WPCY 2MB%RK<3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2SX Xe K KHy.X80,X\  P6G;PI2a=5,&a\  P6G;&PJ2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2Avpkkka8DocumentgDocument Style Style` ư a4DocumentgDocument Style Style  . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a5DocumentgDocument Style Style ư 2svt|a2DocumentgDocument Style Style*    a7DocumentgDocument Style Style  ` ư BibliogrphyBibliography  x ư a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@    ư 2M  [  a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers A@`  ` ư a3DocumentgDocument Style Style 0     a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers J` @  `  ư a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers S`  @  ư 2 ;a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers \`  @h #h#ư a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse`  #h#@$$ #h#((ư a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn`  #h#((@** ((--ư a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw `  #h#((--@/p/ --2p2ư 2+ Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleX!"T 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Ta5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&#$  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&%&  . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*'(    2!] 6!a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style')*    a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&+,    a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4-$.     a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&/0  . 2'!p"/#e/'a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&12  . Doc InitInitialize Document Style3Y4   T I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)TPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper56    X  y*dddyy*ddd`y H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӃHeading 2Underlined Heading Flush Left78 2)p'y6(( i)Heading 1Centered Headingcal Style9 :** Ã  Bullet ListIndented Bullet List;<` ưX a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleF=> ))  ׃  a1AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0 %{|*  2+!q*"q*#q*$qo+a2AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0!}~a3AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0"a4AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0#a5AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0$2-%q,&q,'q,(e-a6AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0%a7AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0&a8AgendaFE+&Bß-Agenda Items``0/K&(=(&2*&0'a127 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0(8@   20)).*.+h/,0a227 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0)A@` `  ` ` ` a327 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0*J` ` @  ` `  a427 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0+S` `  @  a527 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0,\` `  @hh# hhh 23-0.1/20}U3a627 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0-e` `  hh#@( hh# a727 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0.n` `  hh#(@- ( a827 FE+&Bß-Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers&8oY 2*&0/w` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp a1Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&00$ 2f614243545a2Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&01/` ` ` a3Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&02:` ` `  a4Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&03E` ` `  a5Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&04P` ` ` hhh 2e9566L77 888a6Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&05[ a7Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&06f a8Paragraph+&Bß-1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)&"=(&8oY 2*&07q a1Order88X X-I.x2<99:0:; :<;a2Order9Ap X-xA.` ` a3Order:J* X-x` ` 1. a4Order;4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "l=?v8>@v>annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "=2c(dheading 3heading 3>heading 4heading 4? heading 5heading 5@ 2$AAvV?Bv?CvB@Dl@heading 6heading 6A heading 7heading 7B heading 8heading 8C Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph FontD 2CEvVAFrAGv>BHeBendnote textendnote textE endnote referenceendnote referenceF footnote textfootnote textG footnote referencefootnote referenceH 2KIKCJiEKGLItoc 1toc 1I` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#toc 2toc 2J` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toc 3toc 3K` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#toc 4toc 4L` hp x (# (# (#` hp x (#2RMKNNOv1PPPtoc 5toc 5M` hp x (#h(#h(#` hp x (#toc 6toc 6N` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#toc 7toc 7O toc 8toc 8P` hp x (#(# (# ` hp x (#2o[QRRUS3WTQYtoc 9toc 9Q` hp x (#(#`(#`` hp x (#index 1index 1R` hp x (#` (#` (#` hp x (#index 2index 2S` hp x (#` (#`` (#`` hp x (#toa headingtoa headingT` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2A]Uv[Vl\WZ\Xd\captioncaptionU _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionV 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.EW1.A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.EX .2r_Ys]Z][y^\o_Default Para6w]Default Paragraph Font8׏ C*g7ȇ׏EY;<endnote refe6w]endnote referenceg78׏ E*g7ȇ׏EZ?@footnote tex6w]footnote text=(g78׏ F*g7ȇ׏E[ABfootnote ref6w]footnote reference78׏ G*g7ȇ׏E\CD2o]_^ $`_l`Ym_Equation Ca6w]_Equation Captiong78׏ U*g7ȇ׏E]_`MACDocument^[     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#Footnote_7.Í#u\4 PXP#č#u\4 PXP#footerinfo'3, '4'46$16c61_$'461L1`4 <DL!T$#<2PP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PXP#2zau"pbYrctdvwFOOTER؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4a  V (##XN\  PXP# R Z bj ##XN\  PXP# HEADER؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4b4 <DL!T$#A\  PP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PXP#NORMAL INDEN؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4c"    4` hp x (##A\  P'P#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P(XP#heading 1 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4d&!"  4 <DL!T$#XN\  P)XP#   4 <DL!(##XN\  P*XP#  2Fe@zfs|gEhýheading 2 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4e##$ , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P+XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P,XP# body text(n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4f%& 4 <DL!T$ X #XN\  P-XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P.XP#heading 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4g#'(  , 4 <DL!T$#XN\  P/XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P0XP# List 4 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4h)*  `  ` hp x (##XN\  P1XP#  `  R Z bj ##XN\  P2XP#2vixjy k_lList 1 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4i/+,    ` hp x (# #XN\  P3XP#   ,JR Z bj ##XN\  P4XP#List 5 3 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4j-.    ` hp x (##XN\  P5XP#   ` hp x (##XN\  P6XP#heading 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4k/04 <DL!T$#XN\  P7XP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  P8XP#List 2 4 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4l/12    ` hp x (# #XN\  P9XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P:XP#2men op3heading 5 (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4m 344 <DL!T$#XN\  P;XP#  4 <DL!(##XN\  P<XP# List 1.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4n/56    ` hp x (# #XN\  P=XP#   R Z bj ##XN\  P>XP#List 2.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4o/78  `   4 hp x (# #XN\  P?XP#  `  4` hp x (##XN\  P@XP#List 3.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4p"9:    ` 0 hp x (#0 #XN\  PAXP#   ` hp x (##XN\  PBXP#2<qrqs0tList 4.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4q";<   ` hp x (# #XN\  PCXP#   4` hp x (##XN\  PDXP#List 3d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4r/=>7 4  4` hp x (# #XN\  PEXP#  4 #XN\  PFXP#List 5.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4s"?@  h ` <p x (#0 #XN\  PGXP#  h 4 hp x (##XN\  PHXP#Quote.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4t"AB  ` `   hp x (##XN\  PIXP#  ` `  ,JR Z bj ##XN\  PJXP#2ucnvѤwfxPage#.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4uCD4 <DL!T$#XN\  PKXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PLXP#title.d (n؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4v1EF$ 4 <DL!T$#[\  PMP# }} 4 <DL!(##XN\  PNXP# dd body no inde؁4_8c6'4iBH|F  '4wGH 4 <DL!T$#XN\  POXP# 4 <DL!(##XN\  PPXP#Style 14Stx''F'ơ#Co> PQP##X\  P6G;ɒP#2yylzx){l|l Document 8Document 8y Document 4Document 4z  Document 6Document 6{ Document 5Document 5| 2}l~lDocument 2Document 2} Document 7Document 7~ Right Par 1Right Par 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2l]{Document 3Document 3 Right Par 3Right Par 3` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2k%(CRight Par 6Right Par 6` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Document 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$$llQTechnical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 2$l$$Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2ypara numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  2!dCX1HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2g1S11LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 2djgEHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice ,, $0$0  2;-8*8bMEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macroz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2Xm[[ [{NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[[cXAEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   MACNormal,.2X#l1dfStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !2@|hStyle 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO 2VStyle 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2 6;Qg Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ   UpdateInitial Codes for Update Module )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #2p q e e^Document[8]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B` ` ` Document[4]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCW -2( -Ct )B  . Document[6]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCe -2( -Ct )B  Document[5]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCs -2( -Ct )B  2%pDocument[2]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B*    Document[7]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B  ` ` ` Right Par[1]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B8@  Right Par[2]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2W=Document[3]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CC -2( -Ct )B0     Right Par[3]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )BS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )B\` ` `  @hhh hhh 27%}Right Par[6]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Be` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers  -2( -Ct )Bn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]C^iRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )Bw ` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]C^iDocument StyleNeF2CCE -2( -Ct )BF34   ׃  2isTechnical[5]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCS -2( -Ct )B&56  . Technical[6]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCa -2( -Ct )B&78  . Technical[2]C^iTechnical Document StyleCCo -2( -Ct )B*9:    Technical[3]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC} -2( -Ct )B';<   2$jTechnical[4]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&=>   Technical[1]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B4?$@     Technical[7]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&AB  . Technical[8]C^iTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )B&CD  . 2}V[Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab Paragraph[2]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B/cd` ` ` Paragraph[3]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B:ef` ` `  Paragraph[4]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BEgh` ` `  2!g  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 2/%!q#ee$e$toatoa` hp x (#` hp x (#2S&C6C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )s t . 3S&C7C^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct ) uv 4S&C8C^fDocument StyleNF2CC! -2( -Ct ) wx 2'a%p%d&&5S&C9C^fDocument StyleNF2CC/ -2( -Ct )*yz   6S&C:C^fDocument StyleNF2CC= -2( -Ct ){|` ` ` 7S&C;C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersK -2( -Ct )8}~@  8S&C<C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersY -2( -Ct )A@` ` `  ` ` ` 2_*'X(()9S&C=C^fDocument StyleNF2CCg -2( -Ct )0    10S&C>C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersu -2( -Ct )J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 11S&C?C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )S` ` `  @  12S&C@C^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2-*P+,,13S&CAC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )e` ` `  hhh@ hhh 14S&CBC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )n` ` `  hhh@  15S&CCC^fRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers -2( -Ct )w` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 16S&CDC^fDocument StyleNF2CC -2( -Ct )F   ׃  20-Z..{/17S&CEC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 18S&CFC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&  . 19S&CGC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )*    20S&CHC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )'   22B001 221S&CIC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )&   22S&CJC^fTechnical Document StyleCC -2( -Ct )4$     23S&CKC^fTechnical Document StyleCC+ -2( -Ct )&  . 24S&CLC^fTechnical Document StyleCC9 -2( -Ct )&  . 24}2?33Z425S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 26S&CNC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CU -2( -Ct )/` ` ` 27S&COC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cc -2( -Ct ):` ` `  28S&CPC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Cq -2( -Ct )E` ` `  28*556F729S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 30S&CRC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )[ 31S&CSC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )f 32S&CTC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )q 2=pB8q8K#9Kn;33`O5hT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5h.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>` ` ` 34`O5iT(G2PDocument Style&^aO5i.K+&,$@`O5Bȗ+&>  . "i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2GK=K6@KB KD"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\2uPKIGKIKKK*N"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5Fg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyyyyF\yrrygryyrr>3>g\>\\Q\Q>\g33\3g\\\FF3gQy\QF>(>g>0gg>>>0>>>>>>\>\3y\y\y\y\y\yQyQyQyQyQF3F3F3F3g\\\\ggggrQy\\\\rQ\r\y\y\y\yQyQygyQyQyQyQyQ\\\g\ggF3F\F>F\gggy\r3r_r>rFr3ggg\\yFyFyFgFgFgFggrcr3rgggggggyrgrFrFrF\r>ggFr>r\0\\=3=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB\\F\\\\\\07\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBigg>\\7"yyyy\nyc\gnn\2VZPIHy.X80,X\  P6G;PI2a=5,&a\  P6G;&PJ2e=5,&e4  pG;&K7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPLy.\80,T\4  pG;\M0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&XP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\U{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;XV6jC:,<LXj9 xOG;XW2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P \X0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&X Y2e=5,D&e4  pG;&ZP:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP1a=5,<&a9 xOG;&  2\9VL YHy.X80,X\  P6G;PI2a=5,&a\  P6G;&PJ2e=5,&e4  pG;&K7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPLy.\80,T\4  pG;\M0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X NP:% ,J:\  P6G;JPOH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\P{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X1a=5,<t&a9 xOG;& yO- X   P S-#&a\  P6G;&P#  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 971527 #Xj\  P6G;9XP#у  yxdddy Pv3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;&P#In the Matter ofR) R)  S-Marcus Cable Associates, L.P.R)h  S-xComplainantR)h  S-R)hppP.A. No. 96002  SZ-x` ` v.R)h  S2-R)h  S -Texas Utilities Electric CompanyR)h  S -xRespondentR)h  "{   S - I DECLARATORY RULING AND ORDER ă  SD -x Adopted: July 18, 1997 hh@hpp Released : July 21, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  S- I. INTRODUCTION ĐTP  ST- ` B 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1.` ` In this Order, we address a complaint and request for declaratory ruling ("Complaint")  S,- xbrought under Section 224 of the Communications Act, as amended,D,93 yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  224 (1996).D by Marcus Cable Associates, L.P.  x]("Marcus") against Texas Utilities Electric Company ("TU Electric"). Section 224 empowers the  x.Commission to adjudicate disputes between utilities and cable operators concerning allegedly unjust and  S- xunreasonable pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions.rZX93 yO- xԍ Amendments to Section 224 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the Commission authority to resolve  x;pole attachment disputes between utilities and telecommunications carriers, as well. Pub. L. No. 104104, 100 Stat.  {O<-56, codified at 47 U.S.C.  et seq.r Marcus filed its Complaint on July 24, 1996.  xTU Electric filed a response ("Response") to the Complaint on August 22, 1996. Marcus filed a reply  Sd-("Reply") on September 10, 1996.dz93 yO~-ԍ TU Electric also filed a supplemental response, at the Commission's request, on December 13, 1996.  S- ` x2.` ` Marcus asks the Commission to declare unreasonable and terminate certain provisions in,  x>and actions related to, a pole attachment agreement ("Agreement") between Marcus and TU Electric.  xyMarcus requests relief from an Agreement requirement that Marcus give TU Electric written notice of its  x>provision of nonvideo services and secure from each of its nonvideo service customers a release from  x[liability in favor of TU Electric and Marcus. Marcus also seeks relief from TU Electric's alleged attempt  xto collect information about, and part of the revenues from, Marcus' nonvideo customers and services.  xIn addition, Marcus asks for actual and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. TU Electric responds  xthat the complaint is an attempt to camouflage that Marcus has breached a provision in the Agreement  S- xLprohibiting Marcus from   subleasing its pole attachment rights under the Agreement. TU Electric asserts  xthat the Commission does not have jurisdiction to resolve a breach of contract dispute and asks that the complaint be denied or dismissed."! ,))II""Ԍ S- ` oԙx3.` ` We also consider in this order a request by Marcus for confidential treatment of two of  xMarcus' contracts with its nonvideo customers, which Marcus filed at the request of the Commission staff. TU Electric opposes Marcus' request for confidential treatment.  S`- ` x4. ` ` For reasons discussed below, we find that we have jurisdiction under Section 224 to  xresolve the Complaint. We also find that Marcus' request for relief from unreasonable rates, terms, and  xconditions of the Agreement is justified. We order TU Electric to terminate the rates, terms, and  x[conditions at issue. We grant Marcus' request for a declaratory ruling and deny its request for actual and punitive damages. We also grant Marcus' request for confidential treatment.  Sp- II. BACKGROUND ĐTP  S - ` Ax5.` ` TU Electric is a utility engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution, and  S - xsale of electric energy in Texas.8  yO` -ԍ Complaint at 1.8 TU Electric is affiliated with Texas Utilities Communications Inc.,  xwhich has a 20 percent interest in each of three limited partnerships, the general partner of which is  S - x>PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. ("PrimeCo").P X yO-ԍ TU Electric Supplemental Response at 8.P The limited partnerships are involved in the  xprovision of various telecommunications services within Texas, for which they are using TU Electric's  SX- xprivate easements and rightsofway.2X {O-ԍ Id.2 On November 1, 1995, Marcus, a franchised cable operator,SXz {Or-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. Section 522(5) (1996).S and  xTU Electric entered into a new "CATV Pole Lease Agreement" (the abovereferenced Agreement). "{   S- xjAccording to TU Electric, the Agreement represented its standard pole attachment agreement.  yO- xԍ Response at Declaration of Jack P. Hilliard, Par. 3. According to TU Electric, the Agreement was based in  x;substantial part upon an agreement that TU Electric initially negotiated for over two years with TCI Cablevision of  xDallas, Inc. TU Electric then made these terms available to other cable companies. Certain limited changes from  xthe baseline agreement were made by TU Electric in 1995 (and are reflected in the Agreement with Marcus) in an  xeffort to address TU Electric's potential liabilities arising from the transmission of data communications on TU Electric's poles. Response at 2. Pursuant  xto this Agreement, TU Electric allows Marcus "to maintain its existing Equipment, if any, on Poles solely  xyfor the purpose of providing Service in the Franchised Areas and to attach additional Equipment to Poles  S- xin the future solely for the purpose of providing Service in the Franchised Areas."8   yO -ԍ Agreement at 1.8 The Agreement  Sh- xdefines "Service" as "any transmission service" within the defined franchised areas. h yO#- xiԍ Agreement at 2. According to the Agreement, the Franchised Areas are defined as "the cities of Benbrook,  xBlue Mound, Burleson, Cleburne, Corinth, Crowley, Denton, Duncanville, Edgecliff Village, Everman, Forest Hill,  xFort Worth, Haltom City, Hickory Creek, Highland Park, Hurst, Keller, Kennedale, Lake Dallas, Lake Worth,  xMansfield, North Richland Hills, Richland Hills, Saginaw, Shady Shores, South Lake, University Park, Watauga,  xWeatherford, Westover Hills and White Settlement" as well as unincorporated areas of Parker County. Agreement at 2. The transmission"h ,_(_(II"  xservices offered by Marcus include video programming services as well as nonvideo services. Marcus'  xMprimary nonvideo service offering is fiber optic conductor capacity, which Marcus provides over the  S- xexcess capacity of its cable system, on mixeduse, commonly sheathed fiber optic and coaxial conductors.M  yO-ԍ Complaint at Declaration of Pietri.M  S`- ` }x6.` ` Marcus states that it executed the Agreement under protest because TU Electric had added  S8- xa new section, Section 13.1A, that had not been in the parties' prior agreements.9 8X yO0-ԍ Complaint at 9.9 Pursuant to Section  xL13.1A, Marcus is required to indicate on a form entitled "Data Transmission Declaration Form" whether  S- xor not it is transmitting "data other than a TV signal through its facilities attached to TU Electric poles."@  yOp -ԍ Agreement at Exhibit E.@  xA positive response requires Marcus to obtain a release from each of its nonvideo customers indemnifying  x\both Marcus and TU Electric against claims arising out of Marcus' or TU Electric's "negligence, strict  Sp- xLliability or other fault of any nature."TZpx yO- xԍ Agreement at Attachment D. The exception to this indemnification occurs when the negligence of Marcus  xor TU Electric or their "agent or agents was the sole proximate cause of such injuries, death of persons and/or  {O-damages to property." Id.T Section 13.1A also requires Marcus to design the release so that  x.it reads, in capital letters, that the nonvideo services being provided by Marcus "may not be completely  S -private and are of such a nature that they may be interrupted, lost or limited for many reasons . . . ."2  {OZ-ԍ Id.2  S - ` 2x7.` ` By letter, dated May 20, 1996, TU Electric asked Marcus to "confirm that all overlashed  xcable, situated on CATV cable which Marcus Cable maintains and operates under the terms of the  S - xL[Agreement], is owned and exclusively used by Marcus Cable." ,  yOL- xԍ Complaint at 10 quoting Letter from Robert L. Ewing, Distribution Planning Manager, TU Electric, to Marcus Legal Department (May 20, 1996). In a telephone conversation with TU  xElectric on June 3, 1996, a Marcus representative confirmed that "while Marcus owns all such overlashed  x=cable, such cable is nevertheless being 'used' at least in part, by American Communications Services, Inc.  S- x[("ACSI") and/or others."  {O,- xԍ Id quoting Letter from Robert L. Ewing, TU Electric, to Richard A.B. Gleiner, General Counsel, Marcus (June 18, 1996). By letter, dated June 18, 1996, TU Electric requested a meeting with Marcus  xto "clarify the nature and extent of any third party usage of Marcus' cable and other equipment, such as  S- xyis maintained under the terms of [the] Agreement."2 {O6"-ԍ Id.2 The parties met on July 18, 1996. At that meeting,  xaccording to Marcus, "TU Electric demanded to know where, and to whom, Marcus was providing  xnonvideo telecommunications services" and also demanded "a portion of revenues that Marcus derives"hp,_(_(II"  S- xfrom provision of nonvideo telecommunications services." yOh- xԍ Complaint at Declaration of A.B. Gleiner. According to the Declaration, "TU Electric representatives at the  xmeeting offered Marcus a "choice" of acceding to their demands or proceeding to litigation." According to TU  xElectric, it had asked Marcus "to explain the nature and extent of any subleasing to third parties of pole attachments"  xand "indicated to Marcus that it expected Marcus to make restitution, based on the value or benefits that TU Electric may have lost by Marcus' breach of contract." Response at 3 and App. A. In response to these demands, Marcus filed its Complaint.  S- III. DISCUSSION ă  S8- ` x8.` ` The Complaint presents four questions for our consideration: (1) does Section 224  x[provide the Commission with jurisdiction to review the pole attachment agreement complained of in this  x.proceeding; and, if so, (2) are TU Electric's requirements for release from liability by Marcus' customers  xand for disclosure of nonvideo transmissions over Marcus' facilities reasonable under Section 224; (3) is  xTU Electric's effort to collect information about, and money for, third party use of Marcus' cables  xpermitted under Section 224; and (4) is Marcus entitled to actual and punitive damages because of TU  xyElectric's actions? We answer the first question in the affirmative and the remaining three in the negative. We also grant Marcus' request for declaratory ruling. A. Jurisdiction  S - ` ~x9.` ` TU Electric urges the Commission to dismiss or deny Marcus' complaint as a breach of  xcontract matter outside of the Commission's jurisdiction. According to TU Electric, if Marcus has allowed  x[a third party to overlash its cable onto a Marcus cable, Marcus has violated the subleasing prohibition in  S-Section 16.1 of the Agreement.8x yO -ԍ Response at 3.8 Marcus denies that it has violated the sublease prohibition.4 yO-ԍ Reply at 4.4  S- ` x10.` ` In the absence of state regulation, yO- xԍ State regulation of the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments precludes federal regulation of pole attachments under certain conditions. 47 U.S.C.  224(c). Section 224 directs the Commission to "regulate the  xrates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms, and conditions are just  Sh- xand reasonable . . . ."Ch  yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  224(b)(1).C Marcus alleges, and TU Electric does not dispute, that "neither the state of Texas,  xjnor any of its political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, regulates the rates, terms or conditions  S- x.of pole attachments in the manner required by Section 224."8  yO8#-ԍ Complaint at 3.8 The authority conferred by Section 224,  xhowever, does not supplant that of the local jurisdiction when the issue between the parties is a breach",_(_(II%"  S- xLof contract not involving unjust or unreasonable contractual rates, terms, or conditions.z {Oh- xԍ Appalachian Power Co. v. Capitol Cablevision Corp., 49 RR 2d 574 at para. 7 (1981) ("Section 224 creates  xa forum at this Commission to resolve disputes involving pole attachment rates, terms and conditions, based on a  xMcongressional finding of an absence of such jurisdiction at the local level. . . . Although the Commission's  x-jurisdiction encompasses certain practices growing out of a contractual relationship between a utility and a cable  xoperator, it does not extend to adjudication of the legal impact of the failure of a party to fulfill its contractual  xobligations. . . . [A]s we read both the legislative history and the statute itself, Congress has nowhere expressed its intent that this Commission be accorded the authority to preempt local jurisdiction in such matters.") Consequently,  xthe threshold question before us is whether the issues raised in the Complaint concern a breach of contract not involving unjust and unreasonable contractual rates, terms and conditions.  S`- ` x11.` ` Section 16.1 of the Agreement provides that Marcus "shall not, without prior written  xconsent of TU Electric (a) transfer, assign, delegate or sublet any of its rights or obligations under this  S- xlAgreement . . . ."D  yO -ԍ Marcus Complaint at Ex. 5.D On December 18, 1996, Marcus responded to a December 2, 1996 request for  S- xinformation by the Commission, yO"- xԍ In considering a pole attachment complaint, the Commission may "request that one or more of the parties make additional filings or provide additional information." 47 C.F.R.  1.1409(a) (1996). in which Marcus stated that it is not subleasing its pole attachment  xrights and no party is overlashing its facilities onto Marcus' facilities. Marcus stated that it owns all of  xthe facilities that it attaches to TU Electric's poles, that Marcus "leases some capacity on its cable  xLtelevision system to certain third parties," and that its "lease of such capacity is functionally identical to  SH -the lease of certain video channel capacity to unaffiliated third parties."[H  yO-ԍ Marcus' Response to Bureau's Information Request.[  S - ` x12.` ` In its responsive pleadings, TU Electric has provided no evidence that Marcus has assigned  x>its rights under the Agreement to attach third parties' equipment to TU Electric's poles. Because the  xrecord shows that Marcus is leasing capacity within its own facilities for transmission services, rather than  xallowing a third party to overlash its wire onto Marcus' facilities, the issues raised in the Complaint are  xnot covered by the sublease prohibition of the Agreement. The issues raised do, however, involve alleged  xunjust and unreasonable contractual rates, terms and conditions. We find that we have jurisdiction,  xpursuant to Section 224, to regulate the rates, terms and conditions in Marcus' pole attachment agreement  S- xin accordance with the Commission's decisions in Heritage Cablevision Assocs. of Dallas, L.P. v. Texas  S- xUtils. Elec. Co. ("Heritage)P  {O- xԍ See Heritage Cablevision Assocs. of Dallas, L.P. v. Texas Utils. Elec. Co., 6 FCC Rcd. 7099 (1991),  recon.  {O -dismissed, 7 FCC Rcd. 4192, aff'd sub nom. Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. FCC , 997 F.2d 925 (D.C. Cir. 1993). P and Selkirk Communications, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. ("Selkirk"). {O8"-ԍSelkirk Communications, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co. ("Selkirk") 8 FCC Rcd. 387 (1993). x"lp,_(_(II"Ԍ S- ` ax13.` ` In Heritage,\ yOh- xԍ Heritage Cablevision Associates of Dallas, L.P., and Texas Cable TV Association, Inc. v. Texas Utilities  {O0- xElectric Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7099 (1991) (Heritage), recon. dismissed, 7 FCC  {O-Rcd 4192 (1992), affirmed, Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. FCC, 997 F.2d 925 (D.C. Cir. 1993). a pole attachment complaint proceeding, the Commission adopted an  xexpansive definition of "cable services" for purposes of defining the scope of protection afforded cable  xsystem operators attaching their facilities to utility poles under Section 224 of the Act, as amended in  S- xj1978. ~ {O- xԍ Pub. L. No. 95234,  6, 92 Stat. 33, 35 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C.  224). Heritage, 6 FCC Rcd  xat 710102. The Supreme Court has found that Congress enacted this legislation "as a solution to a perceived danger  {O - xof anticompetitive practices by utilities in connection with cable television service." FCC v. Florida Power Corp.,  x480 U.S. 245, 247 (1987). By conferring jurisdiction on the Commission to regulate pole attachments, Congress  xsought to constrain the ability of telephone and electric utilities to extract monopoly profits from cable television  {O - xZsystem operators in need of pole space. Id. at 24748. See also Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 773 F.2d 363, 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) In that case, TeleCommunications, Inc. ("TCI") alleged that TU Electric unjustly and unreason xLably imposed a separate charge for the attachment of facilities employed to provide nonvideo broadband  xcommunications services, for example, data transmission services, in addition to the regulated rate TU  xElectric had assessed TCI and its predecessors to attach equipment used to provide more conventional cable television services to its subscribers.  S- ` x14.` ` The Commission, "for purposes of clarity" defined the terms "conventional" or "traditional"  Sr- xcable services as used in Heritage, "to refer to the delivery of television broadcast signals, cablecast or  xaccess programming, or other video programming by cable television systems to subscribers. Excluded  xfrom this category are nonvideo and other services not associated with the provision or selection of  xzconventional or traditional cable services, such as electronic mail delivery, facsimile transmissions and  S - xother data transmission services."P! 2  {O-ԍ Heritage, 6 FCC Rcd at 7099 n.2.P The Commission rejected TU Electric's challenge to the Commission's  xjurisdiction to resolve the dispute under Section 224, on the grounds that Congress had not intended  S - xSection 224 "to reach only those pole attachments supporting equipment employed exclusively (italics  S^-original) to distribute television broadcast signals and other video programming."<"^  {O-ԍ Id. at 7102.<  S- ` x15.` ` On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the  S- xCommission's decision in Texas Utilities Electric Company v. FCC ("TUEC v. FCC").H#V  yO-ԍ 997 F. 2d 925 (D.C. Cir. 1993).H The court held  x=that although Section 224 was ambiguous as to whether the Commission's regulatory authority extended  xto cables used to transmit nonvideo communications, the Commission had reasonably interpreted the Act  Sp- xto conclude that its authority extended to cables transmitting nonvideo communications.f$p {O#-ԍ Texas Utils. Elec. Co. v. FCC, 997 F.2d 925, 932935. f The court also  xynoted that the Commission's interpretation was limited by the facts of the case before it: a cable operator  x.seeking Commissionregulated rates for all pole attachments within its system; where the cable operator  xis not maintaining separate video and data networks, but rather is commingling data and video over a  S- xsingle set of transmission cables. In Selkirk, the Commission, citing Heritage, held that it has jurisdiction"x$,_(_(II"  xunder Section 224 to regulate the rates charged for pole attachments that support equipment employed to  S- xMprovide nonvideo services in addition to video and other traditional cable television services.F%$ {O@- xԍ In Selkirk, the equipment in question included "coaxial cable lashed to an aerial support strand which in turn,  xis attached at a single point to the [utility] pole. In addition to its coaxial facilities, [the cable operator] . . . deployed  x-fiber optic cable in certain parts of its system. This fiber optic cable, like the coaxial cable, is overlashed to the  {O-aerial support strand without the need for additional guying or anchoring." Selkirk at par. 6.F In the  S- xlTelecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"),K& yO-ԍ Pub. L. No. 104104, 100 Stat. 56.K Congress codified the Commission's holdings in  S- xHeritage and Selkirk by amending Section 224. Section 224 now requires the Commission to apply the  xsame formula currently used to determine a reasonable rate for any pole attachment used by a cable system  xlsolely to provide cable service to "the rate for any pole attachment used by a cable system or any  S-telecommunications carrier . . . to provide any telecommunications service."?'D yO - xԍ 47 U.S.C. Section 224(d)(3) (1996). We note that this subsection of Section 224 will remain in effect until  x-the effective date of regulations which the Commission must prescribe, no later than two years after the date of  xxenactment of the 1996 Act, "to govern the charges for pole attachments used by telecommunications carriers to  xprovide telecommunications services, when the parties fail to resolve a dispute over such charges." 47 U.S.C. Section 224(e)(1).?  S- ` x16.` ` We find that the dispute as to the rates, terms and conditions of the Agreement is within  S- xthe scope of both Heritage and Selkirk. Marcus has requested that we review the rates, terms and  xconditions of a pole attachment agreement concerning pole attachments that support equipment and cables  xused to distribute both traditional cable services and data transmissions. Because the Commission has  x/already found that it has jurisdiction to review the rates, terms and conditions of these types of pole attachment agreements, we will review the rates, terms and conditions of the Agreement at issue here. B. Section 13.1A Terms and Conditions  S\- ` x17. ` ` We next consider Marcus' request for relief from the nonvideo disclosure and the  xnonvideo customer release and indemnification requirements of Section 13.1A of the Agreement ("Section  x13.1A Requirements"). Under Section 13.1A, Marcus must furnish TU Electric with a completed form  x>(Attachment E of the Agreement) indicating whether or not Marcus transmits nonvideo data through  xfacilities attached to TU Electric's poles. By checking the "yes" box, Marcus triggers the Section 13.1A  xRequirements and, consequently, under the Agreement it must secure from each of its nonvideo customers  x{a signed indemnification and release, using the form appended to the Agreement as Attachment D.  xAttachment D is oneandahalf pages long, approximately twothirds of which is printed entirely in an  x[upper case font noticeably larger than the mixedcase type face used for the remainder of the Agreement.  x?The upper case portion of the form warns signatories that Marcus' nonvideo services may not be  xcompletely private and that they may be interrupted or lost for a variety of reasons other than negligence,  xN"including, but not limited to, dialing errors, power failures, malfunctioning of wireline services or  xzequipment, interruptions in company interconnections to wireline exchange carriers and interexchange  xLcarriers, and electronic or atmospheric interference." Attachment D then continues by requiring Marcus'  xLcustomers to indemnify and release TU Electric and Marcus from almost every possible circumstance of", ',_(_(IIl"  S-liability.y( yOh-ԍ Complaint at para. 36 and Ex. 5 (at Section 13.1A, Attach. D, and Attach. E). y  S- ` Ax18. ` ` Marcus alleges that the real purpose behind Section 13.1A is to enable TU Electric to gain  xZcompetitively sensitive information, destroy Marcus' efforts to deploy fiber optic communications facilities  S`- xand market nonvideo services, and destroy or interfere with Marcus' nonvideo customer relationships.J)`X {OX-ԍ Id. at para. 28, 30, 37. J  xMarcus explains that providing TU Electric with the executed copies of Attachment D is tantamount to  xLproviding it with Marcus' entire nonvideo customer list, complete with the customers' names, addresses,  S- x.and locations, as well as the locations where Marcus possesses excesses capacity.=* yOr -ԍ Reply at para. 39. = Marcus argues that  xother provisions in the Agreement that require Marcus to indemnify TU Electric, provide it with insurance  xcoverage of $10 million, and post a bond of $20 per pole, are more than sufficient to shield TU Electric  Sp-from liability._+pz yO-ԍ Complaint at para. 29 and n. 5; Reply at para. 2428._  S - ` x19. ` ` TU Electric dismisses Marcus' concerns about the disclosure of nonvideo service  x[information by explaining that TU Electric does not need to obtain information from Attachments D and  xE in order to be able "to determine who else is offering and advertising nonvideo service," and that the  S - xyinformation is not sensitive.,  yOR- xԍ Response at 89; TU Electric Supplemental Response at 4. TU Electric asserts, moreover, that it has never used, nor will it ever use, the information required by Section 13.1A for competitive purposes  TU Electric justifies its requirement for a release and indemnification from  x]Marcus' nonvideo customers by claiming that TU Electric bears a higher risk of liability with data  SX- xLtransmission services than with traditional video services.7-Xb  yOZ-ԍ Response at 8.7 TU Electric also states that it has "recently  xamended its standard form of pole attachment contract to reduce the insurance requirements imposed upon  S-cable companies."U.  yO-ԍ Response at Declaration of Hilliard, par. 3.U  S- ` x20.` ` We disagree with TU Electric's assertion that the indemnification found in the Agreement  xis inadequate to protect its interests. A review of the Agreement reveals that it provides extensive  x>indemnification of TU Electric by Marcus including, but not limited to, claims arising out of Marcus'  xbreach of the agreement or arising out of the "attachment, maintenance, replacement, relocation, repair,  xmodification, removal, use or operation of, or in any way arising out of . . .[e]quipment . . . installed for  S- xthe purpose of supporting [e]quipment on or in the vicinity of the poles."9/  yO$-ԍ Agreement at 17.9 Marcus must also indemnify  xTU Electric against any claims "arising out of, relating to, caused by or incident to any Texas Utility's  xParty sole or concurrent (a) negligence; (b) strict liability in tort; (c) breach of warranty, express or"/,_(_(II"  S- ximplied; or (d) other fault of any nature."20 {Oh-ԍ Id.2 In addition, Marcus must furnish a bond or other security "of  xnot less than the greater of $10,000 or $20.00 per pole" which "is subject to increase at any time and from  S- xtime to time to such amount as TU Electric may reasonably determine to be necessary."91Z yO-ԍ Agreement at 21.9 Because of the  xzallencompassing nature of the Agreement's indemnifications in favor of TU Electric, we find that TU  x?Electric has failed to show that the general insurance and bond requirements of the Agreement are  S8-inadequate to protect its interests.28 {O - xԍ See Agreement at Section 13.1 (licensee's general obligation to indemnify TU Electric against all claims  xarising out of Licensee's breach of the Agreement as well as indemnifying TU Electric for all claims "arising out  xof, relating to, caused by or incident to any Texas Utilities' Party; sole or concurrent (a) negligence; (b) strict liability  xin tort; (c) breach of warranty, express or implied; or (d) other fault of any nature"); Sections 14.1 14.7 (describing  xYthe insurance to be provided by licensee to TU Electric including Workers' Compensation insurance with a statutory  x-limit; primary employer's liability insurance with a $100,000 liability limit, public liability and property damage  xinsurance, with a requirement of a $5,000,000 liability limit for less than 10,000 equipment attachments and a  x$10,000,000 liability limit for more than 10,000 equipment attachments, as well as comprehensive automobile  xinsurance with a liability limit of $5,000,000 per occurrence); and Section 14.8 (which requires the licensee to furnish  xa bond or other security "of not less than the greater of $10,000 or $20.00 per pole" which "is subject to increase at any time and from time to time to such amount as TU Electric may reasonably determine to be necessary.").  S- ` x21.` ` TU Electric also claims that the 1996 amendments to Section 224 "make it absolutely  xessential for a utility to know whether a pole is being used by a cable system solely for video or for other  S- xpurposes, because different rates will apply."<3L  yO-ԍ Response at 8 9.< This argument is based upon Section 224(d),A4 yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C Section 224(d).A as amended  Sp- x>by the 1996 Act and Section 224(e),B5pl yO|-ԍ 47 U.S.C. Section 224(e).B which was added by the 1996 Act. Under the amendments to  xLSection 224(d), the Commission is required to prescribe regulations for pole attachment rates charged by  xa utility to a cable system providing other than solely traditional cable services, as well as rates charged  xby a utility to a telecommunications carrier not party to an existing pole attachment agreement. Section  S - xN224(e)(1) requires the Commission to prescribe new regulations by February 8, 1998.E6  yOl-ԍ 47 U.S.C. Section 224(e)(1).E The new  S -regulations, however, will not become effective until February 8, 2001.E7  yO!-ԍ 47 U.S.C. Section 224(e)(4).E  SX- ` 5x22.` ` TU Electric is correct in its assertion that the amended Section 224 requires the  xCommission to prescribe regulations, in the future, to govern the "charges for pole attachments used by  S- xjtelecommunications carriers to provide telecommunications services."E8 yO&-ԍ 47 U.S.C. Section 224(e)(1).E TU Electric may also be correct" 8,_(_(II"  xin its assertion that, when the regulations prescribed by the Commission under Section 224 become  xeffective, a utility pole owner will need to know "whether a pole is being used by a cable system solely  S- xfor video or for other purposes."79 yO-ԍ Response at 9.7 Because these regulations have yet to be written, however, it would  xmere speculation for us to formulate what informational requirements, if any, may be incorporated into  xLthe regulations. Under our existing regulations, Marcus is under no obligation to TU Electric to disclose  x=any information regarding the lease of its capacity to third parties. On a forwardlooking basis, Marcus  x[may need only disclose that it is providing telecommunications services. Therefore, because Marcus has  xalready disclosed to TU Electric that it offers telecommunications services, TU Electric's reliance on the amended Section 224 to compel additional information from Marcus is misplaced.  Sp- ` }x23. ` ` TU Electric's own involvement in the provision of telecommunications services also makes  xsuspect the inclusion of the Section 13.1A Requirements in the Agreement. TU Electric acknowledges  xzthat it is affiliated with TU Communications and admits that TU Communications' partnerships with  S - xPrimeCo are engaged in the provision of telecommunications services.D: X yO-ԍ Supplemental response at 8.D TU Electric does not deny, or  xadmit, that TU Communications and PrimeCo will compete directly with Marcus in the provision of such  S - xservices.8;  {O0-ԍ Id. at 9.8 We find that the likelihood of direct competition between Marcus and TU Communications  xmagnifies the unreasonableness of the Section 13.1A Requirements. The Section 13.1A Requirements'  xlexaggerated warning to nonvideo customers, excessive indemnification required from, and, specific  xidentification of, nonvideo customers, and their location on Marcus's system, seem to exist only to  xinterfere with, if not to destroy, Marcus' relationship with those customers. Consequently, the Section  x13.1A Requirements appear to be an attempt by TU Electric to interfere with the provision of  xtelecommunications services offered by a potential, or actual, competitor. We find, therefore, that the anticompetitive motive behind the Section 13.1A Requirements only adds to their unreasonableness.  S@- ` x24.` ` Consequently, we find that TU Electric has failed to make a sufficient showing that there  x>is a reasonable basis for the Section 13.1A Requirements in the Agreement. TU Electric has failed to  xkshow that the general insurance and bond requirements of the Agreement are inadequate to protect its  xinterests. TU Electric has also failed to show that Section 224, as amended, requires the disclosure of the  xnames of Marcus' nonvideo transmission customers. Lacking such showings, we find that the Section  x[13.1A Requirements are unjust and unreasonable under Section 224. Accordingly, we order TU Electric  xto terminate both the nonvideo service notification and the customer indemnification and release requirements of Section 13.1A. C. Request for Third Party Information and Additional Payment  S- ` #x25.` ` We next turn to the issue raised by Marcus in its complaint concerning TU Electric's July  x18, 1996 requests for information about Marcus' third party endeavors and for payment. TU Electric calls  S8- x/the requested payment "restitution" for Marcus' breach of the Agreement.D<8z yOR&-ԍ TU Electric Response at 3.D Marcus argues that TU  xElectric's demand for a portion of Marcus' revenues from its nonvideo services is an excessive attachment" <,_(_(II!"  x rate and notes that the Commission's current pole attachment rate formula applies to both video and  S- xnonvideo communications.B= yO@-ԍ Marcus Reply at para. 12.B TU Electric disputes Marcus' interpretation of the charge, stating that, in  S- xTUEC v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit "emphasized that a cable  xsystem could not use rights available to it for the benefit of the services provided by separate entities, even  Sb- xif these entities were acquired by the cable system."9>bX yOZ-ԍ Response at 6. 9 We find that TU Electric's request for restitution is an unreasonable rate.  S- ` x26.` ` We also disagree with TU Electric's characterization of the TUEC v. FCC opinion. In  S- xyboth Heritage and Selkirk, the Commission held that a utility cannot increase its pole attachment charges  S- xLsimply because nontraditional cable services are being provided. In TUEC v. FCC, the court upheld the  xCommission's finding that "a cable operator may seek Commissionregulated rates for all pole attachments  SP - xwithin its system."L?P  yO-ԍ 997 F.2d at 934 (emphasis omitted).L The court determined that Section 224 "is aimed at the rates charged for pole  S( - xattachments, not the content of the transmissions carried over the attachments."N@X( x yO@- xԍ 997 F.2d at 934. TU Electric had argued that the Commission should not "regulate pole attachment rates for  xequipment used to carry nonvideo communications when it does not have jurisdiction to regulate the nonvideo communications themselves." 997 F.2d at 933.N The court also noted  S - xNthat TU Electric had attempted to charge the cable operator, in TUEC v. FCC, a surcharge for the  x=nonvideo communications carried over fiber optic cable attached to the coaxial cable, but not for the data  xytransmission services that it provided over coaxial cable to local schools, fire and police departments, and  S - xoffered no basis for the disparate treatment.9A  yO-ԍ 997 F.2d at 935.9 The record before us shows that Marcus is leasing  xcapacity to third parties within its facilities; such third parties may be nonvideo as well as video providers.  x-According to Marcus, however, TU Electric requests only a portion of revenues derived from the provision  S- xof nonvideo telecommunications services.RB(  yO-ԍ Complaint at Declaration of A.B. Gleiner.R There is no allegation that TU Electric requested a portion  xof revenues derived from the provision of video services. For pole attachment purposes under the existing  xrules, we find no reason to differentiate between the transmissions being sent through Marcus' facilities,  xwhether they are data transmissions or video transmissions such as leased access. Because the facts before  xus show that Marcus has done nothing more than provide both nontraditional and traditional cable services  xas part of its transmission services, we find TU Electric's request for payment based on Marcus' revenues from nonvideo services to be unjust and unreasonable under Section 224.  S- ` px27. ` ` We also find TU Electric's attempt to obtain information about Marcus' third party  x[endeavors to be unjust and unreasonable. Marcus states that TU Electric asked Marcus to "disclose the  S- xMparties to whom, and location on Marcus' network at which, Marcus provides nonvideo services."9C  yO%-ԍ Complaint at 11.9  xAccording to TU Electric, it sought information about "the nature and extent of any subleasing to third  xparties of pole attachments . . . to determine the extent of the breach and as a means toward bringing"2 H C,_(_(II"  S- xyMarcus in compliance with its agreement."8D yOh-ԍ Response at 3.8 We have not found subleasing that would be prohibited by  xjthe Agreement. Consequently, we find that TU Electric's request for additional information is motivated  xby the same anticompetitive interests that motivated TU Electric to include the Section 13.1A  xyRequirements in the Agreement. Beyond its allegation regarding the possibility of subleases, TU Electric  xhas failed to provide a reasonable basis for requiring information about Marcus' provision of nonvideo  x[services to third parties. Consequently, we find TU Electric's attempt to obtain information about such services to be an unjust and unreasonable term.  S-D.xRequest for Declaratory Ruling  Sp- ` #x28.` ` In its Complaint, Marcus requests that the Commission issue a declaratory ruling that (1)  xTU Electric's actions violate the legislative intent and public interest objectives of the 1996 Act; (2)  xterminates the provision requiring cable operators to secure the customer release set forth at Section 13.1A  xin all TU Electric pole attachment agreements; and (3) terminates the provision contained in Section 13.1A  xand Attachment E of all TU Electric pole attachment agreements requiring cable operators to disclose their  S - x]provision of nonvideo services.9E X yO-ԍ Complaint at 16.9 Given the standardized nature of TU Electric's pole attachment  S - xagreements,UF  {O-ԍ See Declaration of Hilliard at par. 2.U we agree that declaratory relief is appropriate in this situation. Because of their anti xcompetitive effect, we find that these provisions are unreasonable terms and conditions in any TU Electric  xpole attachment agreement. Consequently, we will terminate, in all TU Electric pole attachment  x\agreements, the provision requiring cable operators to secure the customer release set forth at Section  x13.1A, as well as the provision contained in Section 13.1A and Attachment E requiring cable operators to disclose their provision of nonvideo services.  Sh-E.xRequest for Actual and Punitive Damages  S- ` nx29.` ` Also in its Complaint, Marcus asks the Commission to award actual and punitive damages  S- xbecause of TU Electric's actions.9Gz yO -ԍ Complaint at 16.9 Other than the request itself, Marcus has not attempted to substantiate  x[its claim for damages with any showing. We find that while Marcus is entitled to the other relief granted  xMin this order, it has failed to show that it is entitled to damages, actual or punitive. Consequently, its request for such damages is denied.  S(-  IV. REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY ă  S- ` x30. ` ` In order to assess the nature of the relationship between Marcus and ASCI and any other  S- xLthird parties relevant to this case, the Commission, on December 2, 1996, asked Marcus for copies of all  xagreements Marcus has entered into for the sale or resale of capacity on facilities subject to the  xAgreement. On December 18, 1996, Marcus submitted partial copies of four agreements. Two are copies  xof excerpts from its franchise agreements with the cities of Fort Worth and Hurst, Texas. Marcus also  xsubmitted, under seal and request for confidentiality, copies of two partially redacted agreements with" G,_(_(II!"  S- xACSI, and TCG Dallas ("TCG"), respectively.H  yOh- xԍ Both agreements were originally entered into by Sammons Communications, Inc., Marcus' predecessor. The  xjredacted copies of the agreements submitted by Marcus provided us with sufficient information regarding the  xxrelationship between Marcus and the third parties relevant to this case. We note, however, that the Commission always has the right to require unredacted copies of such agreements, if necessary. Citing Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's  S- xjRules,QI yO(-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.457, 0.459 (1996).Q Marcus asks that we refrain from making the submitted ACSI and TCG agreements available for  x{public inspection. On December 31, 1996, TU Electric filed an opposition to Marcus' request for  S-confidentiality.J@ yOh -ԍ TU Electric Opposition to Request for Confidential Treatment ("TU Electric Confidentiality Opposition"). Marcus filed a reply on January 10, 1997.K yO - xkԍ Marcus Reply to Opposition to Request to Withhold Information from Public Inspection ("Marcus Confidentiality Reply").  S8- ` x31. ` ` Marcus supports its request for confidential treatment of its agreements with ACSI and  xTCG by explaining that the agreements contain "proprietary information which includes trade secrets and  xcommercial information", as well as "highly sensitive information on the contract terms, network route  S- x[maps, and other data."QL(  yO-ԍ Marcus Confidentiality Request at 1 2.Q Marcus further describes the agreements as including "the specific facilities and  xzroutes over which Marcus' customers' communications will be carried, negotiated wholesale transport  Sp- xrates, technical and confidential transport standards [note omitted] and other information."NMp  yO-ԍ Marcus Confidentiality Reply at 45.N According  xto Marcus, allowing anyone other than Bureau staff access to the agreements would cause Marcus and its  S - xcustomers "substantial and irreparable competitive injury."9N H  {O-ԍ Id. at 7.9 Marcus argues that requiring cable operators  x[to disclose competitively sensitive materials to the very competitors who pose the greatest threat would  S - x/undermine the Commission's confidentiality procedures.O  {OJ- xԍ Id. Marcus notes that in the TU Electric Supplemental Response, TU Electric refuses to disclose the extent  {O-of its investment in PrimeCo, claiming that such information is sensitive. Id. at n. 6. Marcus explains that the competitor that  S -concerns it the most is TU Electric.PZ 6 {O~- xhԍ Marcus Confidentiality Reply at 6. See also Marcus Request to Withhold Information from Public Inspection ("Marcus Confidentiality Request").  SX- ` x32. ` ` TU Electric opposes Marcus' request for confidentiality and asks the Commission not to  xpermit Marcus' partial redaction of the agreements. TU Electric argues that Marcus has not met the  S- xburden of proof required by the Commission's rules.YQX yO&-ԍ TU Electric Confidentiality Opposition at 3 4.Y TU Electric also maintains that denying it access  xto the agreements would interfere with the due process requirements of the Constitution and the" Q,_(_(II"  x{Administrative Procedure Act that TU Electric be afforded notice of the evidence against it and an  S- xopportunity to respond.YR yO@-ԍ TU Electric Confidentiality Opposition at 4 6.Y Finally, TU Electric claims that access to the redacted information in the  xagreements may be necessary to determine the true nature of the relationships between Marcus and the  xthird parties, for purposes both of the instant case and a separate, ongoing proceeding before the  S`-Commission involving TU Electric and TCG.S`X {OX- xԍ TU Electric Confidentiality Opposition at 6. The referenced proceeding is In re TCG Dallas, Motion for Cease and Desist Order, PA 96007 (filed Nov. 19, 1996).  S- ` ~x33. ` ` Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules allows a person who is submitting information  S- xto the Commission to request that such information not be made routinely available for public inspection.BT yO: -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.459(a).B  xNThe standards of this section are governed by the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), and the  x[requesting party must show "by a preponderance of the evidence" that nondisclosure is consistent with  Sp-the pertinent provisions of the FOIA.UpB {OR-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.459(d)). See also 5 U.S.C.  552, et seq. (FOIA).  S - ` 3x34. ` ` Exemption 4 of the FOIA permits the Commission, in its discretion, to withhold from  xdisclosure any documents containing either (1) trade secrets or (2) information which is (a) commercial  S - x.or financial, and (b) obtained from a person, and (c) privileged or confidential.BV  yOD-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(4).B Commercial or financial  xinformation is privileged or confidential if either (1) disclosure of the information is likely to impair the  xgovernment's ability to obtain necessary information in the future or (2) disclosure is likely to cause  SX- xsubstantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.WXd  {O\-ԍ See Nat'l Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974).  "{   xLThe Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia later reaffirmed this test, but limited it to those cases  S-involving information that persons were required to provide the government. X\  {O- xԍ See Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992). In cases involving financial or  xcommercial information that was supplied voluntarily to the government, Exemption 4 applies if the provider would  {O0-not customarily release the information to the public. Id. at 879880.  S- ` x35. ` ` The Commission has said, "the entity or person seeking confidentiality must show that  xsubstantial competitive injury is likely to result from disclosure. While an elaborate economic analysis  xneed not be made to establish the likelihood of substantial competitive injury, 'conclusory and generalized  S@- xallegations' cannot support nondisclosure.""Y@ {O#- xYԍ National Exchange Carrier Ass'n, Inc. (Release of Common Line Pool Audit Report), 5 FCC Rcd 7184 (1990)  {O$-(quoting Nat'l Parks and conservation Ass'n v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 68081 (D.C. Cir. 1976))." Instead, the requesting must party demonstrate by a"@vY,_(_(II"  S- xytpreponderance of the evidence the likelihood of competitive harm.iZ {Oh-ԍ TKR Cable of Ramapo, 11 FCC Rcd. 3538 at para. 10 (1996).i Moreover, the Commission will not  S-honor "casual" requests for confidentiality.[Z {O-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  0.459(c); Western Cities Broadcasting, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd. 3599, 3600 (1991). t  S- ` Bx36. ` ` We find that Marcus has made a sufficient showing that its agreements with ACSI and  xTCG ("agreements") are exempt from mandatory public disclosure under Exemption 4 of the FOIA which  S8- xprotects "confidential" commercial and financial information.N\8 {O -ԍ See 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(4).N Because release of these agreements could  xcause substantial competitive harm to Marcus, we find that the agreements qualify as "confidential"  xinformation under the second prong of Exemption 4 which protects information if disclosure is likely to  xcause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.  xThe Commission has previously granted confidential treatment for tariff support data and rejected efforts  Sp- x=of a competitor to secure access to such data in  Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ("SWBT").]p~ {O-ԍ Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Tariff FCC No. 73, DA 961927, released November 19, 1996. In  SJ - xthat order, the Commission found that disclosure of confidential information "could substantially harm the  S" - xcompetitive position of SWBT by assisting competitors in preparing marketing strategies to use indirect  S - xcompetition with SWBT."=^  {O-ԍ Id. at par. 3.= The Commission has also denied attempts to secure access to confidential  S - xcommercial telecommunications lease agreements submitted to the Commission in Thomas N. Locke  S - x("Locke").g_  {O-ԍ In the Matter of Thomas N. Locke, 8 FCC Rcd 8746 (1996).g In Locke, the Commission gave confidential treatment to building leases between U.S. West  xand various tenants, accepting U.S. West's contention that "release of the information could give  xLprospective or current tenants or leasing competitors valuable insight into how U.S. West structures and  S:-prices its leasing operations."?`:4  {O-ԍ Locke at par. 4.?  S- ` Ax37.` ` We find that the rationale of the holdings in SWBT and Locke apply to the facts presently  S- xbefore us. Marcus is attempting to protect sensitive commercial information, i.e., the terms and conditions  xof its agreements with third parties, from public inspection, and specifically, from a competitor. We have  x.previously commented on the competitive positions of TU Electric, and its affiliates, and Marcus in the  xprovision of telecommunications services. We have found that TU Electric's attempts to obtain  xMinformation about Marcus' nonvideo customers is anticompetitive behavior motivated by a desire to  xyinterfere with Marcus' relationships with its nonvideo customers. To release the terms and conditions of  xlMarcus' agreements with its customers to the public, and to TU Electric in particular, would only  xdisadvantage Marcus to a greater degree as it attempts to compete with TU Electric and its affiliates in the provision of telecommunications services.  S6- ` x38.` ` Contrary to TU Electric's contentions, we also find that withholding access to the  xagreements from public disclosure does not interfere with the due process requirements of the Constitution" `,_(_(II"  xand the Administrative Procedure Act. We have already found that TU Electric has no basis to require  x.from Marcus its nonvideo customers' names, addresses, and specific locations on Marcus' cable system.  xConsequently, TU Electric has no obvious right to review the even more specific terms of the agreements between Marcus and two of its nonvideo customers.  S8- V. CONCLUSION ă  S- ` x39. ` ` We find that Section 224 empowers the Commission to regulate the rates, terms, and  xconditions of the pole attachment agreement at issue, and that TU Electric's requirements for release from  xMliability by Marcus' customers and disclosure of nonvideo transmissions over Marcus' facilities to be  xunreasonable under Section 224. Therefore, we terminate the unreasonable requirements of Section  x13.1A and Attachments D and E of the pole attachment agreement to the extent indicated herein. We  xalso grant Marcus' request for a declaratory ruling terminating those provisions in all TU Electric pole  xzattachment agreement. We further find that under Section 224 TU Electric's requirement that Marcus  xLprovide information about, and payment for, third party use of Marcus' cables is unreasonable. We also  xfind that Marcus has failed to make a sufficient showing to support its request for actual and punitive  xdamages and, consequently, we deny Marcus' request. Moreover, we find that Marcus has made a  xZsufficient showing to support its request to maintain the confidentiality of the copies of its agreements with  xthird party customers that were submitted in response to a Commission request for additional information.  xTherefore, we grant Marcus' request for confidential treatment of the copies of the two third party agreements it submitted.  S-w VI. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S@- ` x40. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  x\Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Sections 1.2 and  x1.1401 through 1.1416 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2 and 1.1401 through 1.1416, that the  x=complaint of Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. against Texas Utilities Electric Company IS GRANTED to the extent indicated above.  SP- ` x41. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Section 1.1410 of  xthe Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1410, that the request by complainant for actual and punitive damages IS DENIED.  S- ` x42. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications  xAct of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2, that the request for declaratory ruling by complainant IS GRANTED.  S - ` x43. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Section 1.1410(a)  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1410(a), that the requirement that complainant secure the  xcustomer release and indemnification set forth in Section 13.1A and Attachment D of the pole attachment agreement IS TERMINATED, effective upon release of this order.  S%- ` x44. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Section 1.1410(a)"&`,_(_(IIn("  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1410(a), that the requirement that a cable operator secure the  xcustomer release and indemnification set forth in Section 13.1A and Attachment D of the pole attachment  xagreement IS TERMINATED in all TU Electric pole attachment agreements, effective upon release of this order.  S8- ` x45. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Section 1.1410(a)  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1410(a), that the provision contained in Section 13.1A and  xAttachment E of the pole attachment agreement requiring complainant to disclose its provision of nonvideo services IS TERMINATED, effective upon release of this order.  SH - ` x46. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 224 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 224, and Section 1.1410(a)  xof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1410(a), that the provision contained in Section 13.1A and  x\Attachment E of the pole attachment agreement requiring a cable operator to disclose its provision of  xnonvideo services IS TERMINATED in all TU Electric pole attachment agreements, effective upon release of this order.  S0- ` x47. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the  x\Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 403, and Section 0.459 of  xthe Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459, that the request by complainant to withhold from public  xinspection the redacted copy of its agreement with American Communication Services, Inc., as submitted to the Commission during this proceeding, IS GRANTED.  S@- ` x48. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the  x\Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 403, and Section 0.459 of  xthe Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459, that the request by complainant to withhold from public  x[inspection the redacted copy of its agreement with TCG Dallas, as submitted to the Commission during this proceeding, IS GRANTED.  SP- ` x49. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47  xyC.F.R.  1.3, for the purposes of this proceeding, Sections 0.453(n) and 0.455(d), 47 C.F.R.   0.453(n),  x.0.455(d), as to the Marcus agreements with ASCI and TCG Dallas submitted to the Commission during this proceeding, ARE WAIVED.  S- ` x50. ` ` As required by Section 0.459(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459(d), a copy of this ruling has been forwarded to the Commission's Office of General Counsel. p  S - ` x51. ` ` This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  x` `  hh@Meredith J. Jones x` `  hh@Chief, Cable Services Bureau p