WPCt 2` BJf Z Univers3|}X}xP7XP",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|9|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||9x`|||l0lD||lHl0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"djd9 dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSX}xP7\aKuXP2 $ f Z&UniversUnivers BoldUnivers Italic",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|9|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||9x`|||l0lD||lHl0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"djd9 dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MPC.PRSX}xP7\aKuXP2/ f f 2$3|}",tB^ f ^CCh||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`ddd|8|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||8x`|||l0lP||lNl8tt|t|HH|ddd||\|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo||~QQ|LNdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"dod9 dCCzCd|v~`C~o~sdzUvdddCCCCs~vodssdz]sz84ddvo`szvsz]~]vosC~sCC~~~~~~~CzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^NNuNNNNNNNNNyA}NNNuuN}}}T88}8RuTphuhCNu8}}}}}}}}}}A8A8A8A8}~~~~~~A8Cp~8~O~T~8TTuuu]TpppNuuNNNWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNuNy__YYuuYNNuuVVuuuNuuY"u{uC uNNNuuNu}cuhhNNNN}u}lc}A8uyc}hl}pN}NNNuhN /;k  PP9~~+k~~KkKk&&pY26/v5p6kt6"i~'K2^((xYJTWECYW!CP@lW[G]MMJWWxWRH(((<<(@E@E@+EE@gEEEE*<+ECgCC:5<5xJ"JJJJJ(JJJJJJCCJJtL11xxJ..<mCWCL3[EWEG@GG5L8R@bTW:`RY[YEW(L[RRY@C[RRX((LLLLYWLLLRRRY(E<5(xx}l7lTTlCHqqllllllF`RRqqAAleeeOejjObYYVT`jlllsqqqzn^}YsYllll7YvlFlllAAllllllllllllllllllllllxxxxxxxx&7&llllls7lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll}}}}xxxxxxxxxx``llllllvvll^^^^lljjjjllbbb^^^^:.M^lla8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 9k7|7v!8t8a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2;=9 9 z: !;a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2 ? ; <s=;>a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2mB=?@AAa8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 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) . 2!EB&CC{Da6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2THSEFF3!Ga1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2MHeLLoMPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:>iiffSSxSrff8SS?"xxSxXxxS姧0 S88xcxxxxxxxxxx8S{g]ix{S8ixSi`xlxxxxxxxxxxYxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxx{]iY]S{Y`MfGx`Y.(oS{V]x]iG`x`cYccJiMrYuxPr{{`x8irr{Y]rrz88iiii{xiiirrr{8`SJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k"i~'K2^!!2>>dL!!!>d!!!!>>>>>>>>>>!!ddd4dJ>FH98JH8C6ZHL;N@@>HHdHE>>>>>!>>>>>>2><J6J6J6J6J6bTF696969696H9L9L9L9L9H9H9H9H9E8J6H:L9L9E8H9;9J6J>J6F6F6F>F>HB:6>>>>:6J:J>J>J>J>H>H>>>>>>C>66">>6$6H:DH:H>L:L>d[@$@$@>@2@2@2@>>(>$>>H9H:H>H>H:H9dVE><0<0<0H>>>H>@>>>E8B!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHHH2>>!488>>`?))dd>&&22>d&!!22?d%%dd??==Ld2d2H2E]]==d!22`d&"ddddHHddd2Hdd5HHddddd2dddddd2!!dddddH;ddHHHHHHHHHH!d2J>8?ddHdJ2!?H2?9HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd6dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHJ8?682J69.=+H9L6C2J4[8H8?+L9H9;6;;,?.E6QFH0PEJLJ9H!?LEEJ68LEEI!!????JH???EEEJ!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8xYJTWECYW!CP@lW[G]MMJWWxW2f hFZ t",tB^ f ^CCd||CCC|CCCC||||||||||CCh|so8okv|xCCCddCkskskHss00k0ssssFdHsooo`YdY|8|||||C||||||d|x0kkkkkksksksksk80808080sssssssssoktssosvsl|lll||tl||||tlt||||||80||||8x`|||l0lD||l?l0tt|t|HH|ddd||P|H||st||ts|x`x`x`|||||||oCddCCCWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNd||Choo|||QQ|LLdd|LCCdd~JJ~~zzdddzzCddL"dnd9dCCvCd|o~dC~d~skzUvdYYCCCCo~kodks]zUsk80dhoo~UssvkvvY~]k`sC~koCC~~~~~~~CsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L S- #X}xP7XP#FOR RECORD ONLY  S- $// Order Comcast Cablevision and Continental Cablevision of Michigan, Inc. v.  S-Consumers Power Company DA 951294 //$#xP7˴P#  S-#X}xP7XP# $/ 1 Practice and Procedure /$ $/ 1.1400 Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures /$ $/ 1.1406 Dismissal of Complaints /$ $/ 1.1414 State Certification /$  [i< #xP7˴P# (Before theTP Federal Communications Commission  [ <Washington, D.C. 20554#X}xP7XP#  S -TPx` `  hh@hpp  xx DA 95 1294  Sc - In the Matter of hh@h@h)pp x` `  hh@h)  S5-Comcast Cablevision andhh@h)  S-Continental Cablevision of Michigan, Inc.,h) x` `  hh@h)  S-x` ` Complainantshh@h)pp x` `  hh@h)  S-xv.` `  hh@h)ppPA 950010 x` `  hh@h)  S-Consumers Power Company,hh @h) x` `  hh@h)  Sf-x` ` Respondenthh@h) x  [!<x` `  hh@#xP7˴P#h h7ORDER #X}xP7XP#у  S-Adopted: ` ` June 9, 1995 hh@hReleased:June 12, 1995 By the Chief, Accounting and Audits Division:  S -  px` ` 1. On March 17, 1995, Comcast Cablevision and Continental  xCablevision of Michigan, Inc. (Comcast and Continental) filed a pole attachment  xicomplaint against Consumers Power Company (Consumers Power). The complaint  x>concerns pole attachment rates Consumers Power has charged Comcast and  xAContinental since July 1, 1991. The complaint states that the Federal  xCommunications Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over this matter despite  x-the fact that the Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan PSC) is certified to  xregulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments in Michigan. Comcast  xwand Continental assert that the Michigan PSC has not adopted a specific methodology  xfor such regulation and that Section 1.1414(a)(3) of the Commission's rules requires"(0*0*0**"  xthat the Michigan PSC have such a methodology before the certification can be deemed valid.  S- px` ` 2.  On April 17, 1995, Consumers Power filed a response to the  xcomplaint alleging among other things that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear  xthe pole attachment complaint. Consumers Power states that on November 23, 1994,  xit filed an application to modify its pole attachment rate with the Michigan PSC.  xyConsumers Power states that the Michigan PSC will determine the lawfulness of  SH-  Consumers Power's pole attachment rate in that proceeding. H! }K -  #hxP7P#эxApplication of Consumers Power Company for Authority to Modify Tariffs Governing Attachments to Poles, Michigan PSC Case No. U10741 (filed Nov. 23, 1994).   S - px` ` 3.  On May 8, 1995, Comcast and Continental filed a reply that  xzreiterates their concerns that the State of Michigan lacks jurisdiction over pole  xJattachment complaints. Comcast and Continental state that they filed their complaint  xYwith the Commission to preserve their federally protected pole attachment rights, and  xrequest that the Commission hold their complaint in abeyance pending the resolution  x-of the Michigan PSC proceedings concerning Consumers Power's pole attachment rates and pole attachment regulation.  Sb- px` ` 4.  Without addressing any of the substantive issues raised by the  xparties and in the interest of comity with the State of Michigan, we dismiss the  xcomplaint, without prejudice, based on the Commission's lack of jurisdiction. The  xState of Michigan has previously certified to the Commission that it regulates the  xrates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments. That certification is "conclusive  xproof of lack of [the Commission's] jurisdiction" regarding Comcast's and  S-Continental's pole attachment complaint.z ! }K-#hxP7P#эx47 C.F.R. 1.1406(a).z  S-  p'x` ` 5.  Comcast and Continental, however, would have us ignore  x!Michigan's certification because the state may not have fulfilled one of the  x=preconditions for certification, having a specific methodology for regulating pole  xattachments. However, the rule on which Comcast and Continental rely, Section  x1.1414(a)(3), makes clear that a failure to certify creates only a rebuttable  S7- xpresumption that the state is not regulating pole attachments.z7! }K"-#hxP7P#эx47 C.F.R. 1.1414(a).z The Michigan PSC  xappears to engage in such regulation. Indeed, that agency is presently conducting a  xgeneric proceeding to determine whether it should alter the statewide pole attachment  x\rate or adopt a specific methodology for determining just and reasonable pole  S- xattachment rates for individual companies.X@! }K'-  #hxP7P#эxProceeding on the Commission's Own Motion, to Examine Setting Just and Reasonable Rates  xfor Attachments to Utility Poles, Ducts, and Conduits, Michigan PSC Case No. U10831 (March 29,  x1995). A settlement agreement between Michigan cable operators and utilities established this"\)0*0*0*)" statewide rate. Comcast and Continental are parties to"X0*0*0* "  xthat proceeding. In these circumstances, we believe we should dismiss their  S- xZcomplaint without prejudice to its reinstatement nunc pro tunc if the Michigan PSC  xKfails to regulate Consumers Power's pole attachment rates. This procedure should  x;fully protect any right to refunds Comcast and Continental may have in the event that  xweither the Michigan PSC or the Commission determines that the pole attachment rates of Consumers Power are unjust and unreasonable.  S_-  px` ` 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Sections 0.91, 0.291,  xand 1.1406(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.91, 0.291, and 1.1406(a),  S1- xthat the complaint of Comcast Cablevision and Continental Cablevision of Michigan,  S - xg Inc. against Consumers Power Company filed March 17, 1995 IS DISMISSED , without prejudice.   S -x` `  hh@ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Kenneth P. Moran x` `  hh@Chief, Accounting and Audits Division x` `  hh@