS proposes that, because television antennas must be placed at the highest point  d(#on a homeowner's roof for optimum reception, the Commission require that antennas be placed where  S - d(#reception is optimal. NH yO]- d(#ԍNAS Pet. at 6 ("Any restriction that prevents homeowners from [placing antennas on the highest point on the homeowners' roof] impairs reception."). NAS also proposes that other Section 207 devices be placed where reception is  S[-optimal.[ H {Oy- d(#.ԍId. ("The Commission should provide similar guidance adapted to the requirements of MMDS and DBS antennas.").  S -` ` 2. Discussion   S- 251.` ` We decline to adopt the CEMA and NAS proposals with respect to television broadcast  d(#antennas because it has not been shown that these devices cannot receive an acceptable signal quality if  d(#they are located in a less than optimum position. Under the balance struck in the rules, viewers are  d(#entitled to an antenna location, if one is available, that will provide an "acceptable" quality signal. Subject  d(# to that limitation, local governments and community associations are entitled, in order to protect the  d(#=interests of local residents, to restrict antenna placement. The rules are intended to provide a reasonable  d(#[reconciliation of the specific interests of individual viewers and the collective interests of the community  d(#at large. This balance is properly struck if a reasonable, but not necessarily always optimal, quality signal" 0*&&88"  d(#/is available. For example, with respect to signals that are subject to a variety of different but gradual  d(#=impairments, the rules do not mandate that an antenna can be placed at whatever height reception would  d(#be optimized. If that were the case, there would be many situations where no accommodation whatsoever would be made to the interests of the local community.  S8- a352.` ` The situation is altogether different, however, for devices designed to receive digital  d(#=signals, such as DBS antennas, digital MMDS antennas and digital television ("DTV") antennas. Unlike  d(#zanalog antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient overtheair signal strength, will at  d(#times provide no picture or sound unless they are placed and oriented for optimal reception. Where a  d(#.DBS antenna has an unobstructed, direct view of a satellite, the antenna will produce a complete picture  d(#/and sound. As the antenna is moved or oriented slightly to a position where its view of the satellite  d(#becomes less direct or partially obstructed, the antenna will continue, up to a point, to produce a complete  d(#picture and sound because digital reception devices have error correcting systems that fill in the missing  d(#data by taking into account interruptions in the digital data stream caused by the obstruction. At some  d(#point, however, as the antenna's view becomes slightly more obstructed, the obstruction will cause the  d(#picture and sound to become fragmented because the obstruction is blocking too many pieces of digital  d(#data for the antenna's error correcting system to correct. As the antenna is moved a negligible distance  d(#farther and its view of the satellite becomes more obstructed, the antenna will produce no picture or sound  d(#at all because the antenna can no longer receive sufficient data. This is the "cliff effect" which is the point  d(#at which there is a complete loss of picture and sound because the antenna can no longer receive sufficient  d(#^data. At the cliff, the transition between a complete picture and no picture takes place almost  S-immediately. H yO - d(#ԍBecause of the frequency band used, DBS antennas need an unobstructed, direct view of a satellite to produce  d(#a complete picture and sound. Due to the propagation characteristics of the 12.2 12.7 GHz band, communication  d(#;systems using these frequencies require unobstructed paths between the transmitter and receivers. This type of path is often called "lineofsight" ("LOS").  Sh-  453.` ` Obstructions are not the only causes of data disruption. Weather conditions such as severe  d(#rain can interfere with the data streams to such a degree that most antennas will be unable to produce a  d(#ypicture during some periods throughout the year. Manufacturers assume that satellite antennas will have  d(#an unobstructed view of the satellite and design them to keep these weather blackouts to a minimum while  d(#at the same time producing the smallest antenna possible. For antennas that have an obstructed view of  d(#the satellite, these weather blackouts will occur more frequently than for antennas that have an  d(#/unobstructed view of the satellite because both the obstruction and the weather are blocking the data  d(#stream. For this reason, we conclude that, to receive an acceptable quality signal, a DBS antenna or other  d(#digital reception device covered by Section 207 must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view  d(#[of the satellite or other device from which video programming service is received, if such a location exists  S-on the viewer's property and the property is covered by our rules.GH {O"-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 1.4000.G ".0*&&88"Ԍ S- qI.` ` Other technologies that provide overtheair reception of video programming services (#`  S-` ` 1. Background (#  Sa-554.` ` The Commission's current Section 207 rules cover the following reception equipment:  XX` ` (1) an antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service,  including directtohome satellite services, that is one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska; or ` q  XX` ` (2) an antenna that is designed to receive video programming services via   multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution   Sservices, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; or `  S -` ` (3) an antenna that is designed to receive television broadcast signals...@ H yO-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.4000(a).@x`  SY- 655.` ` SBCA proposes that the rule should be flexible and encompass any newlydeveloped over d(#theair reception device that provides video programming service, especially devices that receive video  S - d(#programming viewable on a computer screen.;X XH yO- d(#ԍSBCA Pet. at 17 ("New and innovative uses for satellite dishes will continue to be developed in ways that  d(#jcannot be envisioned; and the Commission should not adopt a rule that requires it to revisit its rule each time technology progresses.").; SBCA urges that the Section 207 rules should encompass  S- d(# interactive antennas that receive video programming that can be viewed via computers.dH {O- d(#ԍId.; see also Hughes Network Systems Inc. ("Hughes") Pet. at 2 (requesting that the Commission include Hughes' "DirectPC, a residential satellite Internet gateway service," within the preemption restrictions).  Similarly,  d(#WCA urges that "video programming includes all information (e.g., information received over the internet)  S-that is commonly viewed on the video screen (including computer monitors)."<H yO-ԍWCA Pet. at 33 n.58.<  SA-a` ` 2. Discussion  S-  756.` ` We reject WCA and SBCA's proposal because they have not shown that interactive and  d(#.adata transmitting antennas receive "video programming" as that term is used in the Communications Act  d(#of 1934. In the Act, video programming "means programming provided by, or generally considered  Sz- d(#ycomparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station."hz& H yO,#-ԍCommunication Act of 1934,  602(20); 47 U.S.C.  522(20).h At this time, the record does  d(#not reflect that the statutory definition of video programming is met with respect to the antennas WCA  d(#Land SBCA propose to include. The petitioners have not shown that the described videorelated services"* 0*&&88"  d(#?are comparable to that provided by a television broadcast station. Section 207 is flexible and will  d(#encompass newly developed technologies if they are shown to have similar technology and functions and  S- d(#to provide similar services as devices encompassed by Section 207.H {O- d(#,ԍFor example, in the Report and Order, we stated that we believed that Congress did not mean to exclude from  d(#protection services that are closely related to the services specifically addressed in Section 207, such as TVBS,  {O- d(#MMDS and DBS. Report and Order at para. 30. Thus, because of their similarity in terms of function and  d(#xtechnology to services enumerated in Section 207, we found that MDS, ITFS and LMDS were covered by Section  {O<-207 and our Section 207 rules even though these services were not mentioned in Section 207. Id.Ĵ Proponents must make a particular  S-showing that the new technology should be covered by our rules.~H {O - d(#ԍSee, e.g., In re Terrastar, DA971364 (July 3, 1997) in which the Commission denied Terrastar's petition that its new satellite reception device be covered by our Section 207 rules.   S8-A J.` ` Transmissiononly antennas that assist reception antennas (#`  S-` ` 1. Background   S- `857.` ` In the Report and Order, the Commission stated that "antennas that have transmission  d(#capability designed for the viewer to select or use video programming are considered reception devices  SK -under this rule," but that the rule "does not apply to devices that have transmission capability only."XK H {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 39. X A  S - 958.` ` WCA requests that the Commission reconsider its exclusion of devices with transmission  d(#>capability only. According to WCA, in order to offer interactive services that cable provides, it may  S - d(#Mbecome necessary for WCA to install two devices, one to transmit and one to receive.8 B H yOy-ԍWCA Pet. at 33. 8 Because the  d(#transmission device is necessary for the viewer to select the video programming that the viewer will  d(#receive in the reception device, WCA argues that the rule should protect devices that have transmission  S3-capability only if they are used in tandem with a video reception device.23 H {O}-ԍId. 2  S-` ` 2. Discussion  S- # :59.` ` Section 207 requires that we "prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive  Sl- d(#video programming" from Section 207 devices.Vl< H yO4!-ԍPub. L. 104140, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)  207.V Transmission devices are covered by our rules to the  d(#/extent that restrictions on them prevent a viewer from receiving video programming on a Section 207  S- d(#>reception device.K H {O`$-ԍReport and Order at para. 39.K We see no reason to distinguish in this regard between a single antenna that both  d(#receives and transmits and paired transmission and reception antennas that perform the same functions. "60*&&88C"  d(#We conclude that restrictions that impair transmission devices that work in tandem with and are necessary  d(#to enable a viewer to select video programming on a reception device are prohibited by our rules if they  d(#.impair a "viewer's ability to receive video programming" as set forth in our Section 207 rules. We stress  d(#Kthat this protection extends only to transmission antennas that are within the size parameters of the Section 207 rules, installed at the viewer's location, and necessary for the viewer to select video programming.  S- K.` ` Districts eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places   S-` ` 1. Backgrou nd   Sq- ;60.` ` The Commission's current rules permit restrictions if they are "necessary to preserve an  SI - d(#historic district listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places."DI H yO -ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b)(2).D According to  d(#BellSouth, if a property has been determined to have met the standards for being listed on the National  d(#=Register but a property owner objects to having his property listed on the National Register, then his or  d(#her property is merely designated "eligible to be listed" so that he or she can avoid restrictions applying  S - d(#to property listed on the National Register.= XH yO-ԍBellSouth Pet. at 17.= Thus, BellSouth argues that our Section 207 rules should  d(#not protect unlisted property that is not subject to state and local government historic preservation  SY-restrictions.2YH {O-ԍId. 2  S -` ` 2. Discussion   S-  <61.` ` We decline to adopt BellSouth's proposal because our historic preservation exception is  d(#consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended ("NHPA"), which directs a  d(#yfederal agency to "take into account the effect of the [agency's] undertaking on any district, site, building,  SB- d(#Nstructure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register."qBRH {O -ԍ16 U.S.C.  470f; see also 16 U.S.C.  470a(b)(3)(F) and (I).q Having  d(#-reviewed the NHPA, we find that our exception does not go far enough to satisfy our statutory obligations.  d(#Our current Section 207 rules protect only "districts" listed or eligible to be listed on the National Register,  d(#whereas the NHPA defines protected historic properties to mean "any prehistoric or historic district, site,  S- d(#building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register."?H yO-ԍ16 U.S.C.  470w(5).? Therefore,  d(#Lon our own motion, we will revise our rules to exempt "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,  d(#kstructure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places" in  S*- d(#yorder to follow the definition of historic properties in the NHPA.Y*LH {O$-ԍSee Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(b)(2).Y It was not our intention through the"* 0*&&88"  d(#krules adopted, nor do we believe it was the intention of Congress in adopting Section 207, to overrule specific restrictions or regulations designed to protect historic properties.  S-  L.` ` Limits on fees and costs   S8- ` ` 1. Backgrou nd   S- =62.` ` Our Section 207 rules prohibit regulations and restrictions that "unreasonably increase[]  S- d(#Mthe costs of installation, maintenance or use" of a Section 207 device.AH yO) -ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a).A In the Report and Order, we  S-noted that such costs might deter consumers from purchasing a Section 207 device.KXH {O -ԍReport and Order at para. 17.K   SK - ~>63.` ` DIRECTV requests that the Commission bar all fees assessed by local governments for  d(#installing antennas because the rules currently give little guidance and significant discretion to local  S - d(#[officials to determine what is a reasonable fee. H yO]- d(#ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 9 ("The Commission should amend Section 1.4000 to make clear that local governments and homeowners associations may not charge fees for the right to install a satellite antenna."). At a minimum, USSB suggests that discriminatory fees  S -for antennas be prohibited in the rule itself.7 H yOy-ԍUSSB Pet. at 4.7  S - ?64.` ` Regarding restrictions that may incidentally increase the cost of installation, NAS proposes  d(#lthat a ceiling of $250 or the cost of installation, whichever is less, would be high enough to permit  S3- d(#reasonable restrictions but low enough to avoid making installation costprohibitive to the consumer.63H yOU-ԍNAS Pet. at 5.6  S - d(#zDIRECTV and USSB request that the rule reflect that an aesthetic requirement may only impose a de  S-minimis cost and cannot impair reception.T H yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 9; USSB Reply Comments at 4.T  S- ` ` 2. Discussion  SH- R @65.` ` The Section 207 rules regarding fees and costs are designed to protect viewers from  S - d(#yunreasonable expenses that discourage choosing alternative video reception devices. O  H {O:!-ԍReport and Order at paras. 1718.O Both fees imposed  d(# directly by a restricting entity and costs imposed indirectly as a result of an entity's requirements or  d(#restrictions can impose an unreasonable expense that is prohibited by the Section 207 rules. For example,  d(#a fee imposes unreasonable expense when the fee is for a permit that a local government has no discretion" 0*&&88"  S- d(# to require.H {Oh- d(#ԍOn this issue, we affirm the decision of In re Star Lambert, 12 FCC Rcd. 10455, at para. 24 (1997) (city ordinance required a fee for a permit that was required to be issued automatically). We decline, however, to prohibit all fees because a reasonable fee, in connection with a  d(#Lpermissible requirement, may be within the standards of the Section 207 rules. Moreover on the current  d(#record, there is insufficient evidence of the types of fees that might fall under the flat prohibition of  d(#Mpetitioners' request, and in the absence of adequate information we cannot find that all fees should be  S`- d(#barred. Similarly, with respect to costs, in the Report and Order we declined to adopt a formula or  d(#Mprecise dollar amount that will constitute an unreasonable expense in every case. The record remains  d(#inadequate to determine whether a ceiling of a given amount, as NAS suggests, or a de minimis standard,  d(#0as DIRECTV and USSB propose, will be reasonable in every case. The standard for determining  d(#reasonable fees and costs is whether the expense imposed is reasonable in light of the cost of the  S- d(#\equipment or services and the rule , law, regulation or restriction's treatment of comparable devices.K"H {OH -ԍReport and Order at para. 19.K  Sr-In this Order, we modify the rule to include this language.rH {O-ԍSee paragraph 75, infra, and the revised Section 1.4000(a) in Appendix B.  SL -A  S$ - M.` ` Service of petitions and pleadings   S -` ` 1. Backgrou nd   S - A66.` ` Although the Report and Order requires that "[p]etitions for declaratory rulings or waivers  S_- d(#must be served on all interested parties,"K_H {O -ԍReport and Order at para. 55.K the rule itself does not address this issue. WCA proposes that  d(#ltAhe Commission find that applications or pleadings must be served on potentially affected service  S- d(#providers.'$H yO7- d(#ԍWCA Pet. at 28. Lawsuits seeking declaratory rulings from the courts should be served on the MDS Basic  d(#Trading Area ("BTA") holder for the affected area, as well as every entity that holds or has applied for authorization  {O- d(#for an MDS or ITFS station in the area potentially covered by the ruling. Id. If the wireless company initiated the  {O-proceeding, then it would be required to serve the government. Id. at 29.' WCA argues that a service provider may be bound by a judgment even if it does not receive  S-notice of a suit.sZt H {O- d(#.ԍId. at 2930 ("Absent adoption of a notice requirement along the lines proposed by the Wireless Cable  d(#YPetitioners, there is a substantial risk that local courts will be entering declaratory rulings without the knowledge and participation of those parties Section 207 is designed to protect.").s  S-  B67.` ` WCA also requests that if an entity files in court that it be required to also serve the  So- d(#Commission.8oH {O}#-ԍId. at 29.8 Furthermore, WCA argues that the Commission should find that a court may not issue"o0*&&88"  d(#a declaratory judgment until after the Commission has given 30 days public notice to interested parties  S-of the declaratory judgment action.1H {O@-ԍId.1  S-` ` 2. Discussion  S9-   C68.` ` We agree that the Section 207 rules should reflect the statement in the Report and Order  S- d(#that petitions for declaratory rulings and waivers must be served on interested parties. We will amend the  S- d(#rules accordingly.VZH {O -ԍSee Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(e).V We will interpret the term "interested" narrowly. For instance, if a homeowners'  d(#association files a petition or a lawsuit seeking to have a restriction declared valid and seeking to enforce  S- d(#the restriction against a particular viewer, service must be made on the particular viewer.H {O - d(#;ԍReport and Order at para. 55 n.158. We assume that for actions filed in courts of competent jurisdiction, the courts' procedural rules will require service on parties in interest. The  d(# homeowners' association will not be required to serve all other members of the association, but must  d(#provide reasonable, constructive notice of the proceeding to other residents whose interests may  S# - d(#foreseeably be affected by the proceeding so that they might protect their interests.Q# H {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 55 n.158.Q This may be  d(#Oaccomplished, for example, by placing notices in residents' mailboxes, by placing a notice on a  d(#community bulletin board, or by placing the notice in an association newsletter. Similarly, if a local  d(#Mgovernment seeks a declaratory ruling or a waiver from the Commission, thereby availing itself of the  d(#jCommission's procedures, the local government must take steps to afford reasonable, constructive notice  d(#Mto residents in its jurisdiction (e.g., by placing a notice in a local newspaper of general circulation). If  d(#\the local government files a lawsuit in court, we assume the court will require the local government to  d(#jprovide constructive notice of the lawsuit to its citizens so that they might intervene in the government's  d(#lawsuit. Finally, if a viewer files a petition or lawsuit challenging a local government's ordinance or an  S-association's restriction, the viewer must serve the local government or association.VH {O-ԍSee Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(e).V  Sk-  D69.` ` Certificates of service and proof of constructive notice must be provided with a petition.  d(#In this regard, the petitioner should provide a copy of the notice and an explanation of where the notice  S-was placed and how many people the notice might reasonably have reached.V H {O-ԍSee Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(e).V  S- E70.` ` We reject petitioner's request that we mandate that potentially affected service providers  d(#be served when a case is filed in court. When a service provider is the party in interest, it must be served.  d(#=However, the record does not support requiring service when service providers are not directly affected.  d(#We assume that service providers potentially affected by a ruling can learn of a pending action through the constructive notice discussed above. "+ 0*&&88"Ԍ S-  ԙF71.` ` We will not adopt the petitioners' proposal that a party filing a suit in court be required  d(#lto serve a copy of the complaint on the Commission because WCA has not shown why service is  d(#warranted. We encourage parties to a lawsuit that raises issues involving the applicability or the  d(#jinterpretation of Section 207 or the Section 207 rules to provide notice of the lawsuit to the Commission  d(#and to provide the Commission with a copy of the relevant pleading so that the Commission may provide  d(#public notice of the suit if we choose to do so. At this time we think the Commission will have adequate  d(#opportunity to become aware of particular cases and, if appropriate, to submit its views to the court. Our  d(#decision not to require service on the Commission renders moot petitioners' proposal that the Commission require local courts not to issue a decision on a complaint until public notice of the complaint is given.  Sp- N.` ` Placing statements from the Report and Order in the Section 207 rules   S! -` ` 1. Background   S - nG72. ` ` Several petitioners request that certain statements that were made in the Report and Order  S - d(#]be placed in the text of the Section 207 rules and clarifiedP H yO-ԍCEMA Pet. At 6; NAB Reply Comments at 5.P or set forth in a separate document.T XH yO-ԍCEMA Ex Parte Letter dated February 7, 1997.T  S - d(#]DIRECTV, SBCA, and USSB request that the rules reflect the Report and Order's statement that  d(#enforcement of antenna prohibitions, except those pertaining to safety and historic preservation, is  S6- d(#prohibited pending review by the Commission and the Court.h6H yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 11; SBCA Pet. at 12; USSB Reply Comments at 3.h Because the Report and Order states that  d(#the Commission will examine an aesthetic regulations treatment of similar objects to determine whether  S- d(#the regulation is reasonable,KPH {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 19.K several petitioners request that the Commission place this opinion directly  S- d(#zin the rule.TH yO-ԍDIRECTV Pet. at 9; USSB Reply Comments at 4.T USSB proposes that an aesthetic regulation impairs if it treats the antenna "in a manner  S- d(#different from other appurtenances of comparable size."AJH yOn-ԍUSSB Reply Comments at 4.A CEMA further proposes that standards for  Sp- d(#examining safety and historic preservation objectives be placed in the rule.up H {O-ԍCEMA Ex Parte letter at 3 (citing Report and Order at para. 25). u Because the rule requires  d(#that the burden of enforcing a restriction in a Commission proceeding rests on the party seeking to enforce  S - d(#the restriction,@ D H yO!-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.4000(e).@ WCA requests that the rule also state the party on which the burden rests in a court  S-action.7 H yOD$-ԍWCA Pet. at 30.7 " <0*&&883"Ԍ S- H73. ` ` Regarding its petition that the Commission clarify its restrictions, CEMA requests that the  S- d(#Commission provide a document with certain easy to read clarifications of the rule.7H yO@-ԍCEMA Pet. at 6.7 In particular,  d(#CEMA proposes that the document provide that [a]ny local restrictions on DBS antenna placement must  S-be made available to viewers in writing.nXH {Ol-ԍCEMA Ex Parte letter at 3 (citing Report and Order at para. 25).n  S8-` ` 2. Discussion  S-  2I74.` ` We clarify our rules to state that if a petition is filed challenging a restriction, enforcement  d(#of that restriction, except restrictions pertaining to safety and historic preservation, is prohibited pending  S- d(#.completion of review by a court or the Commission.H yO - d(#ԍCommission review is completed when an order is released and is no longer subject to review or appeal, or when the petition is dismissed or returned without further action. We also agree with WCA that there is no reason  d(# to distinguish between proceedings in court and proceedings at the Commission and accordingly will  d(#clarify that the burden of demonstrating that a particular restriction complies with the rules adopted in this  S! - d(#/proceeding rests on the party seeking to enforce the restriction.7! H yO-ԍWCA Pet. at 30.7 We reiterate our conclusion in the  S - d(#Report and Order that "placing the burden on consumers would hinder competition and fail to implement  d(#Congress' directive, as such a burden could serve as a disincentive to consumers to choose TVBS, MMDS,  S -or DBS services."K H {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 54.K  S[- J75.` ` Regarding the requests that the rule be altered to explain the Commission's standards for  d(#yreviewing aesthetic, safety and historic regulations, we believe that the standards for review of our safety  d(#and historic exemptions are adequately set forth in the rules. We do adopt the proposal to bring paragraph  S- d(#(a) of our Section 207 rules into accord with paragraph 19 of the Report and Order for reviewing aesthetic and other regulations:  v XAny fee or cost imposed on a viewer by a rule, law, regulation or restriction must be reasonable  v _in light of the cost of the equipment or services and the rule, law, regulation or restriction's  S-treatment of comparable devices.[ H {O-ԍSee Appendix B for full text of revised rule.[(#  S-  K76.` ` We decline to adopt CEMA's proposal to include a statement in the Fact Sheet that local  d(#restrictions must be made available to viewers in writing upon demand. We believe that local"! 0*&&88"  d(#governments and associations will make such restrictions available as a matter of course or at least provide  S-viewers an opportunity to make copies of the restrictions."H yO@- d(#-ԍWe believe that we have already complied with CEMA's proposal that the Commission produce a separate  d(#document with easy to read clarifications of the rule. The Cable Services Bureau has produced a fivepage Fact  d(#Sheet that explains our Section 207 rules in layman's terms. This document is available on the Cable Services  {O-Bureau's web site. See www.fcc.gov/bureaus/cable/www/csb.html.  S-  O. ` ` Application of the Section 207 rules to tenants who have the owner's permission to  S`-install an antenna (#`  S-  `L77.` ` For purposes of our Section 207 rules, a renter, tenant, or any other person residing on  d(#a property owner's property with the property owner's permission ("tenant viewer"), who has the property  d(#owner's permission to install, maintain and use a Section 207 reception device on the property, shall be  d(#ztreated as a covered viewer with regard to third party restrictions under our Section 207 rules. In this  d(#connection, the tenant viewer shall have the same rights under the Section 207 rules as would the owner  d(#]visavis restrictions enacted by a homeowners' association, condominium association, townhome  d(#Massociation, manufactured housing park owner, government and/or any other third party. Thus, if an  d(#owner residing on the property were entitled to install a Section 207 device on the property under our  d(#rules, then a tenant occupying the property is also entitled to a Section 207 device on the property  d(#provided the property owner consents. This clarification in no way alters the current rights, duties or  d(#obligations of a landlord with respect to a tenant. The rights of the tenant viewer with respect to a  d(#property owner who prohibits or restricts the installation, maintenance or use of a Section 207 device (e.g.  S0- d(#[a viewer who rents an apartment from a landlord who owns the building) will be addressed in the Second  S -Report and Order in response to the Further Notice issued in the First Report and Order.  S- P.` ` Property under the exclusive use of the viewer   Sl-  P M78.` ` Our Section 207 rules protect "property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna  SD- d(#Luser where the user has a direct or indirect ownership interest."ADH yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a).A Because numerous inquires have been  d(#made to the Commission regarding the meaning of "exclusive use," we will, on our own motion, clarify  d(#jthe meaning of "exclusive use" as that phrase is used in our Section 207 rules. The rule protects a viewer  S- d(#.who has either exclusive use or exclusive control of property in which the viewer has a direct or indirect  d(#\ownership interest. It is not necessary for a viewer to have exclusive control over the property to be protected by our Section 207 rules.  S.- N79.` ` For instance, a condominium owner, townhome owner, cooperative owner and owner of  d(#a manufactured home may not have exclusive control over their dwellings because the association or the  d(#park owner may retain rights to enter their dwellings to perform inspections or repairs. These owners do  d(#exercise exclusive use over their dwellings because they are the only parties entitled to the beneficial use  d(#of the dwellings. A condominium owner, townhome owner, owner of a manufactured home, or  d(#zcooperative unit dweller who has exclusive use of a balcony, balcony railing, deck, patio, or any other"f".0*&&88"  d(#type of property where they have a direct or indirect property interest, has the right, subject to certain  d(#Lrestrictions of our Section 207 rules, to place Section 207 devices thereon. That third parties have rights  d(#Lto enter and/or exercise control (e.g., banning grills on balconies) over the owner's exclusiveuse area does  d(#not defeat the owner's Section 207 rights. With respect to condominiums, this rule applies to antenna  d(#Mrestrictions on balconies, decks, patios or similar areas even if the condominium owner does not have  d(#exclusive ownership, so long as the condominium owner has direct or indirect ownership and exclusive use over the area.  S-  O80.` ` In a housing cooperative, residents own shares (or some other indicia of ownership) in an  S- d(#entity that holds title to the building, but the residents do not directly own the unit in which they reside.ZH {O - d(#ԍSee Comments filed in response to the Further Notice, e.g., CAI Comments at 8 (Resident does not own  d(#;property, but holds shares in cooperative; cooperative owns all the real estate, resident is permitted exclusive use of  yO -an unit); Frost Comments at 4; NAHB Comments at 1415; CAI Reply Comments at 4.   d(#>The residents' ownership interest in the controlling entity entitles them to exclusive use of a unit and  SH - d(#.nonexclusive use and enjoyment of other common areas.AH H yO-ԍChadwick Comments at 1. A Restrictions on a cooperative owner's use of  d(#his or her unit is prohibited by the current rule because (1) the owner has an indirect ownership interest  d(#in his or her unit and (2) the owner exercises exclusive use or control over the unit. Restrictions on the  d(#cooperative owner's use of common cooperative property is not prohibited if the cooperative owner does not exercise exclusive use over the common property.  SX-  PP81.` ` Even if the home rests on property leased from someone else, an owner of a manufactured  d(#home is protected by our Section 207 rules because the owner (1) has a direct property interest in the  d(#home and (2) has exclusive use of the home (and likely has exclusive control as well, although as noted  d(#above, the lack of exclusive control is not dispositive of the issue). Thus, a manufactured home owner,  d(#or the owner of any other type of home that rests on leased property, has rights under Section 207, subject to the rules' language and exceptions, to place a Section 207 device anywhere on the home.  S@- VR.COMMON ANTENNA PROPOSAL X'R.COMMON ANTENNA PROPOSALVQ.` ` Central Antenna Proposal  S-` ` 1. Background  S-  Q82.` ` In the Further Notice, we asked for comments on a CAI proposal to create an exception  d(#.to our rules that would allow antenna restrictions if a community association, landlord or similar private  d(#entity voluntarily "makes video programming available [through a central reception facility] to any resident  d(#/wishing to subscribe to such programming at no greater cost and with equivalent quality as would be  S- d(#[available from an individual antenna installation."PfH {O!-ԍReport and Order at paras. 49, 63.P CAI advocates this approach to give viewers access  d(#to service without using individual installation sites and suggests that the cost of service for individual  d(#members of a group could be lower than for individuals on their own. CAI also contends that a central"#0*&&88"  d(#antenna eliminates personal liability exposure for an individual viewer and aesthetic degradation due to  S-multiple antennas.<H yO@-ԍCAI Comments at 34. <  S- R83. ` ` The commenters who responded to the Further Notice agree that it is technically feasible  Sb- d(#=for a central antenna to provide service to more than one viewer;"bXH {OF- d(#ԍSee, e.g., USSB Comments at 5 ("Placing satellite reception devices on rental or commonlyowned property  d(#is thus clearly technically and practically feasible. A basic way to distribute DSS without requiring individual  d(#iantennas exists via special MDU antennas and hardware which would allow each viewer's dwelling unit to have its own individually addressable receiver."). however, commenters disagree about  d(#Mthe burden placed on the landlord or community association in meeting the demands of a viewer for a  d(#particular service. The National Apartment Association ("NAA") argues that, to meet viewers' demands,  d(#ja landlord would need to install three different antennas: one antenna for overtheair broadcasts, one for  S- d(#direct broadcast services, and one for multichannel multipoint distribution services.A.H yO|-ԍNAA Reply Comments at 39.A NAA also contends  S- d(#Lthat the cost of installing a central antenna system is prohibitive.DH yO-ԍNAA Reply Comments at 3839.D In addition, while commenters agree  d(#that one antenna could provide the same type of service to every viewer residing in a multiple dwelling  SJ - d(#unit that desired such a service,uJ & H yO-ԍDIRECTV Comments at 17 n.38; PENAC Comments at 14; NAA Reply Comments at 38. u commenters disagree over whether different services could share the  S" -same set of wiring to provide service to viewers."" H yOP- d(#ԍPhilips Electronics contends that more than one service can use the same set of inside wiring. Philips  {O- d(#,Comments at 15. But see NAA Reply Comments at 39 (stating that "in most cases it is not technically feasible for  d(#Jmore than one service provider to use the wiring" and that to comply with this exception most buildings will require one or more additional sets of wiring).  S - S84.` ` Some industry commenters endorse the central antenna proposal as a way to implement  S - d(#Section 207 while alleviating concerns about safety, liability and damage to the building." xH {O- d(#KԍSee, e.g., Alphastar Reply Comments at 78; CEMA Comments at 11; NAB Comments at 1617 (services  d(#ishould be offered at no greater cost to the resident and with quality equivalent to individual installations); Philips  d(#Reply Comments at 89; USSB Comments at 4; and USSB Reply Comments at 2 (central antenna eliminates aesthetic concerns). These  d(#.commenters are concerned, however, that a central antenna should not preclude installation of individual  SZ-antennas or deprive viewers of access to multiple competing video programming providers.#"ZNH yO4"- d(#ԍPacific Telesis Reply Comments at 34 ("common antennas should not be used as a means to deprive tenants  {O"- d(#of other video options"); see also Alphastar Reply Comments at 8 (opposing a rule standard that would allow a single  yO#- d(#,signal of equivalent quality); CellularVision Comments at 8; NRTC Comments at 5 (opposes this suggestion because it could result in exclusion of one DBS provider over another); USSB Comments at 4.#"Z$$0*&&88Z"Ԍ S-  ԙT85.` ` In an ex parte filing CAI suggests that a viewer who installs an individual antenna within  d(#90 days of an association's announcement of a good faith intention to install a central antenna could be  S- d(#required to remove the individual antenna after the central antenna is activated.SH {O-ԍCAI ex parte filing, March 30, 1998. S In response to CAI's  S- d(#jex parte proposal, SBCA contends that CAI's suggestion will effectively require viewers to wait 90 days  d(#or more for video service because the requirement to remove the antenna will deter individual  S<- d(#installations.Q<ZH {O"-ԍSBCA ex parte filing, May 27, 1998.Q  SBCA also contends that installation of a central antenna is more expensive on a per home  d(#/basis than installation of an individual antenna and expresses concern that this additional cost will be imposed on viewers.  S-` ` 2. Discussion  SM - U86.` ` Although the central antenna proposal initially suggested by CAI was presented for  S% - d(#/comment in the Further Notice, we are addressing it in this Order on Reconsideration rather than the  S - d(#Second Report and Order in this proceeding because we have concluded that the proposal is properly  d(#analyzed under our current Section 207 framework. We conclude that it is not necessary to amend the  d(#Section 207 rules to allow for a central antenna because the same standard of impairment can be applied  d(#to a restriction based on the existence of a central antenna as is applied to any other antenna restriction.  d(#That is, the installation of a central antenna, and a concomitant restriction on the installation of individual  d(#antennas, will not constitute an impairment under our Section 207 rules if, like any other restriction, it does not impair installation, maintenance and use.  S-  V87.` ` We interpret and apply the Section 207 rules in a manner consistent with the goals of  d(#ensuring access to a broad range of video programming services and fostering competition among different  Sq- d(#types of video programming services.JqH {O-ԍReport and Order at para. 6.J This proposal can be extremely useful in accommodating both  d(#[the interests of communities in protecting the aesthetic quality of the local environment and the interests  d(#0of individual residents in having unimpeded access to satellite, broadcast, or MMDS service. No  d(#community would be required to exercise this option, but where a decision is made by a community  d(#?association, condominium, cooperative, rental, or other facility governed by the rules to make the  d(#yadditional investment necessary to install central reception facilities, the interests of both the community  S- d(#at large and individual residents could be satisfied.VH yOc- d(#YԍWe find it unlikely that homeowner associations of singlefamily detached homes will find the central antenna  d(#approach feasible if it is necessary to install underground cables throughout a neighborhood. While we do not rule  d(#hout the possibility that a community of singlefamily homes may be able to utilize the central antenna approach, we  d(#note that the time and costs associated with installing a new central antenna in such a community are likely to create the type of unreasonable delay and unreasonable expense that are prohibited by the Section 207 rules. In addition, residents not able to take advantage of  d(#0the rules and install their own equipment because of line-of-sight or other problems with antenna  d(#placement could also benefit from the additional options made available through the installation of such a facility. " % 0*&&88\"Ԍ S-  ~ԙW88.` ` While we believe this proposal may be useful in many situations and is consistent with  d(#.both Section 207 and the Section 207 rules, it cannot be used to restrict access. Thus, restrictions based  d(#=on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: 1) the viewer receives  S- d(#.the particular video programming service the viewer desires and could receive with an individual antenna  S`- d(#k(e.g., the viewer would be entitled to receive service from a specific DBS provider, not simply a DBS  d(#\service selected by the association); 2) the video reception in the viewer's home using the community  d(#antenna is of an acceptable quality as good as, or better, than the quality the viewer could receive with  d(#an individual antenna; 3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the  d(#cost of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna; and 4) the requirement to use the  d(#community antenna in lieu of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming.  S" - %X89.` ` Based on the comments received in the Further Notice, we believe that community  d(#associations are more likely to provide a central antenna if by so doing they can limit the number of  d(#jindividual antennas. It is not our intention, however, that community associations be permitted to deter  d(#jviewers from making individual antenna purchases by announcing an intention to install a central antenna  d(#and using that announcement as a basis to prohibit individual installations for an indefinite period of time.  S\- d(#We note that in CAI's ex parte proposal, associations could require viewers to remove an antenna installed  d(#<after the association announced its intention to provide a central antenna, but the proposal does not specify  d(#ywho would pay for removal of the antenna. We believe that if the association paid for the removal of the  d(#antenna and reimbursed the viewer for the value of the antenna, then it is unlikely the viewer would be  d(#deterred or unreasonably delayed. If, however, an association requires a viewer to remove an individual  d(#antenna at the viewer's expense, then such a requirement would impose both an unreasonable delay and  d(#unreasonable expense. Similarly, an individual who wants video programming other than that available  d(#kthrough the central antenna should not be unreasonably delayed in obtaining the desired programming  d(#=either through modifications to the central antenna, installation of an additional central antenna, or via an  S- d(#/individual antenna."H yO^- d(#ԍWe do not agree with CAI's argument that an association be permitted to provide an "equivalent" service rather  d(#ythan the specific service the tenant requested. Accordingly, we also reject the proposal by the Manufactured  d(#Housing Institute ("MHI") that restrictions should be permitted if alternative programming is made available. MHI  {O-Comments filed in the Further Notice proceeding at 2. In addition, a restriction that imposes additional costs that total more than the  d(#viewer would pay for installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna in an exclusive use area is not permitted under the Section 207 rules.  SV- III.FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  S.-  S- nY90.` ` As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),xZH {OD!- d(#jԍSee 5 U.S.C.A.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.A.  601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With  d(#America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 ("CWAAA"). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").x an Initial Regulatory Flexibility  S- d(#Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in International Bureau (IB) Docket No. 9559 ("DBS Order and"&0*&&88"  S- d(#Further Notice")H {Oh-Ѝ Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth Stations, IB Docket No. 9559, Report and  {O2-Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Appendix III, 11 FCC Rcd. 5809 (1996).  and in Cable Services Bureau (CS) Docket No. 9683 ("TVBSMMDS Notice").\$H yO-Ѝ Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Restrictions on OvertheAir  {Ox-Reception Devices: Television Broadcast and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service, Notice of Proposed  {OB-Rulemaking, Appendix B, CS Docket No. 9683, 11 FCC Rcd. 6357 (1996).Ĉ The  d(#Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in those proceedings, including comment  S- d(#on the IRFA's.4H {Or -ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Report and Order at Attachment D.#Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѝ The Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") was issued in the  S- d(#Report and Order and conformed to the RFA. Pursuant to the RFA, the Commission's final analysis with  Sd-respect to this Order on Reconsideration is as follows:  S- A.` ` Need for, and Objectives of, this Order on Reconsideration  S- Z91.` ` This Order on Reconsideration implements Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act  d(#of 1996, Pub. L. 104104, 110 Stat. 56. Section 207 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations  d(#to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through certain  d(#devices designed for overtheair reception, including MMDS, LMDS, DBS, TVBS and ITFS ("Section  S( - d(#207 devices").( H yOf-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#1996 Act  207. #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ы This action is authorized under the Communications Act of 1934  1, as amended, 47  S - d(#=U.S.C.  151, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934  303, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  303, and by  S - d(#.Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This Order on Reconsideration provides guidance  S - d(#on how the Commission will interpret its Section 207 rules> . H yOp-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000.> and amends the Section 207 rules to provide more clarity in the existing rules.  S>- B.` ` Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA (#`  S-  } [92.` ` None of the parties in this proceeding filed comments on how issues raised in the petitions  d(#=for reconsideration would impact small entities. Nevertheless, we discuss below how we considered the impact of the amendment of our Section 207 rules on small entities.  SN-  C.` `  Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rules Will  S&-Apply (#`  S- P\93.` ` The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning  d(#[as the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction," and "the same"' 0*&&88"  S- d(#meaning as the term small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business Act."H yOh-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (1980). #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѱ The rule we adopt today applies to small organizations, small governmental jurisdictions, and small businesses.  S- 3]94.` ` The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of . . . districts,  S`- d(#with a population of less than fifty thousand."`XH yOD-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#5 U.S.C.  601(5). #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ю There are 85,006 governmental entities in the United  S8- d(#States.8H {O -#X\  P6G;P#эUnited States Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 Census of Governments. Į This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts.  d(#We note that restrictions concerning antenna installation are usually promulgated by cities, towns and  d(#counties, not school or utility districts. Of the 85,006 governmental entities, 38,978 are counties, cities  S- d(#jand towns; and of those, 37,566, or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The NLCL RH {O - d(#ԍThe following entities filed joint comments in response to the IRFA's contained in IB Docket No. 9559 (DBS  {Oh- d(#Order and Further Notice) and in CS Docket No. 9683 (TVBSMMDS Notice): National League of Cities; The  d(#National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; The National Trust for Historic Preservation;  d(#League of Arizona Cities and Towns; League of California Cities; Colorado Municipal League; Connecticut  d(#Conference of Municipalities; Delaware League of Local Governments; Florida League of Cities; Georgia Municipal  d(#Association; Association of Idaho Cities; Illinois Municipal League; Indiana Association of Cities and Towns; Iowa  d(#LLeague of Cities; League of Kansas Municipalities; Kentucky League of Cities; Maine Municipal Association;  d(#KMichigan Municipal League; League of Minnesota Cities; Mississippi Municipal Association; League of Nebraska  d(#Municipalities; New Hampshire Municipal Association; New Jersey State League of Municipalities; New Mexico  d(#[Municipal League; New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials; North Carolina League of  d(#-Municipalities; North Dakota League of Cities; Ohio Municipal League; Oklahoma Municipal League; League of  d(#Oregon Cities; Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities; Municipal Association of South Carolina; Texas  d(#<Municipal League; Vermont League of Cities and Towns; Virginia Municipal League; Association of Washington  yO-Cities; and Wyoming Association of Municipalities (collectively "NLC"). #Xj\  P6G;9XP#L estimates  S-that there are 37,000 "small governmental jurisdictions" that may be affected by the proposed rule.H yO-#X\  P6G;P#э#X\  P6G;P#NLC IRFA Comments at 2. #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѷ  SH - #^95.` ` Section 601(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act defines "small organization" as "any not S - d(#forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field." vH yO"-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#5 U.S.C.  601(4). #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ю This  d(#definition includes homeowner and condominium associations that operate as notforprofit organizations.  S - d(#The Community Associations Institute estimates that there were 150,000 associations in 1993. H yON!-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Community DBS Comments at 2. #Xj\  P6G;9XP#ѕ Given  d(# the nature of a neighborhood association, we assume for the purposes of this FRFA that all 150,000 associations are small organizations. "X(n0*&&88Z"Ԍ S-  _96.` ` A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is  d(#knot dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small  S- d(#Business Administration (SA).H X-ԍ#X\  P6G;P#Small Business Act 15 U.S.C.  632 ( #Xj\  P6G;9XP# 1996).  NAA argues that its members fall into three areas of SIC Codes 6512  d(#(operators of nonresidential buildings), 6513 (operators of apartment buildings), and 6514 (operators of  S`- d(#dwellings other than apartment buildings).+"`yH yOe- d(#LԍJoint Comments were filed by the National Apartment Association, the Building Owners and Managers  d(#hAssociation, the National Realty Committee, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of  d(#hShopping Centers, the National Multi Housing Council, the American Seniors Housing Association, and the National  {O -Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (collectively "NAA") in response to the IRFA in the Further Notice.+ The SA defines a small entity in each of these codes as  d(#one with less than $5,000,000 in gross annual revenues. Based on census data that lists businesses  d(#according to these SIC codes and their total revenue, NAA states that there are 28,089 operators of  d(#jnonresidential buildings and 39,903 operators of apartment buildings. NAA states the Bureau of Census  d(#kincludes operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings in the same category as other types of  d(#businesses; thus, NAA would not provide the data, presumably because it would not be useful; however,  d(#=NAA states that the figures for this category as a whole show that the number of operators of dwellings  d(#other than apartment buildings are similar to the numbers of operators covered by SIC codes 6512 and 6513.  S -   D.` ` Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance  S -Requirements (#`  SX- ``97.` ` The new rules clarify that petitions for declaratory judgment and waivers must be filed  d(#on interested parties and that a certificate of service must be filed with the petition or the complaint. In  d(#yaddition, the new rules require associations and local governments in Commission proceedings to provide  d(#constructive notice to their members or citizens and file a copy of the notice with the Commission with  d(#a statement explaining where the notice was placed and why such placement was reasonable. In a court proceeding brought by an association, the association must give constructive notice to its members.  S@- / E. ` ` Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and  S-Significant Alternatives Rejected (#`  S-  a98.` ` We find that there are no significant alternatives to the rules and policies set forth in this  S- d(#Order that would minimize the economic impact on small entities, and we note that no commenter  Sz- d(#Lproffered alternatives to these rules and policies. Because most of the conclusions reached in this Order  ST- d(#lon ReconsiderationĠmerely clarify and provide guidance under the current Section 207 rules, those  d(#conclusions need not be analyzed here because the impact of the current Section 207 rules was already  S- d(#analyzed in the Report and Order.KOH {O"-ԍReport and Order at para. 67.K Nevertheless, there were some changes to the rules that we must address. ")0*&&88"Ԍ S-  b99.` ` First, we adopted a proposal that viewers be given at least 21 days during which to comply  d(#.with a court or Commission order upholding a restriction before any fine or penalty may be imposed on  d(#the viewer if the viewer's claim is not frivolous that the restriction was facially invalid or was invalid as  S- d(#applied to the specific viewer.?H {O-ԍSee Section II.G.? We agreed with petitioners that the potential threat of a fine or penalty  d(#could operate as a substantial deterrent to viewers exercising their right to install an antenna while such  d(#Ma restriction is under review. We do not find that there is a significant alternative way to remove this deterrent.  S-  2c100.` ` Second, we amended our rules to clarify that the burden of demonstrating that a particular  d(#yrestriction complies with our Section 207 rules rests with the proponent in both a court and Commission proceeding. No one proposed a significant alternative to this rule.  S - ad101.` ` Third, we adopted a proposal that our Section 207 rules protect antennas that have  d(#transmission capability only if these transmission antennas are used in conjunction with antennas that  d(#.receive video programming. Because this ruling was merely a clarification of the initial rule, we find that  S -this ruling has no more impact than the initial ruling analyzed in the Report and Order.  SZ- _e102.` ` Fourth, we amended our rules to protect "properties," not just "districts," listed or eligible  d(#>to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. No significant alternative was proposed that would not run afoul of federal laws and regulations protecting such properties.  S-  f103.` ` Fifth, we rejected a proposal that our Section 207 rules protect per se any other new  d(#antenna not specifically listed in the Section 207 rules. This decision was required by the statutory  d(#language of Section 207. Moreover, the impact of this rule is diminished because we stated that we will consider petitions for a declaration whether a particular device is covered on a case by case basis.  S-  g104.` ` Sixth, as set forth in Section D above, our rules clarified how service should be made and how certification of service provided. No significant alternative was proposed.  S|- v  Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this Order on Reconsideration,  d(#zincluding this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement  S.- d(#LFairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this Order on Reconsideration and FRFA (or  d(#summary thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A.  604(b), and will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  S- IV.  PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 ANALYSIS  S@-  Bh105.` ` This Order on Reconsideration contains modified information collection requirements.  d(#LAs part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office  d(#yof Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the information collection  d(#requirements contained in this Order on Reconsideration, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of  S"- d(#1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public comments are due 30 days from date of publication of this Order on""*Z0*&&88$"  S- d(#Reconsideration in the Federal Register; OMB comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this  S- d(#.Order on Reconsideration in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the collection  d(#zof information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including  d(#!whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden  d(#=estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways  d(#to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  S- i106.` ` Written comments by the public on the modified information collection requirements are  S- d(#due on or before 30 days after publication of this Order on Reconsideration in the Federal Register.  d(#Written comments by OMB on the modified information collection requirements must be submitted on  SN - d(#jor before 60 days after the publication of this Order on Reconsideration in the Federal Register. A copy  d(#of any comments on the information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judy  d(#Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554,  d(#or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  S`- V.ORDERING CLAUSES   S- j107.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303 of the  d(#Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 303, and Section 207 of the  d(#.Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104104, 110 Stat. 56, that the amendments to rule 47 C.F.R.  S- d(# 1.4000 discussed in this Order on Reconsideration and set forth in Appendix B are ADOPTED. The  d(#amendments set forth in Appendix B shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal  d(#Register, except that paragraphs (d) and (e) of the amended rule impose new information collection  d(#requirements and shall become effective 70 days after publication in the Federal Register, following OMB approval, unless a notice is published in the Federal Register stating otherwise.  S- nk108.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration in CS Docket No. 9683 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as provided above.  S2- l109.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference  S - d(#lOperations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration, including the Final  d(#Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration  d(#in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164,  S-5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: