WPC& 2MB%RK<3|aTimes 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\HP4Si (PCL); Rm. 700_1; LPT2HPLA4SAD.PRSX\  P6G;\U XPTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2  v pR S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;&P#ф\\\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\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&a\  P6G;0&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2kk_voa6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2ot % BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2  M a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 24dda7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2ft"a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2oca4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2%3 e$=%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:lqJDocument 4Document 4;  Document 6Document 6< Document 5Document 5= Document 2Document 2> 2#P?lK@{KAMBlODocument 7Document 7? Right Par 1Right Par 1@` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2A` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3B 2XCUPDsRETFVRight Par 3Right Par 3C` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4D` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5E` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6F` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2aGXH[I(;]J$c_Right Par 7Right Par 7G` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8H` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1I` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5J` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2fK$aLlcMlIdN$dTechnical 6Technical 6K` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2L Technical 3Technical 3M Technical 4Technical 4N` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2/lOl gP$wgQ$iRpkTechnical 1Technical 1O Technical 7Technical 7P` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8Q` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3ER/0` ` ` 2/nSqalTelUe7mVm23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3ES1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3ET 34 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3EU 56 5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3EV*78   2pWpanXnYcoZo6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3EW9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EX8;<@   8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EYA=>@` `  ` ` ` 9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3EZ0? @    2s[p\iq]r^r10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E[JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\SCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E]\EF` `  @hh# hhh 13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E^eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 2v_s`taVubv14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E_nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E`wKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EaFMN *  ׃  173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Eb&OP  . 2ycvdLwewf}x183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ec&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ed*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ee'UV   213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Ef&WX   2|gCyhyixzjz223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eg4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Eh&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ei&]^  . CitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ejx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #2k|l}mm2nFormat Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EkUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3El'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Emeffootnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3En'gh#FxX  P CXP#2?omPpqPrm҉headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Eoi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Ep;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Eq*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#header2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Ero p`    #FxX  PCXP# 2sbqtSӌup&vqheading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Esqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Etst!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gu` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gv  . 2we9xeyzpDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz  ` ` ` 2{8|ʑ}e~Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g{8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g|A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g}0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g~J` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2Г}3Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  2wRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . 2(OxTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     2Zߜd}%Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#Paragraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$ab 26Ԟ\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` ` `  Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh 2"hۢ}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 25S&CMC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)CG -2( -Ct )$ 2Tܤo 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` ` `  29S&CQC^f1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )P` ` ` hhh 2[%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 Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#2Ӭ%ǫv]_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#heading 4heading 4 2ݮvv{vvgheading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 heading 8heading 8 2Ͳvvendnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#HeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  2d3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2 ޵1v11ظDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL 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   21;nlڻd[LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeB*d. 2j[Ez-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  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   288VX/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$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle2%[[[o[SMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge TypestyleEXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle2[Wd5lVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E ._Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 27da12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  a42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  2\$a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2;b'l( ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2$mlj Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C :\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# 2}l#A_ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2ul ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#,,0kjH 2Z.1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  2g&a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2 qa81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  TitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#2,m](rNotesTrianglee NotesH('0\F H rW?I Works CitedWorks Cited PageH('0\F H rW?I 99         Page TitlePage Title PageH('0\F H rW?I #  `  a2Agenda2^rba1AgendaAgenda Items7D yP ) I. a3AgendaStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO 2GlStyle 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 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn 2|y5Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 PointStyle 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO 2m{ 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 Sys HeadlinenHeading for internal papersql + WITNESS.STYIN WITNESS WHEREOF*Cqw  ` IN WITNESS WHEREOF,1H-ART.STYARTICLES IAD?qw )ARTICLE Iă  ` 2 KK) Kt K"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7\W{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XXDq Co> PfQ  dddd  2&\h K ^R"y.X80,X\  P6G;P2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP"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\y.X80,X\  P6G;P2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,%&_*f9 xr G;&X PCancel2/KNK"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{2& S- X    S-  Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 981307 ă  yxdddy  $| Ԋ $| P3 #&a\  P6G;&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In re:R) R)  S-Complaint of WRNNTV AssociatesR)hppCSR4774M Limited Partnership against CablevisionR) Systems CorporationR) R) Request for CarriageR)  S -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TP  S -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Cablevision's petition for reconsideration was denied, we do not address the arguments relating to its pendency.  S - 1 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ă  S - ` ox4.` ` In its complaint, WRNN argues that Cablevision has failed to commence carriage of the  xStation on five of its cable systems as required by Section 614 of the Communications Act and Section  S0- x76.56 of the Commission's rules.n0(] yO#-ԍCommunications Act  614, 47 U.S.C.  534; 47 C.F.R.  76.56.n WRNN contends that carriage of the Station is also mandated by the  S- xCable Services Bureau's Cablevision Systems Corporation ("Cablevision Systems") order which denied  xMCablevision's request to delete 37 communities, served by Cablevision's five systems, from WRNN's"b,`(`(88"  S- xADI.p(] {Oh-ԍSee Cablevision Systems Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd 6453 (1996).p WRNN states that in denying Cablevision's market modification request, the Bureau instructed  xWRNN to notify Cablevision of its carriage and channel position elections within 30 days of May 31,  S- x.1996.> Z(] {O-ԍId. at para. 70.> WRNN states that the Bureau's order further directed Cablevision to come into compliance with  S- x the applicable rules within 60 days of receipt of such notification.3 (] {O-ԍId. 3 WRNN argues that Cablevision  xdisregarded the Bureau's directives. WRNN asserts that it notified Cablevision of its carriage and channel  S8- xposition elections on May 31, 1996, the release date of the Cablevision Systems order. 8~(] {OV - xԍSee Letter from Ann K. Ford, counsel for WRNN, to Robert S. Lemle, counsel for Cablevision, dated May 31, 1996 and attached as Exhibit 2 to WRNN's complaint. WRNN argues  x.that, as a consequence, Cablevision was legally bound to begin carriage of WRNN on all five systems no  xMlater than July 30, 1996. WRNN states that in response to its notification, Cablevision asserted that  xWRNN may not be entitled to carriage because, according to Cablevision's engineering showing, the  xStation failed to deliver a good quality signal to the systems' headends. WRNN states that, in addition,  xon June 25, 1996, Cablevision's counsel called to inform the Station that it planned on filing a petition  SJ - xfor reconsideration of the Cablevision Systems order and that it did not intend to carry WRNN unless and  xLuntil its petition for reconsideration was denied. WRNN asserts that it regarded Cablevision's statement as an affirmative denial of carriage thereby triggering the instant complaint.  S - ` nx5.` ` WRNN argues that it is entitled to carriage on Cablevision's systems for a number reasons.  S - xFirst, WRNN states that it is located in the same ADI as the five cable systems at issue.  (] yO- xiԍWRNN contends that the Bureau's refusal to exclude any of the 37 communities served by Cablevision from the Station's ADI reaffirms the Station's right to carriage on Cablevision's five systems. Second, WRNN  xmaintains that it can deliver a good quality signal to Cablevision's principal headends through the use of  S4- xfiber optic lines and microwave relays, or by translator and that it will bear the costs of such delivery. x40 (] yO- xԍWRNN claims, however, that Cablevision has ignored the Station's efforts to coordinate any method of signal  xdelivery and has frustrated the Station's attempts to gain access to Cablevision's facilities. WRNN states that it  x;currently delivers a superior, reliable signal via fiber optic or LPTV translator to the following New York ADI cable  xsystems: Adelphia Cable (Tom's River, NJ); TKR Cable (Piscataway, NJ); Comcast Suburban (Verona, NJ);  xxTKR/Sammons Cable (Dover, NJ); U.S. Cable (Paterson, NJ); TCI Cable (Oakland, NJ); FutureVision; TKR Cable  x,(Nyack, NY); TCI Cable (Mamaroneck, NY); Paragon Cable (Mt. Vernon, NY); Continental Cablevision (Ossining, NY); Comcast Cablevision (Danbury, CT); and Charter Communications (Newtown, CT).   xThird, WRNN asserts that its carriage would not trigger any additional copyright liability. Fourth, the  xStation states that it does not duplicate the programming of other stations carried on the five systems.  x>Fifth, WRNN asserts that none of the systems in question has allocated up to onethird of its usable  xkchannel capacity for mustcarry channels. In addition, WRNN requests that the Commission impose sanctions on Cablevision for failing to comply with mustcarry requirements. "Dp ,`(`(88r"Ԍ S- ` x6. ` ` In opposition, Cablevision argues that it has not disregarded the Bureau's directive in  S- x=Cablevision Systems,p(] {O@-ԍSee Cablevision Systems Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd 6453 (1996).p but has legitimately exercised its rights under the Commission's mustcarry rules.  xCablevision contends that, contrary to WRNN's assertions, the Bureau's order does not automatically  xobligate Cablevision to commence carriage of WRNN on its systems. Rather, Cablevision argues, carriage  x]is required only on the condition that WRNN meet the Commission's signal quality requirements.  xCablevision claims that it surveyed WRNN's signal at each of the relevant headends, determined the signal  S- xyquality was deficient, and promptly notified the Station.Z(] {O - xMԍSee Letters to Ann K. Ford, counsel to WRNN, from the General Managers of Cablevision's Bergen, Westchester, and Fairfield cable systems, dated June 19, 1996, at Exhibit 1 to Cablevision's opposition. Cablevision contends that it refused WRNN's carriage request on a basis consistent with Cablevision's rights under the Commission's rules.  S- ` x7.` ` In reply, WRNN states that Cablevision's continued refusal to carry WRNN is unlawful.  Sr- xWRNN reiterates that Cablevision was required to carry the station as a result of the Cablevision Systems  SL - x\decision.pL (] {O-ԍSee Cablevision Systems Corporation, 11 FCC Rcd 6453 (1996).p WRNN argues that it perfected its carriage rights by establishing that it can deliver a good  xquality signal to Cablevision's headends via fiber optic lines and microwave relays, or by translator.  x=WRNN asserts that it provides a good quality signal to systems throughout the New York ADI through  xOsimilar means and that it will be responsible for the costs of delivering a good quality signal to  xjCablevision's headends. The Station argues that its lack of overtheair signal has no effect on its carriage  xrights. WRNN requests that the Commission grant its complaint to facilitate carriage on Cablevision's  xsystems. WRNN contends that despite mustcarry rules which require Cablevision to cooperate with the  xStation to provide a good quality signal, Cablevision has refused to assist WRNN in coordinating signal  xdelivery. Specifically, WRNN states that Cablevision has frustrated the Station's attempts to gain access  x=to Cablevision's facilities. WRNN claims that such access is necessary to conduct an engineering survey  x in order for the Station to complete the requisite steps to guarantee delivery of a good quality signal. WRNN reiterates its request that the Commission impose sanctions against Cablevision for its conduct.  SD- ` x8.` ` Following WRNN's reply, the parties filed a series of supplemental letters. In an  x\August $| Ԡ $| 28, 1997 letter, WRNN informed the Cable Services Bureau that Cablevision had commenced  S- xLcarriage of the Station on four of the five cable systems originally cited in its complaint.F(] yO- xԍLetter dated August 28, 1997 from Theodore N. Stern, attorney for WRNN, to Meredith Jones, Chief, Cable Services Bureau, at n.1. WRNN states  x that the only system on which WRNN still seeks carriage is Cablevision of Westchester/Cablevision  S- xSystems Westchester Corp. serving Yonkers, New York (the "Yonkers System").1(] {O!-ԍId.1 In its August 28th  xletter, WRNN also states that on August 14, 1997, WRNN personnel, an independent radio engineering  xconsultant, and Cablevision personnel conducted a signal test of WRNN's signal at the system headend  S,- xLin the Bronx, which serves viewers in Yonkers.,0 (] yO%- xjԍWRNN submits a copy of the signal test conducted on August 14, 1997 at the Yonkers System principal headend. WRNN asserts that it demonstrated delivery of a good", ,`(`(88"  xquality signal to the headend by delivering a signal well within the Commission's requirements set forth  S- xin Section 76.55(c)(3) of the Commission's rules.C(] yO@-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.55(c)(3).C WRNN states that it confirmed the test results in a  xletter to Cablevision which also requested notification from Cablevision of the Station's launch date and  xchannel position. According to WRNN, Cablevision responded with a letter stating that it did not believe  xzthat the Station had satisfied the Commission's requirements for delivery of a good quality signal and, therefore, was not entitled to carriage.  S- ` ox9.` ` In a September 30, 1997 letter, Cablevision argues that WRNN has not yet satisfied its  S- xkthreshold obligation of delivering a good quality signal to the Yonkers System headend.X(] yO - xԍLetter from Christopher A. Holt, counsel for Cablevision, to Meredith Jones, Chief, Cable Services Bureau, dated September 30, 1997. Cablevision  xlexplains that, in view of the August 14, 1997 signal tests, it does not dispute that, with the use of  xLspecialized amplification equipment, WRNN is now able to deliver a signal that meets the Commission's  xminimum strength requirements. Cablevision argues, however, that because the use of amplification  xequipment adversely affects the Station's picture quality, WRNN has not satisfied its obligation to deliver  xa good quality signal. Cablevision attaches a copy of an August 25, 1997 letter from Cablevision to  xkWRNN indicating that Cablevision's engineer observed problems with the Station's picture during the  S - xAugust 14 signal test. (] {O-ԍSee Exhibit 13 to September 30, 1997 letter from Christopher A. Holt to Meredith Jones. According to Cablevision, its engineer observed that when the picture was viewed  xon a monitor at Cablevision's headend, there was significant background static, a constant cluster of  x=horizontal lines, and intermittent interference causing temporary loss of the picture. Cablevision further  xstates that it took carriertonoise ("C/N") measurements on August 22, 1997 which indicated that  S- xWRNN's C/N ratio was well below that which Cablevision ordinarily requires from offair signals.B(] yO- xԍCablevision states that WRNN's C/N ratio was 51.9 dB as compared to a C/N ratio of 5759 dB which Cablevision ordinarily requires.  x[Cablevision asserts that it also took signaltonoise ("S/N") measurements which indicated that WRNN's  xyS/N ratio was lower than that of two other New York UHF stations and below the poorest quality signal  S- xcurrently carried on the system. (] yO- xJԍIn a report, attached as Exhibit 16 to Cablevision's September 30, 1997 letter, Cablevision states that WRNN's  x<S/N ratio was 41.5 dB while two other New York UHF stations, Channel 31 and Channel 21, were found to have  x-S/N ratios of 54.8 dB and 51.0 dB, respectively. Cablevision states that Channel 21 is the poorest quality signal regularly carried on the system and that WRNN's S/N ratio of 41.5 dB is nearly 10 dB below that of Channel 21. Cablevision argues that the S/N ratio of a signal is important to picture  xquality. Cablevision states that it does not believe that carriage of WRNN's signal with an S/N ratio of  x.41.5 dB would comport with good engineering practices. Cablevision claims that according to standards  xpublished in the National Cable Television Association's ("NCTA") Recommended Practices for  S- xMeasurements on Cable Television Systems, a station's S/N ratio should be greater than or equal to 53  S-dB.Z (] {O$- xԍSee relevant NCTA standards at Exhibit 16 to Cablevision's September 30, 1997 letter. Cablevision also  xincludes an excerpt from the Operation and Application Manual for the CATV Video Signal Analyzer that Cablevision used to assess WRNN's signal which cites NCTA's recommended standards regarding the S/N ratio. ",`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` x10.` ` In its September 30, 1997 letter, Cablevision also argues that if the Yonkers System were  xrequired to carry WRNN's signal in its present condition, the New York State Public Service Commission  S- x("NYSPSC") would deem the picture quality unacceptable for carriage.X(] yO- xwԍCablevision explains that inspectors from the NYSPSC periodically evaluate the signals received at the system's  xheadend for issues relating to picture quality. Cablevision states that, to the best of its knowledge, the NYSPSC employs a subjective standard based on an evaluation of the signal at the principal headend. Cablevision asserts that while  xit is willing to cooperate with the Station's efforts to provide a good quality signal, it should not be placed  xin the position of having to carry a signal that does not meet local standards. Cablevision explains that,  xin an effort to address the signal quality problem, it invited the NYSPSC to inspect WRNN's signal to  xprovide an independent evaluation of the picture quality. Cablevision proposed in its letter to the  xCommission that if the NYSPSC finds the picture quality acceptable, Cablevision should begin carriage  xof WRNN on the Yonkers System, but if the NYSPSC determines that WRNN's picture quality is not  xacceptable then Cablevision should not be required to carry the signal until the Station makes whatever  Sp-improvements might be necessary to deliver a picture acceptable to the NYSPSC.p(] yO - xԍOn October 21, 1997, Cablevision filed with the Commission a copy of a letter it sent to the State of New York Department of Public Service inviting the organization to assess the signal quality of WRNN.  S - ` Px11.` ` In a November 3, 1997 letter, WRNN disputes Cablevision's claims regarding the Station's  xC/N ratio. WRNN argues that its C/N ratio exceeds the C/N level required by the Commission and that  x\Cablevision's selfserving C/N ratio standards are irrelevant in determining whether WRNN delivers a  S - xMgood quality signal.  @(] yO- xxԍWRNN states that while Cablevision may claim that it requires a C/N ratio of 5759 dB from offair signals,  xthe Commission requires a cable system to meet a C/N ratio of not less than 43 dB on its distribution plant. 47  xC.F.R.  76.605(a)(7). WRNN contends that its C/N ratio of 51.9 dB exceeds the Commission's required C/N level by 8.9 dB. In response to Cablevision's allegations regarding background static, horizontal  xlines, and intermittent interference in WRNN's signal, the Station submits a videotape of WRNN's  xprogramming allegedly carried on Cablevision's Yonkers System on the evening of September 23, 1997.  xWRNN contends that a review of the tape demonstrates that WRNN's broadcast did not exhibit any of  xlthe picture quality problems alleged by Cablevision. As to the S/N levels, WRNN argues that the  xCommission has not established minimum S/N ratios and that Cablevision fails to demonstrate why the  xNYSPSC's subjective standard or NCTA's recommended practices are relevant to a determination of  S- xwhether a broadcast station should be entitled to enjoy its federally established right to carriage.b( (] {OX-ԍSee Communications Act  614, 47 U.S.C.  534.b WRNN  xstates that Cablevision's attempt to tie federallymandated mustcarry rights to the subjective standards  x>established by a state regulatory agency should be dismissed on the grounds of preemption. WRNN  S- xasserts that it strongly objects to the involvement of the NYSPSC in this proceeding.  (] yOr"- xԍWRNN submits to the Commission a copy of a letter it sent to the State of New York Department of Public  x;Service on November 5, 1997 objecting to that organization's involvement in this proceeding. In its letter, WRNN  xstates that it understands that a signal quality test has already taken place despite the fact that WRNN did not consent to the test and that no WRNN personnel were present. WRNN further  x argues that Cablevision does not cite any precedent supporting its contention that such independent standards should be applied in this case. ",`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` x12.` ` In a November 10, 1997 letter, Cablevision informs the Commission that on October 24,  S- x1997, inspectors from the NYSPSC conducted an assessment of the picture quality of WRNN as delivered  xto the headend of the Yonkers cable system. Cablevision encloses a copy of the NYSPSC report and a  x.letter summarizing the results of that report. The report finds that the "signal and picture quality of the  xLreceived signal is very poor" and that the "quality of this signal is significantly poorer than that seen and  S8- xexpected on cable television systems."8(] yO- xԍNew York State Department of Public Service, Video and Broadband Systems, Interoffice Memorandum from Joseph M. Baniak to Chad Hume and Dan Whelan, dated October 27, 1997. A followup letter from NYSPSC states that the system's current  xreception of WRNN "seems to be of marginal quality at best" and is "substantially below that of other  S-signals carried on this system."  (] yO - x,ԍLetter from Daniel W. Whelan, Chief, Video and Broadband Section, State of New York Department of Public Service, to Ed Gregory, Director of Engineering, Cablevision of Westchester, dated November 6, 1997.  S- `  x13.` ` In a January 15, 1998 letter, Cablevision argues that the videotape submitted by WRNN  xis not a reliable indicator of the Station's signal quality and that the Commission should, instead, rely on  xthe NYSPSC report in making a decision. Cablevision contends that the tape was created by a WRNN  xemployee, while the NYSPSC report was prepared by an "independent, unbiased" state regulatory agency  xwith a mandate to insure that cable consumers are delivered an acceptable picture. Cablevision asserts  xthat the manner in which WRNN's programming was recorded is questionable. Cablevision argues that  xno information was provided about the quality of the video machine, such as when it was last cleaned.  xCablevision also contends that recordation often fails to capture picture effects otherwise noticeable to  xthe naked eye. Cablevision notes that the Commission has itself stated that it would generally not consider  xvideotape to establish the presence or absence of a good quality signal for mustcarry purposes because  xthe videotaping, video playback equipment, and television receiver may interject impairments which could  S- xmake it difficult to judge whether the tape accurately represents the station's signal.!x(] {O- x,ԍCablevision cites Complaint of Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 6319 (1993) and  {O-Complaint of Michigan State University, 10 FCC Rcd 7 (1994). Cablevision admits  xNthat WRNN's videotape does not show the defects observed by Cablevision's engineers or by the  xNYSPSC. But Cablevision argues that the NYSPSC has no reason to evidence any bias in favor of  xCablevision. Cablevision further states that WRNN was advised of Cablevision's invitation to the  xlNYSPSC to conduct a signal quality inspection but failed to express interest in observing the test.  xCablevision asserts that it is not arguing that state signal quality standards should dictate the Commission's  xstandards for what constitutes a good quality signal, but only that WRNN's failure to meet the NYSPSC's  xystandards is relevant in judging whether WRNN has met its federally established burden to deliver a good  xquality signal. Finally, Cablevision states that numerous alternatives are available to WRNN for delivering  x\a good quality signal, such as direct delivery by microwave of fiber optic link, and that Cablevision is ready to cooperate in such delivery.  S- ` x14.` ` In a January 20, 1998 letter, WRNN argues that the videotape of its signal demonstrates  xthat Cablevision's allegations of deficient signal quality are not supported by the evidence. WRNN argues  x[that while a videotape may result in a lessening of the picture quality, the fact that the defects alleged by  xCablevision are not present on the tape and that the true picture quality of WRNN's signal may be even  xbetter than depicted on the tape only strengthen WRNN's position. WRNN asserts that the Commission,"`!,`(`(88"  S- xin the past, has considered videotape evidence in a mustcarry case."(] {Oh- xԍIn support of this assertion, WRNN cites Complaint of the Post Company Against TCI Cablevision of Wyoming,  {O2-Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 4054, 4055 at para. 7 (1996). Although Cablevision states that  xzWRNN failed to express interest in the NYSPSC tests, WRNN suggests, without elaboration, that its  S-requests to take part in the testing were not accepted.D#Z$(] yOt- xԍCablevision also references a subsequent effort to work with the NYSPSC to resolve WRNN's complaint to  {O<- xwhich the Station did not agree.  See Letter to Ron Parver, FCC, from Frank W. Lloyd, counsel to Cablevision, dated April 22, 1998.D  S-  S`-% DISCUSSION  S- ` $x15.` ` The sole issue in contention in this case is the picture quality of WRNN's signal when  xcarried on Cablevision's Yonkers System. It is undisputed that WRNN meets the Commission's signal  xstrength requirements and that, but for the issue of picture quality, WRNN is entitled to carriage on the  x\Yonkers System. The Commission does not have picture quality standards for broadcast mustcarry  xstations other than its signal strength requirements. The presumption is that satisfaction of the  SH - xCommission's signal strength requirements will produce a good quality signal.K$H F(] {O.-ԍSee Must Carry Order at 2990.K Signal strength, however,  xyis only one element of picture quality determination. There are some instances where amplifying a signal  x=in order to obtain the required signal strength does not produce a satisfactory picture but, rather, simply  xresults in an amplification of signal defects. When picture quality is at issue in mustcarry proceedings,  xthe Commission must weigh the evidence presented by the parties to the case, but the burden of proof lies  xwith the cable operator alleging poor quality. Cablevision has the burden of proving that WRNN is not  x>entitled to carriage because it does not deliver a quality picture. We find that Cablevision has met its  xburden. Cablevision has presented evidence concerning WRNN's S/N ratio as well as a separate but  xcorroborating report prepared by the NYSPSC on WRNN's signal quality which, taken together, persuade  xkus that WRNN does not deliver a good quality signal to the Yonkers System headend. We, therefore, deny WRNN's mustcarry complaint.  Sh- ` x16.` ` The Commission's signal strength rules require that a television broadcast station deliver  S@- x.to the cable operator's principal headend a signal level of 45 dBm for UHF signals.B%@(] yO-ԍ47 C.F.R  76.55(c)(3).B In a signal strength  xtest conducted by the parties and an independent consultant on August 14, 1997, WRNN delivered to the  x=Yonkers System headend a visual carrier signal level of 25.5 dBm which is well within the Commission's  xrequirements. Cablevision does not dispute that WRNN delivers a sufficiently strong signal to the  xprincipal headend. Cablevision argues, however, that the amplification equipment used to deliver such a signal adversely affects the Station's picture quality.  S(- ` x17.` ` In support of its assertion of poor picture quality, Cablevision presents evidence of  xWRNN's signaltonoise or S/N level. The Commission has specifically stated that in cases where a  S- x]broadcaster meets the signal strength requirements, yet there is a dispute over picture quality, the"h %,`(`(88="  S- x{Commission would "consider all relevant technical issues, including the signaltonoise ratio."H&(] {Oh-ԍ Must Carry Order at 2990.H A  xLstation's S/N ratio is a ratio of the desired signal to the level of noise present in the signal. Noise present  x]in a signal adversely affects picture quality. The lower the S/N level, the greater the noise level as  S- xcompared to the video signal level, and the poorer the picture quality. Cablevision contends that WRNN's  xS/N ratio of 41.5 dBm is below the poorest quality signal regularly carried on its system. Cablevision  xadditionally argues that WRNN's S/N level is below the relevant standards published in NCTA's  xRecommended Practices for Measurements on Cable Television Systems ("NCTA's Recommended  xPractices") which indicate that a station's S/N ratio should be greater than or equal to 53 dBm when  xyreceived at the headend. Cablevision submits an excerpt from the Operation and Application Manual for  x>the CATV Video Analyzer that Cablevision used to assess WRNN's signal which also cites NCTA's  xRecommended Practices in reference to the S/N ratio. WRNN does not dispute the 41.5 dBm S/N level  x.calculated by Cablevision nor does it object to the procedures used to obtain that measurement. Rather,  xzWRNN argues that there is no precedent supporting the use of independent S/N standards. As noted  xyabove, the Commission has stated that it would consider S/N ratios when picture quality is at issue. The  xNCommission has not specifically established minimum S/N ratios. It has, however, used NCTA's  S - xRecommended Practices in the past in developing cable signal quality standardsN' Z(] {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.609(e) and (j).N and we see no reason  S - xwhy taking into consideration NCTA's S/N standards would be inappropriate here.( (] yO - xhԍWe note that NCTA's S/N standards were established prior to the enactment of federal mustcarry requirements and apply equally to all signals received by a cable system, not just to broadcast signals. Applying these  xstandards, we find that WRNN's S/N ratio is significantly below the recommended level. WRNN's S/N  xratio of 41.5 dBm is a full 11.5 dB below the 53 dBm recommended level. In view of the large  xdifferential between NCTA's recommended S/N level and WRNN's actual S/N level, we believe that WRNN's S/N ratio may be indicative of poor picture quality.  S- ` x18.` ` We conclude that WRNN's S/N level, combined with the results of a picture quality  xevaluation conducted by the NYSPSC, an independent state agency, persuade us that WRNN does not  xdeliver a good quality signal to the Yonkers System headend. Regarding Cablevision's reception of  xWRNN, the NYSPSC found that "[o]verall, the signal and picture quality of the received signal is very  S- xjpoor," and that the signal "exhibited moderate to severe levels of interference."<)ZD(] {O- xhԍSee State of New York Department of Public Service Interoffice Memorandum from Joseph M. Baniak to Chad  x Hume and Dan Whelan, dated October 27, 1997, attached to November 10, 1997 letter from Frank W. Lloyd, counsel to Cablevision, to FCC.< A followup letter from  xthe NYSPSC states that the signal is "experiencing some unidentified interference which... yields visible  S- ximpairments."%*Zf (] {O"- xԍSee State of New York Department of Public Service letter from Dan Whelan to Ed Gregory, Cablevision,  xdated November 6, 1997, attached to November 10, 1997 letter from Frank W. Lloyd, counsel to Cablevision, to FCC.% We do not believe that the NYSPSC has any reason to favor Cablevision in this  xproceeding and regard the agency's report as an unbiased and objective assessment. In addition, the  xNYSPSC is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that consumers in the state receive quality cable  xservice and the NYSPSC periodically evaluates the signals received at a system's headend for issues  xrelating to picture quality. Our consideration of the NYSPSC report in this case is not intended to" *,`(`(88k"  xsupplant Commission standards for what constitutes a good quality signal in favor of state standards. We  S- xsimply believe that, in this particular instance, the NYSPSC report is relevant evidence that, combined with the S/N level, demonstrates that WRNN fails to deliver a quality picture to the relevant headend.  S`- ` x19.` ` WRNN submits a videotape of its programming to refute allegations of poor picture  xquality. Balanced against the NYSPSC report and WRNN's low S/N levels, however, the videotape  x-evidence is not persuasive. The tape was taken by WRNN personnel, without the involvement of a neutral  xthird party. In addition, WRNN has not provided information concerning the conditions under which  x[Cablevision was carrying WRNN's signal at the time the tape was made, including, in particular, whether  xthe picture quality performance reflected was typical or atypical in terms of the types of noise interference  xCablevision measured. As to the issue of carriertonoise or C/N level, WRNN's assertion that it meets  x|the Commission's C/N requirements based on measurements taken by Cablevision is incorrect.  x.Cablevision's measurements of WRNN's C/N level were taken at the input of the distribution plant (i.e.,  xthe headend). The rules require that C/N measurements be taken at the output of the distribution plant  x(i.e., subscriber terminals) in order to limit noise added by the cable plant, a different issue from the  S - xmatter in dispute here.I+ (] {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 76.605(a)(7).I Therefore, WRNN's C/N level, as measured by Cablevision, cannot be accurately compared to the Commission's C/N levels.  S0- ` Qx20.` ` Finally, we deny WRNN's request to impose sanctions on Cablevision. Cablevision is  xnot required to carry a station that does not deliver a good quality signal to its headend. Various  xalternatives are available to WRNN to deliver a good quality signal such as direct microwave or fiber optic  xlink, which the Station had previously indicated it was prepared to provide. The record indicates that  xCablevision currently carries the Station on four of the five cable systems at issue in WRNN's complaint.  x=Cooperation between the parties should ensure carriage of WRNN on the Yonkers System. Based upon  xthe record, we do not believe that Cablevision's failure to carry WRNN during the pendency of this proceeding violated the Commission's rules.  S- 1 ORDERING CLAUSES ă  Sx- ` x21. ` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 614 of the Communications Act of  x-1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, that the complaint filed by WRNNTV Associates Limited Partnership,  S(-licensee of television broadcast station WRNNTV (Channel 62), Kingston, New York, Inc. IS DENIED.  S-  S- ` Bx22. ` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Gary M. Laden, Chief x` `  hh@Consumer Protection and Competition Division x` `  hh@Cable Services Bureau "H$ Z+,`(`(88%"  S-1 APPENDIX 1) Cablevision of Connecticut xNorwalk, Connecticut xGreenwich, Connecticut xStandord, Connecticut xDarien, Connecticut xNew Canaan, Connecticut xWilton, Connecticut xEaston, Connecticut xWestport, Connecticut xWeston, Connecticut xRedding, Connecticut 2) Cablevision Systems of Southern Connecticut, L.P. xBridgeport, Connecticut xFairfield, Connecticut xStratford, Connecticut 3) Cablevision of New Jersey xBergenfield, New Jersey xNew Milford, New Jersey xDumont, New Jersey xCresskill, New Jersey xTenafly, New Jersey xDemarest, New Jersey xOradell, New Jersey xParamus, New Jersey xEmerson, New Jersey xCloster, New Jersey xOld Tappan, New Jersey xHarrington Park, New Jersey xNorwood, New Jersey xConnecticut, New Jersey xNorthvale, New Jersey xFair Lawn, New Jersey xWoodcliff Lake, New Jersey xHillsdale, New Jersey xRiver Vale, New Jersey xSaddle River, New Jersey xRockleigh, New Jersey " % +,`(`(88&"Ԍ`4) Cablevision of Westchester/Cablevision Systems Westchester Corp. (Yonkers System) xCity of Yonkers, New York ` 5) AR Cable ServicesNY, Inc. xVillage of Portchester, New York xTown of Harrison, New York xVillage of Harrison New York