WPC{ 2EBPZECourier 10cpi3|z  #Xj\  P6G;ZXP#HP LaserJet IIISi LPT2:ional)HPLAIIA0.PRSx  @H#SX@ X-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#2"wXICourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC?xxx,+x6X@8;X@8wC;,ZXw P7XP3  &@K2K;U7,0u,0u,0u,0uWPC 2BVP Z2  Z3|z  Courier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)Courier 12cpiCourier 12cpi (Italic)Courier 10cpi (Italic)CG Times Bold Italic (Scalable)HP LaserJet IIISi LPT2:ional)HPLAIIA0.PRSx  @H#SX@2 v+ p k k| a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2B  v t4  a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 t   ja2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2 Qa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2 Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2qa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   283a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxA.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ82?i9 >!>"L?"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8Heading'GS@6FChapter Heading=(%8'GBS*%- 'G.E 3/ 0 *  ׃  Right ParT@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E!<12@    Subheading@6FSubheading9% =(%8'GBU*%- 'G.E".3 4  2A#p@$q@%e@&eXA2*- 'GV@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBV*%- 'G.E#56` ` ` 3*- 'GW@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBW*%- 'G.E$7 8 . 4*- 'GX@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBX*%- 'G.E% 9: 5*- 'GY@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBY*%- 'G.E& ;< 2D'A(pB)B*C6*- 'GZ@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBZ*%- 'G.E'*=>   7*- 'G[@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB[*%- 'G.E(?@` ` ` 8*- 'G\@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E)8AB@   9*- 'G]@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E*ACD@` `  ` ` ` 2F+QD,D-E.7F10- 'G^@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB^*%- 'G.E+0E F    11- 'G_@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E,JGH` ` @  ` `  12- 'G`@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E-SIJ` `  @  13- 'Ga@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E.\KL` `  @hh# hhh 21J/G0G1H2wI14- 'Gb@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E/eMN` `  hh#@( hh# 15- 'Gc@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E0nOP` `  hh#(@- ( 16- 'Gd@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E1wQR` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 17- 'Ge@6FDocument Style=(%8'GBe*%- 'G.E2FST *  ׃  2L3cJ4J5mK6 L18- 'Gf@6FTechnical Document Style'GBf*%- 'G.E3&UV  . 19- 'Gg@6FTechnical Document Style'GBg*%- 'G.E4&WX  . 20- 'Gh@6FTechnical Document Style'GBh*%- 'G.E5*YZ    21- 'Gi@6FTechnical Document Style'GBi*%- 'G.E6'[\   2O7L8dM9N:N22- 'Gj@6FTechnical Document Style'GBj*%- 'G.E7&]^   23- 'Gk@6FTechnical Document Style'GBk*%- 'G.E84_$`     24- 'Gl@6FTechnical Document Style'GBl*%- 'G.E9&ab  . 25- 'Gm@6FTechnical Document Style'GBm*%- 'G.E:&cd  . 2Y;PO<gQ=ZR>mnYCitator'Gn@6FFormat Secretary's Citator Output File%- 'G.E;ef#d6X@7@# XX  XX j I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX #d6X@7@# XX #d6X@7@# XX *  jFormat Downl@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGBr*%- 'G.Ekl2^? Z@mZA[B\footnote tex@6F9% =(%8'GBw*%- 'G.E?'mn#FxX  P CXP#header 'Gy@6F9% =(%8'GBy*%- 'G.E@o p  #FxX  P CXP# referencez@6F9% =(%8'GBz*%- 'G.EA;qr#FxX  P CXP#itemize'G{@6F9% =(%8'GB{*%- 'G.EB*st F r#FxX  PCXP#2cCm@^Db_ESaFbbheader2'G|@6F9% =(%8'GB|*%- 'G.ECu v`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3}@6F9% =(%8'GB}*%- 'G.EDwx #FxX  PCXP# footer 'G~@6F9% =(%8'GB~*%- 'G.EEyz!#c P7P#Word222Null@6FWord222Null% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EF1{1|#/x PX##/x PX#2kGNcHdIfJ&iNormal 'G@6FNormal9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EG1}1~#Xj\  PG;XP##/x PX#HEADING 7@6F* 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EH0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# HEADING 6@6FF 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EI0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# HEADING 5@6FT 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EJ0p Zwp x (#DDDDDD#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# 2YsKkLvnMwpNrHEADING 4@6Fb 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EK0 Zwp x (#rr#&a\  PG;&P# 4 hp x (##&a\  PG;&P# NORMAL INDEN@6Fp 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EL'4 <DL!T$#&a\  PG;&P##&a\  PG;&P#enumlev1G@6F~ 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EM$p  N hp x (#aa#&a\  P G;&P#4` hp x (##&a\  P!G;&P#footnote ref@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ENz#V\  P"UP#2 wOsPtQ5uROvDefault Para@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.EOPPpage number@6Fpage number% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EPZ26- 'G@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EQf\??USlist- 'G@6Flist 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.ERf??2{SL?wTFxUyVwzendnote refe@6Fendnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ESzz#Xj\  P#G;XP##c P$7P#line number@6Fline number% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.ETww#Xj\  P%G;XP##c P&7P#Highlight@6FMiddle Article Highlight'GB*%- 'G.EU''#G }'Y##\9> (P(YP#HeadlineG@6FHeadline for newsletter8'GB*%- 'G.EV''#> })Y##\9> (P*YP#2}WO{X{Y|ZM}2nd line Hea@6F2nd line headline%8'GB*%- 'G.EW''#b> }+Y##\9> (P,YP#Graphics hea@6FHeadlines for graphics8'GB*%- 'G.EX** #o> P}-YP##\9> (P.YP# Graphics bod@6Fchart data % =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EY** #Alo> P}/YXP##\9> (P0YP# Article head@6FHeadline for new article'GB*%- 'G.EZ*'#r"z1C# #\9> (P2YP# 2y[P+~\{]%^τendnote text@6Fendnote text% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E[w#X}xP37XP##I2P4QP#toc 1 'G@6Ftoc 19% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E\.$(#`` hp x (#toc 2 'G@6Ftoc 29% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E].$` (#`` hp x (#toc 3 'G@6Ftoc 39% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E^.$` (#` hp x (#2_`Uabtoc 4 'G@6Ftoc 49% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E_.$ (#` hp x (#toc 5 'G@6Ftoc 59% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E`.$h(#` hp x (#toc 6 'G@6Ftoc 69% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ea.$(# ` hp x (#toc 7 'G@6Ftoc 79% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.EbZP2cݐde1fۘtoc 8 'G@6Ftoc 89% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ec.$(# ` hp x (#toc 9 'G@6Ftoc 99% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ed.$(#`` hp x (#index 1'G@6Findex 19% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ee.$` (#` hp x (#index 2'G@6Findex 29% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ef.$` (#`` hp x (#2ݢghPaiFjtoa heading@6Ftoa heading% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Eg.$(#` hp x (#caption'G@6Fcaption9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ehw#X}xP57XP##I2P6QP#_Equation Ca@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB*%- 'G.Eiww#X}xP77XP##I2P8QP#27- 'G@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.Ej#X}xP97XP##&sxP:7&P#2TklmpsnqHEADING 9@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ek'34 <DL!T$#c P;7P##c P<7P#HEADING 8@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.El'34 <DL!T$#c P=7P##c P>7P#28- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Em` ` ` 29- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.En  . 2SoepeqPrp30- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Eo  31- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Ep  32- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Eq*   33- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Er` ` ` 2stuvG34- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Es8@   35- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EtA@` `  ` ` ` 36- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.Eu0    37- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EvJ` ` @  ` `  2wxʬyz?38- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EwS` `  @  39- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ex\` `  @hh# hhh 40- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Eye` `  hh#@( hh# 41- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ezn` `  hh#(@- ( 2α{9| }İ~I42- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E{w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 43- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E|F *  ׃  44- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E}&  . 45- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E~&  . 2u1ų46- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E*    47- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E'   48- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&   49- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E4$     2,K50- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 51- 'G@6FTechnical Document Style'GB*%- 'G.E&  . 52- 'G@6F 9% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'4 <DL!T$#&a\  P?G;&P##&a\  P@G;&P#53- 'G@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ER#V\  PAUP#2'ϸ54- 'G@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB*%- 'G.E((55- 'G@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E>4??US56- 'G@6Fendnote reference%8'GB*%- 'G.ERR#Xj\  PBG;XP##B\  PCUP#57- 'G@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB*%- 'G.EOO#XX2PDQXP##I2PEQP#2d!cHIGHLIGHT 1@6FItalics and Bold(%8'GB*%- 'G.E DRAFT ONG@6FHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date*%- 'G.Eo X 8Q I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@F7X@#`v (#EDRAFTă `(#?D3 1, 4D  QDRAFT OFF@6FTurn Draft Style off8'GB*%- 'G.ED      LETTER LAND@6FLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5B*%- 'G.E    '3   2cc|cnBLEGAL LAND@6FLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5GB*%- 'G.E   'A   LETTER PORT@6FLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11GB*%- 'G.E  3'   LEGAL PORT@6FLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14'GB*%- 'G.E  A'   TITLE 'G@6FTitle of a Document8'GB*%- 'G.E* ă2dcj1BLOCK QUOTE@6FSmall, single-spaced, indented*%- 'G.E HIGHLIGHT 2@6FLarge and Bold=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E HIGHLIGHT 3@6FLarge, Italicized and Underscored*%- 'G.E  LETTERHEAD@6FLetterhead - date/margins'GB*%- 'G.E!  X  3'   * 3' Ѓ   2I/<@<|INVOICE FEE@6FFee Amount for Math InvoiceB*%- 'G.E F, $0  MEMORANDUM@6FMemo Page Format(%8'GB*%- 'G.E   * M E M O R A N D U M ă y<N dddy INVOICE EXP@6FExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice*%- 'G.E!" ,p, $0INVOICE TOT@6FTotals Invoice for Math Macro*%- 'G.E#$ p,p, $02[[4[INVOICE HEAD@6FHeading Portion of Math Invoice*%- 'G.EU%&4   p,X 9'#x6X@G7X@# XX  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@H7X@# XX  *#HHީ'  ӧ   XX #x6X@I7X@# XX  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)Ҳ#x6X@J7X@# XX  *#HHީSMALL 'G@6FSmall Typestyle=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'(FINE- 'G@6FFine Typestyle=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E)*LARGE 'G@6FLarge Typestyle=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E+,25[[wEXTRA LARGE@6FExtra Large Typestyle8'GB*%- 'G.E-.VERY LARGE@6FVery Large Typestyle8'GB*%- 'G.E/0ENVELOPEG@6FStandard Business Envelope with Header%- 'G.Ee12 V,  X  , 8#x6X@K7X@#   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#x6X@L7X@#    `   Style 14G@6FSwiss 8 Pt Without MarginsGB*%- 'G.E'3'4#Co> PMQP##)a [ PNQ)P#2g s2Style 12G@6FDutch Italics 11.5%8'GB*%- 'G.E'5'6#)^ `> XiOQ)X##)a [ PPQ)P#Style 11G@6FInitial Codes for Advanced II*%- 'G.EZ78#)a [ PQQ)P# dn  #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PRQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PSQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiTQ)X#`He%)Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PUQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PVQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiWQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   #)a [ PXQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PYQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiZQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage   I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P[Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)a [ P\Q)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> Xi]Q)X#   Page `e%*Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3'G@6FDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs*%- 'G.E9:#)a [ P^Q)P# n  ## b, oT9 !Style 4'G@6FSwiss 8 Point with MarginsGB*%- 'G.EG;<#Co> P_QP# dd  #  2]Style 1'G@6FDutch Roman 11.5 Font8'GB*%- 'G.E7=>#)a [ P`Q)P# dn Style 2'G@6FDutch Italic 11.5%8'GB*%- 'G.E'?@#)^ `> XiaQ)X#Style 5'G@6FDutch Bold 18 Point8'GB*%- 'G.E'A'B#T~> pbQTp##)a [ PcQ)P#Style 7'G@6FSwiss 11.59% =(%8'GB*%- 'G.E'C'D#)ao> PdQ)P##)a [ PeQ)P#25 Style 6'G@6FDutch Roman 14 Point8'GB*%- 'G.E'E'F#w [ PfQP##)a [ PgQ)P#Style 10G@6FInitial Codes for AdvancedGB*%- 'G.EGH#)a [ PhQ)P# dn   #  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PiQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PjQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XikQ)X#`e%*Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PlQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PmQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XinQ)X#Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PoQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PpQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiqQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PrQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PsQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XitQ)X#   Page `e%*Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8'G@6FInitial Codes for BeginningB*%- 'G.EIJ#)a [ PuQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9  [ #)a [ PvQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PwQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XixQ)X#`e%*Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PyQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PzQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi{Q)X#Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ P|Q)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ P}Q)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> Xi~Q)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`e%APage  #)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiQ)X#   Page `e%*Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9'G @6FInitial Codes for Intermediate*%- 'G.EKL#)a [ PQ)P# dn  ## b, oT9 Њ [ #)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiQ)X#`=e%)Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiQ)X#Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   #)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 #)^ `> XiQ)X#   Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`e%APage  #)a [ PQ)P# ## 2>-=dr>Update 'G@6FInitial Codes for Update Module*%- 'G.EMN#)a [ PQ)P# dn  ##  [ b, oT9 !#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 ! I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 !#)^ `> XiQ)X#`e%&Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   #)a [ PQ)P# ## b, oT9 !58- 'G@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGB*%- 'G.EUOP XX    #\ #d6X@7@#Bld/Und'G@6FBold and Underline Text8'GB*%- 'G.EQR  2@p?px?q?eY@59- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EST` ` ` 60- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EUV` ` ` 61- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.EW X . 62- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E YZ 2Be@UApAXB63- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E [\ 64- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E*]^   65- 'G@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB*%- 'G.E_`` ` ` 66- 'G@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E8ab@   2ECCLDD67- 'G @6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EAcd@` `  ` ` ` 68- 'G!@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB!*%- 'G.E0e f    69- 'G"@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.EJgh` ` @  ` `  70- 'G#@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.ESij` `  @  2HEFDG H71- 'G$@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.E\kl` `  @hh# hhh 72- 'G%@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Eemn` `  hh#@( hh# 73- 'G&@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Enop` `  hh#(@- ( 74- 'G'@6FRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*%- 'G.Ewqr` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2oKIINJJ75- 'G(@6FDocument Style=(%8'GB(*%- 'G.EFst D*  ׃  76- 'G)@6FTechnical Document Style'GB)*%- 'G.E&uv  . 77- 'G*@6FTechnical Document Style'GB**%- 'G.E&wx  . 78- 'G+@6FTechnical Document Style'GB+*%- 'G.E*yz    2MK6LLzM79- 'G,@6FTechnical Document Style'GB,*%- 'G.E'{|   80- 'G-@6FTechnical Document Style'GB-*%- 'G.E&}~   81- 'G.@6FTechnical Document Style'GB.*%- 'G.E4$     82- 'G/@6FTechnical Document Style'GB/*%- 'G.E&  . 2fQ1NNPPP83- 'G0@6FTechnical Document Style'GB0*%- 'G.E&  . 84- 'G1@6F9% =(%8'GB1*%- 'G.E'4 <DL!T$#&a\  PG;&P##&a\  PG;&P#85- 'G2@6Ffootnote reference%8'GB2*%- 'G.E>#V\  PUP#86- 'G3@6FDefault Paragraph Font8'GB3*%- 'G.E2TQ:RSS87- 'G4@6Ffootnote text =(%8'GB4*%- 'G.E* ??US88- 'G5@6Fendnote reference%8'GB5*%- 'G.E>>#Xj\  PG;XP##B\  PUP#89- 'G6@6F_Equation Caption%8'GB6*%- 'G.E;;#XX2PQXP##I2PQP#90- 'G7@6FFormat Downloaded DocumentGB7*%- 'G.EU XX    \\ #d6X@7@#2VgT"UUOV- 'G8@6FTriangle9% =(%8'GB8*%- 'G.Ea192.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%8@   a292.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%A@` `  ` ` ` a392.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%J` ` @  ` `  2Z%WWXGYa492.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%S` `  @  a592.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%\` `  @hh# hhh a692.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%e` `  hh#@( hh# a792.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%n` `  hh#(@- ( 2\AZ[[?\a892.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers !*% 'G*%w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a193.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%8@   a293.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%A@` `  ` ` ` a393.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%J` ` @  ` `  2_]]x^7_a493.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%S` `  @  a593.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%\` `  @hh# hhh a693.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%e` `  hh#@( hh# a793.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%n` `  hh#(@- ( 2b1`aa/ba893.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a194.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%8@   a294.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%A@` `  ` ` ` a394.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%J` ` @  ` `  2ecchd'ea494.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%S` `  @  a594.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%\` `  @hh# hhh a694.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%e` `  hh#@( hh# a794.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%n` `  hh#(@- ( 2h!f}fogga894.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a1Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%$ a2Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%/ a3Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%: 2vkhZijja4Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%E a5Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%P a6Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%[ a7Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%f 2mkrlqlqdma8Paragraph+%*-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)% =(%8'GB*%q a1Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%%DD/  a2Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%a3Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%2oqnqxnqnqZoa4Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%a5Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%a6Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%a7Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%2?rqonpqqa8Agenda.E+%*-Agenda Items69% =(%8'GB*%a195.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%8@   a295.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%A@` `  ` ` ` a395.E+%*-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers%8'GB*%J` ` @  ` `  2 qr^!w5`{"Sh5^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddddddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxdddddddddddddddddood8ddddkdddxdxdxDx8ooddהddpLododxdxdxdooooxdxLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d尰dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC?xxx,ڎx6X@8;X@ 8wC;,ZXw P7XP7zC;,"Xz_ p^7X&6uC;,;.Xu&_ x$&7XX V"G($,IhG P7hPx/c81,~c P7P&z-b81,;$b&_ x$&7Xs4ddd,Vd6X@8;@Ls4ddd,dd6Nh*;H?xxx,{ȸx6Nh ;XHd4wC;,NXw*0 xM7XfJW"3!. ks0WDD6Wgbv{<@DDzE!n14 4GM0/01256789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\] Y4m ^ ?4tؐ\m ^ X4#Xw P7ZXP# Federal Communications Commission FCC 97323 #Xj\  P6G;ZXP#  X4(##Xj\  P6G;ZXP#    ^ Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Xv4DWashington, D.C. Đ\  Y 4In the Matter of hhCq)  Y 4` `  hhCq)pp  Y 4Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25)ppCC Docket No. 92297  Y 4Of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate)  Y 4The 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band, Toq)  Y4Reallocate the 29.530.0 GHz Frequencyq)  Yy4Band, To Establish Rules and Policies forq)  Yb4Local Multipoint Distribution Serviceq)  YK4And for Fixed Satellite ServiceshhCq) ` `  hhCq)  Y4Petitions for Reconsideration ofhhCq)  Y4the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules)pp  X4  SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Y4\  Y|4Adopted: September 9, 1997hhCqppReleased: September 12, 1997   YN4By the Commission: Commissioner Chong issuing a statement in which Commissioner ` `  Quello joins.  X4  I. Introduction and Executive Summary Y4\  Y 4 I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. The Commission has before it several petitions for reconsideration of the Second  Y!4Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in  Y"4this proceeding.Q A "H Y%4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# Rulemaking To Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules To Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Petitions for Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the Commission's Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio"'0*(('"  zP'Service Rules, CC Docket No. 92-297, Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer Preference, PP-22, Second Report  zPZ'and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-82, 62 Fed. Reg.  zP$'16514 and 23148 (rel. March 13, 1997) ("LMDS Second Report and Order") ("Fifth Notice of Proposed  zP'Rulemaking") ("Order on Reconsideration"), adopting Subpart L of Part 101 of the Commission's Rules, 47  zP'C.F.R.  101.1001-1112; appeal pending sub nom. Melcher v. FCC, Case Nos. 93-1110, et al. (D.C. Cir.,  zP'filed Feb. 8, 1993) (eligibility restrictions); Errata (rel. April 7 and May 1, 1997); Order on Reconsideration,  zPL'FCC 97-166 (rel. May 16, 1997). We defer the comments and all matters raised for comment in the Fifth  zP'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to a separate Report and Order to be issued in the near future.  zP'Petitions for reconsideration of the LMDS Second Report and Order have been filed by CellularVision USA, Inc. ("CellularVision"), WebCel Communications, Inc. ("WebCel"), Cook Inlet Region, Inc. ("Cook Inlet"), LBC Communications, Inc. ("LBC"), the Rural Telecommunications Group ("RTG"), the Independent  zP 'Alliance, and Sierra Digital Communications, Inc. A petition for reconsideration of the Order on  zP 'Reconsideration has been filed jointly by LDH International, Inc., Celltel Communications Corporation, and CT  zP 'Communications Corporation, and a petition for review of the abovereferenced Order on Reconsideration has been filed by M3 Illinois Telecommunications Corporation.Q This Second Order on Reconsideration addresses those portions of the""(0*((aa$" aforementioned petitions those of CellularVision, WebCel, and Cook Inlet that deal with the participation of small businesses in the upcoming auction of Local Multipoint Distribution  Y4Service ("LMDS") licenses. e(H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# In authorizing the Commission to use competitive bidding, Congress mandated that we "ensure that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrumbased services." Section 309(j)(4)(D) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(D). These  zP'categories are collectively known as "designated entities." See LMDS Second Report and Order at  340 and  xP'n.514. Noting the lack of a record to support special provisions for businesses owned by members of minority groups and women, we adopted provisions for small businesses in the belief that they would also assist  zPF'minority and womenowned entities, many of which are small businesses. Id. at  343.  For the reasons set forth below, we reconsider and modify certain rules affecting small business participation in the LMDS license auction. Specifically, we:  Yv4` ` Eliminate installment payments for LMDS licensees in favor of revised, tiered ` ` bidding credits for very small, small, and entrepreneurial businesses ` ` participating in this auction;  Y 4` ` Deny a request to adopt an "asset test" for evaluating business size; and  Y 4` ` Decline to further address the qualifications of licensees that are delinquent or ` ` in default on FCC licenses in other services for obtaining favorable provisions ` ` for this auction. Those portions of the aforementioned petitions that do not deal with the small business participation rules will be addressed in a separate Commission ruling."yU0*'&'&aat"Ԍ X4ԙM* II. Background Đ\  Y42. In the LMDS Second Report and Order, we adopted service and competitive  Y4bidding rules for LMDS which included, inter alia, provisions designed to assist two distinct sizes of small businesses and entities. Entities with average gross revenues for the preceding three years of more than $40 million but not more than $75 million hereinafter are referred  Yz4to as "entrepreneurs."yzH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See LMDS Second Report and Order at  340363. We note that this is the first time in the LMDS proceeding in which the term "entrepreneurs" has been used to refer to entities with average gross revenues for the preceding three years of more than $40 million but not more than $75 million. A small business is defined as "an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years  YL4of not more than $40 million."L H1 Y 4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# 47 C.F.R.  101.1112(b). For entrepreneurs, we made available 15 percent bidding credits and installment payments at the same interest rate as for small businesses. Installment payments for entrepreneurs consist of both interest and principal amortized over the ten years  Y 4of the license term. H1 Yr4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See 47 C.F.R.  101.1107(b), 101.1108(b), and 101.1112 (b)(2). Small businesses are eligible for 25 percent bidding credits and installment payments, the interest rate for which is based on the rate for tenyear U.S.  Y 4Treasury obligations, fixed at the time of licensing, plus 2.5 percent. kH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See 47 C.F.R.  101.1107(a) and 101.1108(a). Installment payments for small businesses consist of interestonly payments for the first two years, and interest and  Y 4principal amortized over the remaining eight years of the license term.  H1 Yx4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See 47 C.F.R.  101.1108(a). 3. CellularVision, WebCel, and Cook Inlet request that the Commission reconsider  Yf4certain aspects of the small business provisions established in the LMDS Second Report and  YQ4Order. )Q H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See CellularVision Petition for Partial Reconsideration (filed May 29, 1997) ("CellularVision Petition") (requesting adoption of a second installment payment plan for small businesses); WebCel Petition for Partial Reconsideration (filed May 29, 1997) ("WebCel Petition") (requesting adoption of a "very small business" category and an "asset test" for determinations of business size); and Cook Inlet Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 29, 1997) ("Cook Inlet Petition") (requesting elimination of installment payments, adoption of a very small business category, and that licensees that are delinquent or in default on their installment payment obligations in connection with other FCC licenses be ineligible for special bidding preferences). These petitioners also variously seek reconsideration of other aspects of our LMDS rules, but this proceeding addresses only their designated entity proposals.  Zip Communications Corporation ("Zip"), RTG, and CellularVision filed"Q0*'&'&aa"  Y4oppositions to various portions of these petitions. H1 Yy4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Opposition and Comments of Zip Communications Corporation on Petitions for Reconsideration (filed July 2, 1997) ("Zip Opposition") (opposing all requests of CellularVision, WebCel, and Cook Inlet, except for WebCel's request for an asset test); RTG Partial Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed July 2, 1997) ("RTG Opposition") (supporting institution of a very small business category); and Consolidated Opposition of CellularVision USA, Inc. to Petitions for Reconsideration (filed July 2, 1997) ("CellularVision Opposition") (opposing elimination of installment payments and implementation of a very small business category if it would reduce current benefits for small businesses and entrepreneurs). Bell Atlantic Corporation also opposes the WebCel Petition, which it characterizes as an "effort to suppress bidding competition," but does not specifically  zP'address WebCel's arguments regarding designated entity provisions. See Bell Atlantic Opposition to WebCel Petition for Reconsideration (filed July 2, 1997). WebCel and CellularVision also replied to  Y4some of the oppositions. A H1 Y 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Reply of WebCel Communications, Inc. (filed July 14, 1997) ("WebCel Reply") (reiterating request for a very small business category); and Reply of CellularVision USA, Inc. to Opposition of Zip Communications Corporation to CVUS Petition for Partial Reconsideration (filed July 16, 1997) ("CellularVision Reply") (further supporting revised installment payment option). Finally, the Commission received ex parte communications from the National Venture Capital Association ("NVCA"), U.S. WaveLink Telecommunications  Y4Group, L.P. ("U.S. WaveLink"), WebCel, CellularVision, and LBC.} o  H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Letter from Daniel T. Kingsley, Executive Director, National Venture Capital Association, to Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (July 7, 1997), regarding "Need for LMDS Very Small Business Category & Asset Test" ("NVCA Letter") (supporting a very small business category and an asset test); Letter from Jason S. Priest, President, U.S. WaveLink Telecommunications Group, L.P., to Reed  zP;'E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (July 11, 1997), regarding "Ex Parte Presentation, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, CC Docket No. 92297" ("U.S. WaveLink Letter") (urging no further  zP'delay in the LMDS auction); WebCel Notices of Ex Parte Presentations, June 27 and July 1, 17, 23, 25, and 31, 1997, and Letter from Martin L. Stern, Counsel for WebCel Communications, Inc., to Rosalind Allen, Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 21, 1997), regarding "CC Docket No. 92297, et al. Cook Inlet Proposal to Eliminate Installment Payments" ("WebCel Letter") (collectively advocating a very small business category, requesting a second additional very small  zP'business category, and opposing elimination of installment payments); CellularVision Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, July 23, 1997 (proposing that, if installment payment plans for LMDS licensees are eliminated, small businesses receive a 50 percent bidding credit); and Letter from Daniel S. Goldberg, Counsel for LBC Communications, Inc., to Rosalind Allen, Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (August 1, 1997), regarding "CC Docket No. 97297 et al.," ("LBC Letter") (opposing elimination of installment payments).} Petitions for judicial  Y4stay of the LMDS Second Report and Order have also been filed.' H1 Y!4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# Those cases have since been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in  zP"'Melcher v. FCC, cited at n.1, supra.' "c> 0*'&'&aa"  X4NP III. Discussion Đ\  X4 1. Commencement of the Auction Đ  Y44. Petitions. U.S. WaveLink urges the Commission to announce that the LMDS auction will begin no later than November, 1997, believing expedition imperative to ensure  Yv4sound business planning. vH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# U.S. WaveLink Letter at 1. U.S. WaveLink asserts that the LMDS auction is already long overdue, that capital markets have been poised to invest, and that further delay will dampen investors' interest, slow the delivery of innovative video programming and telecommunications services to the public, and irreparably harm competition in LMDS and in the video programming and telecommunications markets in which LMDS licensees seek to  Y 4compete. yH1 Y-4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. U.S. WaveLink notes that it has already been several months since the Commission last directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to implement procedures for auctioning LMDS licenses pursuant to the  zP'LMDS Second Report and Order, and that it has been more than four years since the Commission first proposed  zP'to authorize LMDS operation and almost a year since the Commission designated spectrum for LMDS use. Id.,  zPr'citing Rulemaking to Amend Part 1 and Part 21 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.529.5 GHz Frequency Band and to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service, RM7872, RM7722, Applications for Waiver of the Commission's Common Carrier PointtoPoint Microwave Radio Service Rules, Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer's Preference, University of Texas Pan American Petition for  zP'Reconsideration of Pioneer's Preference Request Denial, PP22, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order,  zP^'Tentative Decision, and Order on Reconsideration, 8 FCC Rcd 557 (1993). Zip also urges the Commission to commence the LMDS auction as expeditiously  Y 4as possible. < H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Zip Opposition at 1.  Y 45. Discussion. We agree with U.S. WaveLink and Zip regarding the need to move expeditiously to auction the LMDS licenses. We believe that the public will significantly benefit from the availability of new services via LMDS and from the benefits of competition between LMDS and established services. We are concerned that further delay may slow the delivery of new services to the public and harm the growth of competition. We also want to  YK4give sufficient time from the date of the release of this Second Order on Reconsideration for potential bidders to arrange financing. Therefore, we have recently announced that the  Y4LMDS auction will begin on December 10, 1997., H1 Y!4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See "FCC Announces Upcoming Spectrum Auction Schedule: Two Auctions to Commence Before End  zP"'of Year," Public Notice, DA 971627 (rel. July 30, 1997)., This issue is therefore moot. "h0*'&'&aae"  X4 2. Installment Payments  Y46. Petitions. Cook Inlet urges us to eliminate the installment payment plans for LMDS licensees. Cook Inlet asserts that installment payment plans fueled speculation in the broadband Personal Communications Services ("PCS") auctions, encouraged expectations of Commission relief from payment obligations, and saddled the Commission with difficult  Yv4creditrelated tasks for which it has no experience.vH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 69. Cook Inlet Petition also notes our statement in the current proceeding to modify our general competitive bidding rules:   We note that substituting a system of larger bidding credits might eliminate the administrative and market concerns associated with installment payments, while nonetheless ensuring opportunities for small businesses to participate in auctions.     zP '  Id. at 10, quoting Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules Competitive Bidding Proceeding, WT  zPR'Docket No. 9782, Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 9760,  zP'62 Fed. Reg. 13540 (rel. February 29, 1997), at  34 ("Part 1 Order and NPRM"). Cook Inlet further argues that installment payment programs force the Commission to balance its duty to regulate the provision of wireless services with its sometimes conflicting obligation to manage the federal  Y14debt responsibly.1 H1 Yi4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 910. To ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to compete for LMDS licenses, Cook Inlet urges the Commission to offer increased bidding credits in place of installment payment plans, which it asserts will allow responsible small bidders with appropriately tailored business plans to secure private financing, without sacrificing market  Y 4driven bidding discipline. 8 H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. at 911.  Y 47. CellularVision, WebCel, Zip and LBC oppose Cook Inlet's proposal to eliminate installment payment plans for LMDS licensees. CellularVision and WebCel argue that Section 309(j)(4) of the Communications Act requires the Commission to consider the use of installment payments as a means of ensuring that licenses are held by a wide variety of  YK4applicants, including small businesses.K H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Opposition at 25; WebCel Letter at 2. WebCel further argues that installment payments were successful in past auctions, and that in this proceeding the Commission lacks the  Y4requisite degree of justification to eliminate them.}H1 Yh#4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# WebCel Letter at 24, citing 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(A) and (D), the Administrative Procedures Act,  zPQ$'generally, and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ("Motor  zP%'Vehicle Manufacturers"). CellularVision, WebCel and LBC also"0*'&'&aaw" express doubts that private financing will be available or sufficient for participation in the  Y4LMDS auction and subsequent buildout, marketing and operations.H1 Yb4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Opposition at 56; WebCel Letter at 3; LBC Letter at 1. Zip agrees with Cook Inlet that its proposal would curb speculative bidding, but also believes that it would eliminate any meaningful opportunity for small businesses to participate in the LMDS  Y4auction.yH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Zip Opposition at 4. If the Commission does eliminate installment payments for LMDS licensees, CellularVision proposes that small businesses, as currently defined, receive a 50 percent bidding credit in order to attract the necessary private financing to compete in the LMDS  Y_4auction._*H1 Y: 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, July 23, 1997.  Y148. Contrary to Cook Inlet's proposal, CellularVision asserts that an additional, "deferred incremental repayment" installment payment option, that takes into account the special resourceintensive characteristics of LMDS, is necessary to ensure maximum small  Y 4business participation in the LMDS auction.A H1 Yx4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Petition at 35. Under CellularVision's proposal, payments of interest, at a rate equal to a 10year U.S. Treasury note, would commence in year six, while payments of principal would commence in year seven under an incremental structure of five percent in year seven, 10 percent in years eight and nine, and the remaining 75 percent in the final year. WebCel, for its part, suggests the creation of  Y 4two additional "very small" business categories (see  14, infra) which would include  Y 4proportionally favorable installment payment plans. H1 YU4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# WebCel Petition at 11 and Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, July 31, 1997. Zip opposes CellularVision's proposal, asserting that the elimination of any immediate financial obligation would give bidders an incentive to engage in speculation, and that it may encourage bidders to drive prices beyond the range of small businesses, with the expectation that the Commission will forgive the  Yd4winners' debt obligations if they later find that they have overreached.d H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Zip Opposition at 3, citing Installment Payments for PCS Licenses, Order, DA 97649 (rel. March 31, 1997). CellularVision asserts in reply that the auction process itself virtually eliminates the possibility of  Y64speculation.6H1 Y!4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See CellularVision Reply at 3.  Y49. Discussion. We grant Cook Inlet's petition and eliminate installment payment plans for LMDS licensees. Notwithstanding the arguments of CellularVision and WebCel,"0*'&'&aa" Congress did not require the use of installment payments in all auctions, but rather recognized them as one means of promoting the objectives of Section 309(j)(3) of the  Y4Communications Act.;O H1 YK4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Specifically, Section 309(j)(4) of the Communications Act states that the Commission shall, in  zP4'prescribing regulations pursuant to these objectives and others, "consider alternative payment schedules and methods of calculation, including lump sums or guaranteed installment payments, with or without royalty  zP'payments, or other schedules or methods that promote the objectives described in paragraph (3)(B) . . . ." See  zP'47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(A) (emphasis added). See also Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Report of the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, to Accompany H.R. 2264, A Bill to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Section 7 of the Concurrent Resolution of the Budget for Fiscal Year 1994, May 25, 1993, at p. 255:   While it is clear that, in many instances, the objectives of section 309(j) will be best served by a traditional, "cashonthebarrelhead" auction, it is important that the Commission employ different methodologies as appropriate. Under this subsection, the Commission has the flexibility to utilize any combination of techniques that would serve the public interest.; The Commission continues to experiment with different means for achieving its obligations under the statute, and has offered installment payments to licensees  Y4in several auctioned wireless services.  H1 Y44#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See, e.g., Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP  zP'Docket No. 93253, Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994) (Interactive Video Data Services); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253,  zP'Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2941 (1994) ("Narrowband PCS Third Report and Order") (regional narrowband PCS); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP  zPA'Docket No. 93253, Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532 (1994) (broadband PCS); Implementation of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution  zP'Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, PP Docket No. 93253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995) (Multipoint Distribution Service); and Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896901 MHz and the 935940 MHz Bands Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89553, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Implementation of  zP'Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93252, Second Order on Reconsideration  zP'and Seventh Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2639 (1995) (900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR")). By no means, however, has Congress dictated that installment payments are the only tool in assisting small business. Indeed, we have  Yv4conducted several auctions without installment payments.kvH1 Y4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# We specifically note the auctions of licenses for the Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"),  zP'nationwide narrowband PCS, and cellular unserved areas. See, respectively, Amendment of the Commission's  zP 'Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96228, Report and  zPh!'Order, FCC 9750, 62 Fed. Reg. 9636 (rel. February 19, 1997) ("WCS Report and Order"); Narrowband PCS  zP2"'Third Report and Order; and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for the Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules,  zP$'CC Docket No. 906, Ninth Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14769 (1996). Moreover, in recent legislation,"v0*'&'&aa" Congress dictated that certain future auctions effectively be conducted without installment  Y4payments.  H1 Yb4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# See Section 3001 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for 1997, P.L. 104208, 110 Stat.  zPK'3009 (1996) ("Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act"). See also the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 10533, 111 Stat. 251 (1997). Section 3007 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which significantly amends Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, requires that:   The Commission shall conduct the competitive bidding required under this title or the amendments made by this title in a manner that ensures that all proceeds of such bidding are deposited in accordance with section 309(j)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934 not later than September 30, 2002.    The Conference Report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 indicates that the deadline set forth in Section 3007 "applies to all competitive bidding provisions in this title of the conference agreement and any amendments to other law made in this title." Conference Report on H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congressional Record House, Vol. 143, No. 109 Part II, at H6176. We have carefully considered the use of installment payment plans for LMDS  Y4licensees. We conclude that we can meet our statutory obligations absent these provisions.! H1 Y&4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See LMDS Second Report and Order at  344349.#d6X@`7@#  Y4 10. The Commission must balance competing objectives in Section 309(j) that  Y4require, inter alia, that it promote the development and rapid deployment of new spectrumbased services and ensure that designated entities are given the opportunity to participate in  Ya4the provision of such services."aTH1 Yf4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# See 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(3) and (4). In assessing the public interest, we must try to ensure that all the objectives of Section 309(j) are considered. While we disagree with Cook Inlet's contention that installment payments necessarily encourage speculation, our experience with the installment payment program leads us to conclude that installment payments may not always serve the public interest. The Commission has found, for example, that obligating licensees to pay for their licenses as a condition of receipt requires greater financial  Y 4accountability from applicants.# H1 Y4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, RM8117, RM8030, RM8029, Implementation of Section 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93252, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive  zP 'Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 97224, 62 Fed. Reg. 41225 (rel. July  zP!'10, 1997) ("800 MHz MO&O") at  130. We are presently examining issues relating to our administration of installment payments, including those raised by Cook Inlet, in several other" #0*'&'&aa "  Y4proceedings.$ H1 Yy4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Part 1 Order and NPRM at  3435, proposing changes to the competitive bidding process in Part 1  zPb'of the Commission's Rules. See also "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Broadband  zP,'PCS C and F Block Installment Payment Issues," Public Notice, WT Docket 9782, DA 97679 (rel. June 2,  xP'1997). Several parties also filed petitions for reconsideration in the Commission's paging proceeding, in which they requested that the Commission reconsider its adoption of installment payment plans for small businesses.  zP'See Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging  zPP'Systems, Petitions for Reconsideration, filed by Paging Network, Inc. and Personal Communications Industry Association, April 11, 1997. Responding to other requests, we eliminated installment payments in the auction  zP'of the upper 200 channels of 800 MHz SMR. See 800 MHz MO&O. We also deferred a decision on  zP 'installment payments for the lower 230 channels to our Part 1 rulemaking. See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93144, RM8117, RM8030, RM8029, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93252, Implementation of  zP 'Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Second Report and  zP 'Order, FCC 97223, 62 Fed. Reg. 41190 (rel. July 10, 1997), at  279; Part 1 Order and NPRM at  3435. Because of the importance of these issues, we plan to incorporate our decisions regarding installment payments for the broadband PCS C and F Blocks and other  Y4financial issues into our Part 1 rulemaking.%y H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Part 1 Order and NPRM. Nevertheless, we agree with U.S. WaveLink and Zip about the need to move expeditiously to auction the LMDS licenses. We believe that the public interest is best served by going forward with the LMDS auction without extending installment payments to LMDS licensees. In place of installment payments, we  Yv4establish other changes that will provide for the interests of new entrants (see  1617 and  Ya41920, infra).  Y54 11. We disagree with the contentions of WebCel, LBC, and Zip that installment payments are necessary to ensure a meaningful opportunity for small businesses to participate in LMDS. In other auctions in which installment payments were not available, small businesses were the high bidders on a significant number of licenses. In the WCS auction, which had bidding credits of 25 percent for small businesses and 35 percent for very small businesses and no installment payments, 25 percent of the licenses went to small or very small businesses. In the cellular auction of licenses for unserved areas, which had no special bidding provisions, 36 percent of the licenses went to small or very small businesses. CellularVision, although expressing some doubts regarding the ability of small businesses to attract private financing, suggests that a large enough bidding credit would enable small businesses to do so, while Cook Inlet contends that increased bidding credits will allow responsible small bidders with appropriately tailored business plans to secure private financing. WebCel, Cook Inlet, and NVCA also point out, as discussed below, that LMDS may be built out incrementally, which may allow for lower levels of frontend system financing than other services. Further, as we have already noted, Section 309(j) requires the Commission to consider alternative methods to allow for dissemination of licenses among" *%0*'&'&aaB" designated entities, including small businesses. We believe that the methods discussed below will both fulfill the mandate of Section 309(j) to provide small business with the opportunity to participate in auctions and ensure that new services are offered to the public without delay.  Y4 12. Since we have decided not to offer installment payments, we reject as moot both CellularVision's proposed deferred incremental repayment and WebCel's suggestion of a favorable interest rate for very small businesses. We further disagree with WebCel that the Commission lacks adequate justification to eliminate installment payment plans for LMDS  YH4licensees under the Administrative Procedures Act and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. Section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act states that agency actions, findings, and conclusions shall be held unlawful and set aside if they are found to be "arbitrary,  Y 4capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law . . . ."& H1 Y~ 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# 5 U.S.C.  706(2)(A). Motor  Y 4Vehicle Manufacturers held that this standard is applicable to rescission or modification of  Y 4rules.' yH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, 463 U.S. at 4142. Under Motor Vehicle Manufacturers and other cases, an agency acts arbitrarily or capriciously if it fails to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a "rational connection between the facts found and the choices  Y4made."d(E*H1 Ys4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. at 43, citing Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962). Motor Vehicle  zP\'Manufacturers also acknowledged that "'regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last forever,' . . . and that an agency must be given ample latitude to 'adapt their rules and policies to the demands of  zP'changing circumstances.'" Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, 463 U.S. at 42 (citations omitted).d We have fully considered the issue based on our experience with installment payment plans and the record before us in this proceeding.  XS4 3. Very Small Business Category  Y%4 13. Petitions. In place of the current installment payment plan, Cook Inlet requests the institution of a "very small business" category, featuring a 35 percent bidding credit, for entities that, together with affiliates and controlling principals, have average gross revenues  Y4for the preceding three years of not more than $15 million.)7H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 5. Cook Inlet opines that while substantial capital will be necessary to acquire and construct LMDS systems, LMDS may provide better opportunities for smaller entities than did broadband PCS because LMDS operators will be able to build out systems incrementally without compromising their provision of service to end users. Cook Inlet notes the examples of wireless local loop or " )0*'&'&aa8" video offerings, in which "a smaller system may stand on its own on a more localized basis  Y4without the need for immediate 'total area' coverage or even national systems support."*H1 Yb4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. at 4.  Y4 14. NVCA and WebCel also advocate very small business categories, although not in place of installment payments, arguing that the fixed nature of LMDS service allows cell sites and network infrastructure to be deployed incrementally to match revenue generation. Therefore, the initial capitalraising requirements for one or a few markets are not as  Y_4formidable as services that require extensive buildout before they are put into service.+_yH1 Y 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# NVCA Letter at 1; WebCel Petition at 910 and Reply at 34. NVCA also asserts that because the fixed nature of LMDS obviates the need for nationwide roaming and national branding, very small businesses can be successful with only one or a  Y 4few licenses.g,{ *H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# NVCA Letter at 1. NVCA characterizes LMDS as potentially "one of the best new venture opportunities for locallyowned small businesses and entrepreneurial startups to enter the telecommunications  zP'industry." Id. g Both NVCA and WebCel express concern that without a very small business category, entrepreneurial entities with differentiated business plans and adequate venture financing, who would otherwise succeed in building local LMDS businesses, will be outbid  Y 4by much larger entities that currently qualify for the same provisions.- mH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# NVCA Letter at 2; WebCel Petition at 511. WebCel consequently requests the adoption of a very small business category for entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million, and an additional very small business category for entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million, and seeks advantageous installment payment rates and  Yb4bidding credits for these categories..b H1 Y14#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# WebCel Petition at 912 and Reply at 34, and Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, July 31, 1997, respectively. RTG concurs with parties advocating inclusion of a very small business category in the LMDS auction, asserting that LMDS is capitalintensive and that small businesses will not be able to afford licenses or effectively deploy their  Y4systems without additional incentives./ H1 Ye 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# RTG Opposition at 7.  Y415. CellularVision opposes implementation of WebCel's plan if it would reduce current incentives for small businesses or entrepreneurs, believing that any incentives granted for very small businesses must be in addition to the current bidding credits and installment" H /0*'&'&aam"  Y4payment plans for those entities.0H1 Yy4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Opposition at 910. Zip also opposes WebCel's proposal for a very small  Y4business category, without elaboration.1yH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Zip Opposition at 4.  Y416. Discussion. We will create an additional category to benefit "very small" businesses bidding for LMDS licenses, along the lines suggested by Cook Inlet, NVCA, WebCel, and RTG. We agree that a unique category for very small businesses will serve as an effective method of leveling the competitive imbalance between very small businesses and other entrepreneurial entities. We will define "very small" businesses as entities that, together with controlling principals and affiliates, have average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. We will also redefine "small" businesses as entities that, together with controlling principals and affiliates, have average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $15 million but not more than $40 million. These categories are identical to those adopted for the broadband PCS F Block auction, as petitioners argue. We will apply to the very small business category the same attribution, control, consortia, upfront payment, and unjust enrichment rules that we adopted for our  Y 4small business and entrepreneur categories.2 *H1 Y4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# See LMDS Second Report and Order at  352361 and 47 C.F.R.  101.1105, 101.1107(c) and (d), and 101.1112.  Yy417. We decline to adopt WebCel's suggestion of another category for entities that, together with controlling principals and affiliates, have average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $3 million. Under the revised "tiered" approach, we will have three categories of bidders: "entrepreneurs," "small businesses," and "very small  Y4businesses." Creating an additional category (i.e., "very, very small" businesses) adds another layer of complexity with little countervailing benefit to bidders. We believe that the three categories will adequately serve to diversify opportunity in our LMDS auction.  X4 4. Bidding Credits  Y418. Petitions. As previously described, Cook Inlet supports heightened bidding credits in lieu of installment payment plans for LMDS licenses. Specifically, Cook Inlet suggests the establishment of the aforementioned very small business category with a 35  YP4percent bidding credit, and the retention of a 25 percent bidding credit for small businesses  Y94and a 15 percent bidding credit for entrepreneurs.39H1 Y$4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 11. Cook Inlet asserts that "increased"9 T30*'&'&aa"  Y4bidding credits such as these" are appropriate in the absence of installment payment plans.4H1 Yy4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id.Ā To the extent that installment payments are no longer available for LMDS licensees,  Y4CellularVision proposes a 50 percent bidding credit for small businesses, as currently  Y4defined, in order to attract the necessary private financing to compete in the LMDS auction.5yH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# CellularVision Notice of Ex Parte Presentation, July 23, 1997. WebCel requests that the Commission offer either a bidding credit of 35 percent for its two very small business categories, or adopt the tiered scheme employed for the broadband PCS  Yv4F Block auction a 25 percent bidding credit for very small businesses, a 15 percent bidding  Y_4credit for small businesses, and no bidding credit for entrepreneurs.6_*H1 Y: 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# WebCel Petition at 1112. See also 47 C.F.R.  24.717(a) and (b) and 24.720(b).  Y1419. Discussion. We will offer higher bidding credits than those adopted in the  Y 4LMDS Second Report and Order for small businesses and entrepreneurs. We agree with  Y 4Cook Inlet and CellularVision that heightened bidding credits are appropriate in the absence of installment payment plans. Also, contrary to WebCel's assertions, we believe that heightened bidding credits will fulfill the mandate of Section 309(j)(4)(D) of the Communications Act to provide small businesses with the opportunity to participate in  Y 4spectrumbased services.7 H1 Y54#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(D). As noted above, this approach was successful in enabling small  Y4businesses to participate in the WCS auction, in which we were unable to employ installment payments because of the statutory deadline for depositing auction revenues in the U.S.  Yd4Treasury.8EdH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service  zP'("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96228, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96441, 61 Fed. Reg. 59048 (rel.  zPT'November 12, 1996), at  63; and WCS Report and Order at  182. See also Section 3001 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. We also recently used this approach in establishing rules for the auction of  YM4licenses for 800 MHz SMR.9M H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See 800 MHz MO&O. However, we do not agree with the bidding credit levels suggested by the petitioners. Except for entities that would qualify as very small businesses, Cook Inlet's proposed levels would not account for the loss of installment payment plans. WebCel's alternative suggestion of conforming the LMDS bidding credit levels to those employed in the broadband PCS F Block auction would entail reducing the bidding credits available to small businesses and entrepreneurs at the same time that we are eliminating installment payments. CellularVision has not provided any support for its assertion that small businesses will require a 50 percent bidding credit to attract private financing."J 90*'&'&aad"Ԍ20. We will raise the bidding credit available to small businesses (entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $15 million but not more than $40 million) to 35 percent and the bidding credit available to entrepreneurs (entities with average gross revenues for the preceding three years of more than $40 million but not more  Y4than $75 million) to 25 percent. These levels reflect the thresholds adopted in the LMDS  Y4Second Report and Order, with a reasonable adjustment of ten percent for the unavailability of installment payment plans for LMDS licensees. In addition, we will adopt a 45 percent bidding credit for very small businesses (entities with average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million) in the LMDS auction. This level reflects the 35 percent threshold requested by WebCel, plus a reasonable adjustment for the lack of bidding credits. We note that it is difficult to accurately calculate the net present value of an installment payment plan (which value would depend on several variables, including future commercial interest rates), and we do not in any event commit to an exact accommodation or reimbursement of the value of installment payments. Nor do we intend to exactly match our small business provisions for LMDS to those employed in other services such as WCS or 800 MHz SMR. Our small business provisions for LMDS have historically deviated from those adopted for other services, and we believe that an effort to conform them to the  Y}4provisions adopted for other types of wireless services would be pointless.  XO4 5. Asset Test  Y!421. Petitions. WebCel, Zip, and NVCA suggest the institution of an asset test in our  Y 4small business size standards to differentiate startups from larger entities.: H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# WebCel Petition at 23 and 512; Zip Opposition at 46; NVCA Letter at 2. WebCel's suggested asset test would consist of a "financial eligibility threshold" excluding firms with total assets in excess of $500 million, the measure of which would include the value of other  Y4licenses held.;yH1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# WebCel Petition at 23 and 512. Zip suggests financial eligibility thresholds of $250 million for small  Y4businesses, and $500 million for entrepreneurs.8<C*H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Zip Opposition at 46. Zip theorizes that the lack of discussion in the LMDS Second Report and Order of our decision not to adopt an asset threshold test, as well as the requirement in Section 101.1109(c) of the Commission's Rules that winning bidders' records include asset information, indicates that the absence of an  zP 'asset test may have been an oversight. Id. at 56. See also 47 C.F.R.  101.1109(c).8 NVCA would have us apply the $500  Y4million threshold employed in other auctions.=5H1 Y}"4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# NVCA Letter at 2.  Yi422. Discussion. We will not adopt an asset test for the LMDS auction. Although we have adopted an asset test for eligibility for particular blocks of licenses in broadband PCS"R =0*'&'&aa&"  Y4auctions, we have never before employed an asset test for eligibility for small business size standards. We also note that the Small Business Administration, the rules of which have formed the basis for much of our own consideration of small business provisions, presently does not employ asset tests in its business size standards except in the context of national and  Y4commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions.>H1 Y4#Xw P7ZXP#э#c P7~P# See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, Standard Industrial Classifications 60216082 and n.7. Assets, being potentially fluid  Y4and subject to inconsistent valuation (e.g., intangibles) are generally much less ascertainable than gross revenues or numbers of employees. We further note that we have never counted licenses won in other auctions as assets for purposes of calculating total assets, as requested  YJ4by WebCel, and there would appear to be significant questions of proper valuation (e.g., amortization schedules) in doing so. Given the complexity and significance of the issues associated with asset tests and the importance of proceeding with the LMDS auction without  Y 4further delay (see  10, supra), we do not feel that we have enough data at this time to do adopt an asset test for LMDS. However, we will consider adopting an asset test in future auctions in our Part 1 rulemaking.  X 4 6. Exclusion of Delinquent and Defaulted Debtors  Y423. Petitions. Cook Inlet suggests that licensees that are delinquent or in default on their installment payment obligations in other services should be ineligible for special bidding  YQ4provisions in LMDS.:?QyH1 Y{4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 1113. Cook Inlet's limitation would also apply to the delinquent and/or defaulting  zPd'licensees' affiliates and attributable investors. Id. at 11.: Cook Inlet considers this particularly appropriate if installment payment plans are not offered, believing that a bidder that is prepared to pay in full should be required to dedicate those funds to the satisfaction of an existing Commission obligation  Y 4before acquiring new licenses.@ H1 Y4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Cook Inlet Petition at 12. Cook Inlet asserts that "bidders should not expect that delinquency or default exists as a money management system in one auction without  Y4consequence in another."AH1 Y44#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. at 13. Cook Inlet accordingly suggests that the Commission require entities that are seeking favorable provisions in the LMDS auction to certify on their shortform applications (FCC Form 175) that neither they nor their affiliates or attributable investors are delinquent or in default on any Commission competitive bidding installment  Y4payment obligation.BVH1 Y#4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# Id. at 12. "k B0*'&'&aa<"Ԍ Y424. Discussion. We decline to further address the qualifications of licensees that are delinquent or in default on other FCC licenses for obtaining favorable provisions for the LMDS auction. We agree with Cook Inlet that, as a matter of policy, it may be desirable to  Y4exclude licensees that have defaulted on existing obligations from further favorable small business provisions. However, we have already amended Section 1.2105(a) of our Part 1 Rules to indicate that "an applicant's signature on FCC Form 175 or its electronic submission of this form will serve to certify that the applicant is not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) and that it is not delinquent on any nontax  YH4debt owed to any federal agency."CHH1 Y 4#Xj\  P6G;ZXP#э#X\  P6G;~P# See Part 1 Order and NPRM at  8 and 47 C.F.R.  1.2105(a)(2)(x). Moreover, Section 1.2105(a)(2)(v) of our Part 1 Rules requires a certification that the applicant is legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to bid. We therefore believe that our existing rules address this issue.  X 45 IV. Ordering Clauses Đ\  Y 425. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by WebCel Communications, Inc., is granted in part and denied in part; the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Cook Inlet Region, Inc., is granted in part and denied in part; and the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by CellularVision USA, Inc., is granted in part and denied in part.  Y426. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 101 of the Commission's Rules is amended as set forth in the attached Appendix A.  Y427. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes made herein WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to Section 4(i), 303(r) and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r) and 309(j). 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this  YN4Second Order on Reconsideration, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis set forth in the attached Appendix B, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCWilliam F. Caton ` `  hhCActing Secretary""yC0*'&'&aa$"  X4  lpH1,jAPPENDIX A :: PAGE ؐ\lR APPENDIX A   X4^Final Rules Đ\  Part 101 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 303. 2. Section 101.1105 is revised to read as follows:  Y 4  101.1105 Submission of payments. (a) Each applicant to participate in an LMDS auction will be required to submit an upfront payment in accordance with Sec. 1.2106 of this chapter as announced by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau by Public Notice. (b) Winning bidders in LMDS auctions must submit a down payment to the Commission in an amount sufficient to bring their total deposits up to 20 percent of their winning bids within ten business days following the release of a Public Notice announcing the close of the auction. Winning bidders must pay the full balance of their winning bids within ten business days following the release of a Public Notice that the Commission is prepared to award the licenses. 3. Section 101.1107 is revised to read as follows:  Yf4  101.1107 Bidding credits for very small businesses, small businesses and  XP4entrepreneurs; unjust enrichment. (a) A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business or a consortium of very small businesses pursuant to Sec. 101.1112 may use a bidding credit of 45 percent to lower the cost of its winning bid. (b) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business or a consortium of small businesses pursuant to Sec. 101.1112 may use a bidding credit of 35 percent to lower the cost of its winning bid. (c) A winning bidder that qualifies as an entrepreneur or a consortium of entrepreneurs pursuant to Sec. 101.1112 may use a bidding credit of 25 percent to lower the cost of its winning bid. (d) The bidding credits referenced in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section are not cumulative.  ,#I "%'C0*((aa})" ',#I29' (e) Unjust enrichment. (1) A licensee that utilizes a bidding credit, and that during the initial license term seeks to assign or transfer control of a license to an entity that does not meet the eligibility criteria for a bidding credit, will be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for the amount of the bidding credit, plus interest based on the rate for ten year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, as a condition of Commission approval of the assignment or transfer. If, within the initial term of the license, a licensee that utilizes a bidding credit seeks to assign or transfer control of a license to an entity that is eligible for a lower bidding credit, the difference between the bidding credit obtained by the assigning party and the bidding credit for which the acquiring party would qualify, plus interest based on the rate for ten year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, must be paid to the U.S. Government as a condition of Commission approval of the assignment or transfer. If, within the initial license term, a licensee that utilizes a bidding credit seeks to make any ownership change that would result in the licensee losing eligibility for a bidding credit (or qualifying for a lower bidding credit), the amount of the bidding credit (or the difference between the bidding credit originally obtained and the bidding credit for which the restructured licensee would qualify), plus interest based on the rate for ten year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, must be paid to the U.S. Government as a condition of Commission approval of the ownership change. (2) The amount of payments made pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be reduced over time as follows: (i) A transfer in the first two years of the license term will result in a forfeiture of 100 percent of the value of the bidding credit (or the difference between the bidding credit obtained by the original licensee and the bidding credit for which the posttransfer licensee is eligible); (ii) In year three of the license term the payment will be 75 percent; (iii) In year four of the license term the payment will be 50 percent; and (iv) In year five of the license term the payment will be 25 percent, after which there will be no required payment. 4. Section 101.1108 is removed and reserved. 5. Section 101.1109 is revised to read as follows:  Y 4  101.1109 Certifications, disclosures, records maintenance and audits. (a) Short-form applications: certifications and disclosure. In addition to certifications and disclosures required in part 1, subpart Q, of this chapter, each applicant for an LMDS license which qualifies as a very small business, small business or entrepreneurs pursuant to"i$C0*%%aa&" Sec. 101.1112 shall append the following information as an exhibit to its shortform applications (FCC Form 175): (1) The identities of the applicant's affiliates and controlling principals; and (2) The applicant's gross revenues, computed in accordance with Sec. 101.1112. (b) Long-form applications: certifications and disclosure. In addition to the requirements in Sec. 1.2107 of this chapter, each applicant submitting a long-form application for an LMDS license and qualifying as a very small business, small business or entrepreneur pursuant to Sec. 101.1112 shall, in an exhibit to its long-form application: (1) Disclose separately and in the aggregate the gross revenues, computed in accordance with Sec. 101.1112, for each of the following: the applicant, the applicant's affiliates, the applicant's controlling principals, and, if a consortium of very small businesses, small businesses or entrepreneurs, the members of the consortium; (2) List and summarize all agreements or other instruments (with appropriate references to specific provisions in the text of such agreements and instruments) that support the applicant's eligibility as a very small business, small business or entrepreneur, including the establishment of de facto and de jure control; such agreements and instruments include, but are not limited to, articles of incorporation and bylaws, shareholder agreements, voting or other trust agreements, franchise agreements, and any other relevant agreements including letters of intent, oral or written; and (3) List and summarize any investor protection agreements, including rights of first refusal, supermajority clauses, options, veto rights, and rights to hire and fire employees and to appoint members to boards of directors or management committees. (c) Records maintenance. All winning bidders qualifying as very small businesses, small businesses or entrepreneurs shall maintain at their principal place of business an updated file of ownership, revenue, and asset information, including any document necessary to establish eligibility as a very small business, small business or entrepreneur. Licensees (and their successors-in-interest) shall maintain such files for the term of the license. Applicants that do not obtain the license(s) for which they applied shall maintain such files until the grant of such license(s) is final, or one year from the date of the filing of their short-form application (FCC Form 175), whichever is earlier. (d) Audits. (1) Applicants and licensees claiming eligibility as a very small business, small business or entrepreneur pursuant to Sec. 101.1112 shall be subject to audits by the Commission. Selection for audit may be random, on information, or on the basis of other factors. (2) Consent to such audits is part of the certification included in the short-form application (FCC Form 175). Such consent shall include consent to the audit of the applicant's or licensee's books, documents and other material (including accounting procedures and practices) regardless of form or type, sufficient to confirm that such applicant's or licensee's representations are, and remain, accurate. Such consent shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the facilities, or parts thereof, engaged in providing and transacting business, or keeping records regarding licensed LMDS service, and shall also include consent"h$C0*%%aa&" to the interview of principals, employees, customers and suppliers of the applicant or licensee. 6. Section 101.1112 is revised to read as follows:  Yv4  101.1112 Definitions. (a) Scope. The definitions in this section apply to Secs. 101.1101 through 101.1112, unless otherwise specified in those sections. (b) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. (c) Small business. A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $15 million but not more than $40 million. (d) Entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $40 million but not more than $75 million. (e) For purposes of determining whether an entity meets the definition of very small business, small business or entrepreneur, the gross revenues of the applicant, its affiliates and controlling principals shall be considered on a cumulative basis and aggregated. (f) Consortium. A consortium of very small businesses, small businesses or entrepreneurs is a conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms, each of which individually satisfies the definition of a very small business, small business or entrepreneur. Each individual member must establish its eligibility as a very small business, small business or entrepreneur. Where an applicant (or licensee) is a consortium of very small businesses, small businesses or entrepreneurs, the gross revenues of each business shall not be aggregated. (g) Gross revenues. Gross revenues shall mean all income received by an entity, whether earned or passive, before any deductions are made for costs of doing business (e.g., cost of goods sold), as evidenced by audited financial statements for the relevant number of most recently completed calendar years, or, if audited financial statements were not prepared on a calendar-year basis, for the most recently completed fiscal years preceding the filing of the applicant's short-form application (FCC Form 175). If an entity was not in existence for all or part of the relevant period, gross revenues shall be evidenced by the audited financial statements of the entity's predecessor-in-interest or, if there is no identifiable predecessor- in-interest, unaudited financial statements certified by the applicant as accurate. When an applicant does not otherwise use audited financial statements, its gross revenues may be certified by its chief financial officer or its equivalent.  ,#I "i$C0*%%aa&" ',#I29' (h) Affiliate. (1) Basis for affiliation. An individual or entity is an affiliate of an applicant if such individual or entity: (i) Directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the applicant; (ii) Is directly or indirectly controlled by the applicant; (iii) Is directly or indirectly controlled by a third party or parties who also control or have the power to control the applicant; or (iv) Has an "identity of interest" with the applicant. (2) Nature of control in determining affiliation. (i) Every business concern is considered to have one or more parties who directly or indirectly control or have the power to control it. Control may be affirmative or negative and it is immaterial whether it is exercised so long as the power to control exists. Example for paragraph (h)(2)(i). An applicant owning 50 percent of the voting stock of another concern would have negative power to control such concern since such party can block any action of the other stockholders. Also, the bylaws of a corporation may permit a stockholder with less than 50 percent of the voting stock to block any actions taken by the other stockholders in the other entity. Affiliation exists when the applicant has the power to control a concern while at the same time another person, or persons, are in control of the concern at the will of the party or parties with the power of control. (ii) Control can arise through stock ownership; occupancy of director, officer, or key employee positions; contractual or other business relations; or combinations of these and other factors. A key employee is an employee who, because of her position in the concern, has a critical influence in or substantive control over the operations or management of the concern. (iii) Control can arise through management positions if the voting stock is so widely distributed that no effective control can be established.  ,#I  Example for paragraph (h)(2)(iii). In a corporation where the officers and directors own various size blocks of stock totaling 40 percent of the corporation's voting stock, but no officer or director has a block sufficient to give him control or the power to control and the remaining 60 percent is widely distributed with no individual stockholder having a stock interest greater than 10 percent, management has the power to control. If persons with such management control of the other entity are controlling principals of the applicant, the other entity will be deemed an affiliate of the applicant. (3) Identity of interest between and among persons. Affiliation can arise between or among two or more persons with an identity of interest, such as members of the same family or persons with common investments. In determining if the applicant controls or is controlled"h$C0*%%aa&" by a concern, persons with an identity of interest will be treated as though they were one person. (i) Spousal affiliation. Both spouses are deemed to own or control or have the power to control interests owned or controlled by either of them, unless they are subject to a legal separation recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States. (ii) Kinship affiliation. Immediate family members will be presumed to own or control or have the power to control interests owned or controlled by other immediate family members. In this context "immediate family member" means father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, father- or mother-in-law, son- or daughter-in-law, brother- or sister-in-law, step-father or -mother, step-brother or -sister, step-son or -daughter, and half- brother or -sister. This presumption may be rebutted by showing that: (A) The family members are estranged; (B) The family ties are remote; or (C) The family members are not closely involved with each other in business matters. Example for paragraph (h)(3)(ii). A owns a controlling interest in Corporation X. A's sister-in-law, B, has a controlling interest in an LMDS license application. Because A and B have a presumptive kinship affiliation, A's interest in Corporation X is attributable to B, and thus to the applicant, unless B rebuts the presumption with the necessary showing. (4) Affiliation through stock ownership. (i) An applicant is presumed to control or have the power to control a concern if she owns or controls or has the power to control 50 percent or more of its voting stock. (ii) An applicant is presumed to control or have the power to control a concern even though he owns, controls, or has the power to control less than 50 percent of the concern's voting stock, if the block of stock she owns, controls, or has the power to control is large as compared with any other outstanding block of stock. (iii) If two or more persons each owns, controls or has the power to control less than 50 percent of the voting stock of a concern, such minority holdings are equal or approximately equal in size, and the aggregate of these minority holdings is large as compared with any other stock holding, the presumption arises that each one of these persons individually controls or has the power to control the concern; however, such presumption may be rebutted by a showing that such control or power to control, in fact, does not exist. (5) Affiliation arising under stock options, convertible debentures, and agreements to merge. Stock options, convertible debentures, and agreements to merge (including agreements in principle) are generally considered to have a present effect on the power to control the concern. Therefore, in making a size determination, such options, debentures, and agreements will generally be treated as though the rights held thereunder had been exercised. However, neither an affiliate nor an applicant can use such options and debentures to appear to terminate its control over another concern before it actually does so. "h$C0*%%aa&"Ԍ Example 1 for paragraph (h)(5). If company B holds an option to purchase a controlling interest in company A, which holds a controlling interest in an LMDS applicant, the situation is treated as though company B had exercised its rights and had become owner of a controlling interest in company A. The gross revenues of company B must be taken into account in determining the size of the applicant. Example 2 for paragraph (h)(5). If a large company, BigCo, holds 70 percent (70 of 100 outstanding shares) of the voting stock of company A, who holds a controlling interest in an LMDS license applicant, and gives a third party, SmallCo, an option to purchase 50 of the 70 shares owned by BigCo, BigCo will be deemed to be an affiliate of company A, and thus the applicant, until SmallCo actually exercises its options to purchase such shares. In order to prevent BigCo from circumventing the intent of the rule, which requires such options to be considered on a fully diluted basis, the option is not considered to have present effect in this case. Example 3 for paragraph (h)(5). If company A has entered into an agreement to merge with company B in the future, the situation is treated as though the merger has taken place. (6) Affiliation under voting trusts. (i) Stock interests held in trust shall be deemed controlled by any person who holds or shares the power to vote such stock, to any person who has the sole power to sell such stock, and to any person who has the right to revoke the trust at will or to replace the trustee at will. (ii) If a trustee has a familial, personal or extra-trust business relationship to the grantor or the beneficiary, the stock interests held in trust will be deemed controlled by the grantor or beneficiary, as appropriate. (iii) If the primary purpose of a voting trust, or similar agreement, is to separate voting power from beneficial ownership of voting stock for the purpose of shifting control of or the power to control a concern in order that such concern or another concern may meet the Commission's size standards, such voting trust shall not be considered valid for this purpose regardless of whether it is or is not recognized within the appropriate jurisdiction. (7) Affiliation through common management. Affiliation generally arises where officers, directors, or key employees serve as the majority or otherwise as the controlling element of the board of directors or the management (or both) of another entity. (8) Affiliation through common facilities. Affiliation generally arises where one concern shares office space, employees, or other facilities (or any combination of the foregoing) with another concern, particularly where such concerns are in the same or related industry or field of operations, or where such concerns were formerly affiliated, and through these sharing arrangements one concern has control, or potential control, of the other concern. (9) Affiliation through contractual relationships. Affiliation generally arises where one concern is dependent upon another concern for contracts and business to such a degree that"h$C0*%%aa&" one concern has control, or potential control, (10) Affiliation under joint venture arrangements. A joint venture for size determination purposes is an association of concerns or individuals (or both), with interests in any degree or proportion, formed by contract, express or implied, to engage in and carry out a single, specific business venture for joint profit for which purpose they combine their efforts, property, money, skill and knowledge, but not on a continuing or permanent basis for conducting business generally. The determination whether an entity is a joint venture is based upon the facts of the business operation, regardless of how the business operation may be designated by the parties involved. An agreement to share profits/losses proportionate to each party's contribution to the business operation is a significant factor in determining whether the business operation is a joint venture. (11) Exclusion from affiliation coverage. For purposes of this section, Indian tribes or Alaska Regional or Village Corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), or entities owned and controlled by such tribes or corporations, are not considered affiliates of an applicant (or licensee) that is owned and controlled by such tribes, corporations or entities, and that otherwise complies with the requirements of this section, except that gross revenues derived from gaming activities conducted by affiliated entities pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) will be counted in determining such applicant's (or licensee's) compliance with the financial requirements of this section, unless such applicant establishes that it will not receive a substantial unfair competitive advantage because significant legal constraints restrict the applicant's ability to access such gross revenues."C0*%%aaC"  Y4   l,-sAPPENDIX B :: PAGE ؐ\l0CS APPENDIX B ă  X4  X4D Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ă X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: