WPC: 2B3X Z3|J (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSSDeidra's printerDESPRINT.WRSX\  P6G;,,,&YP2: *4RD3|m Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)W&sP"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k2'l k vCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Bookshelf Symbol 3 (TT)XP\  P6QXP.2J=.Xw&J\  P6Q&Pl2N=.X&N4  pQ&dddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~dddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCC/NdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhddCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L S* I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;XP##&a\  P6G;w&P#a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 28pMkk(a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  2vjtT a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2  j  a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2-"T -!a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2$_"/##=$a1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2'%%j&,'a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 2.'3j()e-a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:>*lx7+7,:- <Document 3Document 3* Right Par 3Right Par 3+` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4,` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2F.p>/@0B1(DRight Par 6Right Par 6.` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7/` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 80` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2DL2$$G3$HI4llK5lKTechnical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 Technical 3Technical 35 2NS6$vL7lN8$O9$*QTechnical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2[:S;U<W=Ytoc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2b>*\?H^@vf`A`toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2kB,cCJeDhgEitoc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2mFvkGlLlHrlI*mcaptioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #2pJ}mKXnLnMsoa1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  2)sNCpOpPqQ_ra5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq 2uRp[sSqsTe@` `  ` ` ` 26zZw[/x\x]y9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3EZ0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E[JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\SCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E]\EF` `  @hh# hhh 2z}^hz_'{`{a|13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E^eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E_nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E`wKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EaFMN *  ׃  2b}c1~d~eR173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Eb&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ec&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ed*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ee'UV   2gfgh]i213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Ef&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eg4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Eh&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ei&]^  . 2 jkilmmCitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ejx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3EkUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3El'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Emef2<n;omp'qfootnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3En'gh#FxX  P CXP#headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Eoi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Ep;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Eq*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2rmnsbےtS=upheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Ero p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Esqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Etst!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gu` ` ` 2vq2wexeymDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gv  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy*    2dzp2{|4}ϙDocument[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g{8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g|A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g}0     2\~:Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g~J` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2fV'Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . 2NTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . Technical[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&)*   2ģIΤTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2}>ƦYParagraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$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)ҨEParagraph[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 2w}AF٬25S&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` ` `  2Rů29S&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 2dz]1Default ParaC^fDefault Paragraph Font2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#_Equation CaC^f_Equation CaptionF2CC -2( -Ct );;#PP##PP#endnote refeC^fendnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>>#PP##PP#footnote refC^ffootnote referenceF2CC -2( -Ct )>#PP#2ѵvvovv[heading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vvyveheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2idHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. 2B3H11DRAFT 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 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   21t1nDLETTER 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   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 2)dj[EHIGHLIGHT 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-[88MEMORANDUMMemo 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$0 **(  ӧ XX 24X[#[~[NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[f[dEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E .2rl53_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2Qa42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2}bl_a82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2($lbly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# 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 2jl!:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# 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 (#2s7U: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,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 (#2lZk,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2na31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 2[qa71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2$mZTitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$X# #Z*f9 x%X#NotesTrianglee 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 #  `  2wV Hanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=eegIjg\\j.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\N\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNm\QQ====psfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"5^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=eeiIji\\j.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\fN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNm\\\====pzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"5^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777nnnnOOO7OOnOOnnnOOO1OOOO1OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO%OOO%OOO%OOO%OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCE=C=I1E+G1Q7O1%M1I=d=Q1I7O1OC?7C77E1O1ICO=VCCCOEQ%7OOOC1CCCC%%7777OQ777OOOC%?71%nnr}c3wc}}yMMc>Bwgwgcccccc@XKKgg;;c\\\{I\waaIZQQOMXacccujygggpeyuVrQjQcccc3Qlc@uuccc;;ccccccccccccccccccccccnnnnnnnn#3#cccccj3cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrnnnnnnnnnnXXccccccllccVVVVuuccaaaaccZZuZVVVV5*FVcc2q4Zc %1.y.C8*X?C\  P6QP.7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.2J=.Xw&J\  P6Q&Pl2N=.X&N4  pQ&.P,%XJ,\  P6QJP.I(!X,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3FC*f9 xQXddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8dYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYY"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\ S' X   ( S' #&a\  P6G;w&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#kDA 99891 ă   yxdddy (ЊQb #&a\  P6G;w&P#Before the Federal Communications Commission  S'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matters of#&a\  P6G;w&P#) )  S'FALCON FIRST COMMUNICATIONS, L.P.)File No. CSBA0296  S')File No. CSBA0334  S'Appeals of Local Rate Orders )File No. CSBA0351  S'of Whitfield County, Georgia)File No. CSBA0466  Sp')CUID GA0317  S '  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  S 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:;S {O."'ԍId.1  x"A service contract for the maintenance and repair of equipment is not comparable to an asneeded  xDmaintenance fee based on a regulated HSC. A maintenance agreement is similar to an insurance contract.  xIt is designed to protect subscribers from incurring essentially unquantifiable costs for service provided"l <>,`(`(88 "  S' xon an asneeded basis..?";S yOh' x ԍAlthough the future maintenance and repair costs for an individual subscriber may be unquantifiable, cable  x* operators can use historical data to quantify the aggregate maintenance and repair costs likely to be incurred on  x behalf of all subscribers. Operators are required to quantify these historical costs in deriving the lease rate for  {O'customer equipment. See, e.g., Form 1205, General Instructions and Instructions for Schedule C.. Subscriber purchase of equipment, in contrast, is a close substitute for a lease  xMrate. By multiplying the lease rate by the number of months the subscriber plans to use the equipment  xin question and comparing the result to the sales price and the estimated life of the equipment, the  xsubscriber can readily ascertain the relative costs and benefits of leasing versus purchasing the equipment.  xComparing the relative costs and benefits of purchasing an inside wiring maintenance plan versus relying  xkon the HSC is a difficult, if not amorphous, task. The analysis requires a subscriber to make assumptions  xabout future events that even the cable operator may be unable to predict reliably for a particular  xsubscriber, such as the capability of the wire to withstand a number of elements. The two forms of  xmaintenance service are not comparable. It cannot be said that a regulated, HSCbased charge parallels  S' xthe unregulated inside wiring maintenance plan. Furthermore, equipment rates are to be costbased.A@;S yO 'ԍ47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).A  xFalcon does not argue that its maintenance plan is, and is intended to be, based on the actual cost of the  xkservice. Nor has Falcon shown how competitive pressures from the service alternatives it references will ensure that an inside wiring maintenance plan will be offered in compliance with the statutory standard.  S ' e #32.` ` Our costbased formula for equipment rates, which includes a reasonable profit, results  S ' xin rates that are "comparable to those that would exist in a competitive environment."A B;S {O' x ԍFirst Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1188; see id. at 119192 (same); id. at 1192 n.80 ("A competitive rate is generally one that reflects actual cost including a reasonable profit"). Costbased pricing  xgof equipment service contracts is appropriate regardless of whether an operator also offers to perform  xRmaintenance and repair work on an asneeded basis at an hourly rate equal to the HSC. Even if  xcompetitive alternatives to Falcon's inside wiring maintenance plan were to be considered, there is no basis  xton the record to deregulate the rates for Falcon's service offering. Falcon has not provided persuasive  xevidence that its proffered alternativesthe rateregulated, asneeded HSC option and the thirdparty  xoptionwill provide competitive pressures affecting the price of Falcon's inside wiring maintenance plan  x^and ensuring that the price will be consistent with the statutory requirement that equipment rates be based  xon actual cost. The County was not unreasonable in concluding that Falcon's wiring maintenance plan is subject to rate regulation.  S' D. Programming Costs  S' 1.` ` February 1996 Local Rate Order  SP' e  33. ` ` In its February 1996 local rate order, the County found no fault with the external cost  xZinformation, including programming cost information, provided in Falcon's Form 1200. However, the  xCounty disallowed Falcon's programming cost increases claimed on Form 1210, stating that Falcon had  S' xZnot provided sufficient information to support the claimed increases.qB;S yO&'ԍFebruary 1996 local rate order at 1 and attached Rate Report at 5  2.q Falcon had filed Form 1210 on  x7March 9, 1995 to justify increases in its external costs incurred between April 1, 1994 and December 31," , B,`(`(88"  xQ1994 and planned to recover those cost increases through its July 7, 1995 rate increase. Falcon supplied  xthe County with a list of each program service and the increase in the monthly per subscriber cost to  xFalcon which had been imposed during the relevant time period, but did not provide the requested copies  S' xof its contracts with program suppliers.ECX;S yO' xx ԍFalcon March 1996 Petition at 4; letter from Emerson Yearwood, Falcon Director of Cable Regulatory Affairs,  xM to Lenard Whaley, Administrator, Whitfield County Board of Commissioners (Jan. 19, 1996), page 3, found at County March 1996 Opposition, Exh. C.E Falcon argues that providing proprietary information was  xunnecessary in light of its lists. The County argues that it could not permit Falcon to pass through  S8' xunverified programming cost increases of the magnitude Falcon claimed.ND8;S yO 'ԍCounty March 1996 Opposition at 1112.N While continuing to express  x^concern about the proprietary nature of the information in the programming contracts in its Reply, Falcon  xstates its willingness to show the County consultant "the information necessary to establish the correctness  xof the figures utilized by Falcon in its March 9, 1995 Form 1210" and asks for a remand for this  S'purpose.EEx;S yO'ԍFalcon April 1996 Reply at 6.E  SH ' e J!34. ` ` A local franchising authority reviewing a cable operator's proposed rates has the right to  xask the operator for information supporting a rate increase, including proprietary information, that is  S ' x"reasonably necessary to make a rate determination."]F ;S {O'ԍThird Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4344.] Upon a proper request from a franchising  x*authority, the cable operator must disclose material the franchising authority deems reasonably necessary  xfor determining the operator's maximum permitted rates. Because confidential programming contracts may  xtcontain a substantial amount of information that is not reasonably necessary for the rate determination,  SX' xthe production of which would unnecessarily risk the disclosure of sensitive business information,GX;S yO'ЍLetter to Wesley R. Heppler, Esq., 10 FCC Rcd 9433, 9434 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). we  xexpect franchising authorities to be judicious in their requests for programming contracts, to make sure  xthat the information is needed, and to narrow their requests, if appropriate, to permit cable operators to  xsubmit only the specific information required for the rate determination. We specifically "urge[d]  xcfranchising authorities and cable operators to adopt procedures that will achieve the proper balance  xbetween the franchising authority's right to review relevant information and the cable operator's interest  Sh'in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive business information."=Hh* ;S {O2'ԍId. at 943435.=  S' e "35. ` ` The County is entitled to request verification of the cost increases Falcon listed as support  x7for its rate increase, including verification from relevant proprietary documents. However, nothing in the  xrecord shows that the County narrowed its request to relevant information in Falcon's programming  xQcontracts or offered Falcon any assurance that the confidentiality of sensitive business information would  Sx' x"be protected.IZx ;S {O%' x ԍCompare TCI Cablevision of San Jose v. City of Sunnyvale, CA, 10 FCC Rcd 12581, 12583 (Cab. Serv. Bur.  x! 1995) (city request for confidential information found reasonable in light of city's stated need to verify programming costs, specificity of information requested, and city's pledge to maintain confidentiality of the information). Under the circumstances here, we cannot find that the County's broad request for"xI,`(`(88"  xprogramming contracts was reasonable for the purpose of reviewing Falcon's cost increases in its March9,  xp1995 Form 1210. On remand, the County should address its request for proprietary information in  xFalcon's programming contracts to that which is reasonably necessary to making the rate determination  xwith respect to Falcon's program cost increases and should work with Falcon to balance its right to review  x}relevant information with Falcon's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information in its contracts.  S' 2.` ` June 1996 and August 1996 Local Rate Orders  S' e ~#36. ` ` Falcon filed a new FCC Form 1210 on February 15, 1996, which included programming  xcosts experienced between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995. In its June 1996 local rate order, the  xCounty tolled the period for reviewing Falcon's rate filing until after receiving information requested  xregarding Falcon's programming contracts. In its appeal, Falcon states that it entered into a satisfactory  xgconfidentiality agreement with the County and asks for a remand of this portion of the June 1996 local rate order so that the County can make a decision on Falcon's submission.  S ' e $37. ` ` In its August 1996 local rate order, the County addressed Falcon's programming costs  SX' xincluded in the February 15, 1996 Form 1210JX;S {O' xk ԍFor this reason, Falcon's appeal of the County's June 1996 local rate order is moot and will be dismissed. See Falcon October 1997 Petition for Review at 2. and also in a Form 1240 Falcon filed on June 25, 1996.  xThe County disallowed the entire amount of Falcon's proposed rate increases attributed to programming  S' xcost increases reflected in both forms.vK";S yO'ԍAugust 1996 local rate order, found at Falcon September 1996 Petition, Exh. A.v Its decision was based on its consultant's advice that Falcon's  xinitial programming costs reflected in Form 1200 should have been stated at a higher amount and,  S' xtherefore, that its net cost increases reflected in Form 1210 should have been smaller. L;S yO ' x ԍLetter from Don Schanding, Rate Analyst, Georgia Municipal Advisory and Technical Services, to Theresia McDearis, Deputy County Administrator (July 15, 1996) at 12, found at Falcon September 1996 Petition, Exh. B.  Because the  xgconsultant could not quantify this amount, the County disallowed all of the Form 1210 and Form 1240 rate increases due to programming cost increases.  S' e %38. ` ` Falcon disagrees with the County's order. Falcon explains that it calculated the  xprogramming costs in Form 1200 pursuant to the terms of contracts under which it was then operating,  xsome of which had expired and were being renegotiated, and recorded precisely what it was paying on  S' x the relevant date.NM ;S yOJ 'ԍFalcon September 1996 Petition at 45.N When it later negotiated contracts to replace expired contracts, its rates increased  xretroactively and it was required to make supplemental payments for programming carried during the  xpreceding period. Falcon states that it uses a cash method for reporting programming costs on FCC forms  S(' xand recorded only actual programming costs for the periods covered by the rate forms;KN(;S yOb$'ԍFalcon October 1996 Reply at 5 n.4.K it did not pass  xgsupplemental payments on to subscribers, but absorbed them instead. The County would have Falcon  xrecalculate its programming costs for the period covered by Form 1200 to include the rate adjustments  xlater agreed to with Falcon's program suppliers and then reduce the amount of the cost increase taken in"* N,`(`(88"  S' x&Falcon's Form 1210 by this supplemental amount.O;S yOh' x ԍLetter from Don Schanding, Rate Analyst, Georgia Municipal Advisory and Technical Services, to Theresia McDearis, Deputy County Administrator (July 15, 1996) at 1, found at Falcon October 1996 Petition, Exh. B. Because these adjusted programming costs were  xretroactive to the period covered by Form 1200, the County claims Falcon did not experience these cost  xincreases in the period covered by its Form 1210 and should not have included the increased costs in its  xZrates. The County faulted Falcon for not providing information about the supplemental payments, and  S`' xcarried the reduced costs forward when reviewing Falcon's Form 1240.7P` ;S {O 'ԍId. at 2.7 Falcon argues that the County's ruling on this issue is inequitable and must be reversed.  S' e &39. ` ` The Commission's rules allow cable operators to pass increases in programming costs  S' xthrough to subscribers.Q;S {O ' xZ ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3), (e)(2)(ii), (f); see Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5788; Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 420102, 4203 n.232. The calculation of these costs is governed by the Commission's forms. Form  x1200 asks the operator to provide its programming costs as of the beginning date (the earlier of the initial  xdate of regulation or February 28, 1994) and adjusts those costs in Module B for any changes in  SH ' xxprogramming costs that have not been passed through to subscribers as of March 31, 1994.`RH ;S yO'ԍFCC Form 1200, Module B and instructions at 3, 4, 1214.` Changes in  xcosts incurred or recognized on the operator's books after March 31, 1994 belong in the forms provided  S ' xfor adjusting the operator's rates after March 31, 1994.S" ;S yO4' x ԍA cost is considered "incurred" for Form 1210 purposes when it is "recognized on the books . . . during the  xk previous quarter." Q & A released June 14, 1994, at Question 3. Form 1210 could be used for changes in external  {O' x costs incurred by an operator starting April 1, 1994 and could be filed as often as quarterly. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(1), (3)(iii). Although an operator may have been in  x8negotiations regarding programming costs on the dates addressed in Form 1200, nothing in the  xCommission's rules requires the operator to redo Form 1200 when the negotiations are completed, even  xif the operator must make retroactive payments pursuant to a new programming contract, unless the  xprogramming cost increase was recognized on the operator's books on the beginning date or by March 31, 1994.  S' e '40.` ` The County does not dispute Falcon's statement that it did not seek to recover the amount  xof the supplemental payments from subscribers. Thus, Falcon's agreement to make supplemental payments  xfor the period during which negotiations were ongoing has no bearing on the treatment of the costs Falcon  x@sought to recover in its Form 1210. Because Falcon did not include the supplemental payments in its  xrates, the County's request for information about the supplemental payments was not necessary for its rate  xpdetermination, and the County was not reasonable in denying Falcon a rate adjustment for failing to  xprovide that information. The County's rejection of Falcon's programming cost adjustments in its June25,  x1996 Form 1240 for failing to provide information about supplemental payments dating back to Form  S'1200T ;S yO%' x ԍAugust 1996 local rate order at 1 and Letter from Don Schanding to Theresia McDearis (7/15/96) at 2, attached to Falcon September 1996 Petition as Exhibits A and B, respectively. is likewise not reasonable. "xT,`(`(88"Ԍ S' E.Sufficiency of September 1997 Local Rate Order  S' e (41. ` ` Falcon submitted Forms 1240 and 1205 to the County on June 23, 1997 to justify rates  x&for the period of October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. Falcon states it twice revised its rate  S`' xforms, the second time on September 26, 1997 at the request of the County's consultant.LU`;S yO'ԍFalcon October 1997 Petition at 12.L In its  S8' xSeptember 1997 local rate order adopted the same day,wV8X;S yO0'ԍSeptember 1997 local rate order, found at Falcon October 1997 Petition, Exh. A.w the County ordered Falcon not to change its rates  xpending completion of the County's review of these rates. Falcon alleges that the information provided  S' xcrelated almost totally to an explanation of Falcon's equipment and installation rates on Form 1205.JW;S yOp 'ԍFalcon October 1997 Petition at 3.J  x*Falcon states that it agreed to a small change to its Form 1240, which lowered the permitted BST rate by  xc$0.01. In Falcon's view, its BST rate increase is justified and the County's action is not adequately  xexplained. According to the County, Falcon was repeatedly asked for information but was unresponsive  xeven when advised that the County might deny the proposed rate changes if the requested information was  S ' xnot provided.OX x;S yO8'ԍCounty November 1997 Opposition at 12.O Falcon sent information via facsimile while the County's consultant was en route to the  xyBoard of Commissioners meeting. In reply, Falcon states that only one point in the consultant's  xinformation request related to Falcon's Form 1240, the requested revision lowered the maximum permitted  xrate by one cent, the consultant knew the revised form was being submitted on September 26 and knew  S ' xthe effect of the requested revision was de minimis. Falcon argues that the County knew how it wanted the Form 1240 revised and could have made the revision itself.  S ' e )42. ` ` The Commission's rules require a cable operator using the annual rate adjustment method  xto give its franchising authority notice of rate changes 90 days before putting rate increases into effect.  xkIf the franchising authority has not acted within the 90 day period, the operator may put its new rates into  xeffect subject to subsequent review by the franchising authority at any time within twelve months of the  x*operator's rate filing. Within that twelve month period, the franchising authority can order a prospective  xrate reduction and refunds for past overcharges if it finds that the operator's rates exceed the maximum  xkpermitted rates. The franchising authority may seek information from the cable operator. While it cannot  xRreject timely submitted information it has requested or that the operator has submitted to cure a  S' x3deficiency,Y;S {Or' xx ԍSee Continental Cablevision, Inc. of Michigan, 10 FCC Rcd 8836, 884142 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995) (franchising  xb authority should have considered information submitted to cure an undisputed deficiency that was filed three weeks  x  before release of the rate order and within the period of time allowed by the Commission's rules for review in  xb advance of a rate's effectiveness). The County's complaint in the instant proceeding is that the operator waited until the County Board of Commissioners was about to convene before transmitting the requested information. it is not required to delay its review pending receipt of information from an unresponsive  S' xoperator.Z ;S {O$' xc ԍSee SBC Media Ventures, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 7175, 717980 para. 15 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994); see generally  {O%'Telerama, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 17369, 17375 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1996). However, if the franchising authority denies the operator's rate increase in whole or in part,  xit must issue a written decision explaining why the operator's rates are disapproved and may reduce the  xgrate to the level permitted by the Commission's rules or prescribe an appropriate rate based on the best"RZ,`(`(88"  S' x^information available.Q[\;S {Oh' x ԍRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 572124; Third Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4347; Sammons  {O2' x Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 5089, 5091 para. 14 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995); SBC Media Ventures, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd at 717980 para. 15.Q The Commission's rules do not provide for denying a rate increase pending future  S' xreview of the operator's rates.\;S {Od' x ԍSee Heritage Cablevision, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 12014, 1201617 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998) ( LFAs are expected to issue rate orders following completion of review). The County's Resolution, which merely specifies the rate ordered in the  xCounty's rate order from the previous year pending further review, does not meet the Commission's requirement for a written decision.  S8' e *43. ` ` The County alleges that Falcon failed to comply with the Commission's rules governing  xthe timing of rate increases. According to the County, Falcon implemented a rate increase less than 30  S' xdays after filing an amended Form 1240 and less than one year after its previous rate change.S]F;S yO 'ԍCounty November 1997 Opposition at 34 n.7.S Section  xc76.933(g)(1) of the Commission's rules provides that, if there is a material change in the operator's  xcircumstances during the 90day review period and the change affects the operator's rate filing, the  xoperator cannot put its new rate into effect until the franchising authority has had at least 30 days to  SH ' xreview the operator's amendment to its Form 1240 filing.D^H ;S yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.933(g)(1).D In this case, Falcon's amended Form 1240 was  xfiled at the County's request to correct for an omission in its earlier filing. According to Falcon and not  xdisputed by the County, the impact of the change was one cent. We do not view this as a material change  xthat tolls the 90day review period. Section 76.922(e)(1) of the Commission's rules provides that an  x7operator can change its filing date from yeartoyear but that at least twelve months must pass before the  S ' x+operator can implement the next annual adjustment.D_ f ;S yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(e)(1).D Although stating that Falcon's scheduled  ximplementation date was October 1, 1997, the County does not state in its opposition when Falcon made its previous adjustment.  S' e +44. ` ` Falcon and the County have disagreed about what rate to use in computing future BST  xadjustments when the underlying BST rate is the subject of a pending appeal. Now that Falcon's appeals  xhave been resolved, the County should review the BST rates addressed in its February 1996 and August  x1996 Resolutions as directed in this memorandum opinion and order and carry each revised BST rate  S@' x7forward in its review of the subsequent BST rate.U`x@ ;S yO ' xQ ԍIn appealing the August 1996 local rate order, Falcon argues that even with costs disallowed by the County,  xb an eight cent rate increase was justified, but the County authorized only a one cent increase. Falcon September 1996  x* Petition at 6. The County countered that Falcon's argument fails to take into account the impact of the County's  xk treatment of programming costs on the true up period in Falcon's Form 1240. County September 1996 Opposition  x^ at 56. In light of the rate recalculations ordered herein, the rates reviewed in the August 1996 local rate order are  x likely to change, and any determination of the appropriate rates before the County completes its recalculations would be premature.U The BST rate determined for Falcon's June 25, 1996  xForm 1240 will provide the starting point for Falcon's amended Form 1240 filed with the County on September 26, 1997. "6`,`(`(88n"Ԍ S'ԙ G.Refunds  S' e #,45. ` ` Falcon argues in its appeal of the February 1996 local rate order that the County cannot  xorder refunds, because it did not issue its rate order within the time specified in the Commission's rules  xand did not issue an accounting order as required to preserve the authority to order refunds at a later  S8' xdate.Ja8;S yO'ԍFalcon March 1996 Petition at 89.J Falcon also argues that refunds would be inappropriate in light of the Commission's failure to  xxallow cable operators to adjust rates to recover changes in external costs incurred from the passage of the  x1992 Cable Act until the initial date of regulation (the "gap" period) and the Commission's subsequent  xfailure to adopt a methodology for allowing cable operators to recover these gap period costs, as ordered  S' xin Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC ("Time Warner Entertainment I").HbX;S yO 'ԍ56 F.3d 151, 174 (DC Cir. 1995).H In Falcon's view,  xyallowing the County to order refunds would be inequitable when Falcon is entitled to an upward  xkadjustment to its tier rate for gap period external costs. The County disagrees, stating that it timely issued  x*tolling and accounting orders for Falcon's Form 1200 and 1210 filings, and arguing that its refund orders  x^are valid because they follow the Commission's rules at the time, which had not been modified to account  S 'for the gap period.Nc ;S yOZ'ԍCounty March 1996 Opposition at 1719.N  S ' 1.` ` Accounting Orders  S2' e z-46.` ` In support of its position regarding the accounting order for Falcon's Form 1200, the  xCounty submitted a letter from Lenard Whaley, County Administrator, to James Ashjian, Falcon First, Inc.,  S' xPasadena, CA.ddx;S yO'ԍThe letter is found at County March 1996 Opposition, Exh. F.d The County states in its March 1996 Opposition at 18 that this letter was timely hand  xdelivered by Mr. Whaley to Jeff Yarbrough, Falcon's local manager, before December 27, 1994. Although  xthe copy of the letter in the record is undated and refers only to Falcon's "rates for basic service,  xkassociated equipment and installation," the County March 1996 Opposition is accompanied by an Affidavit  xdated March 26, 1996 from Theresia McDearis, Deputy County Administrator of Whitfield County,  xdeclaring "that the facts set forth [therein] are true and correct to the best of my knowledge." While not  x7conceding that an accounting order was issued, Falcon does not challenge the County's assertion that the  x@Whaley letter was a timely delivered accounting order for Falcon's Form 1200 rates. We find that the  xgrecord supports the County's position and that Falcon can face refund liability if its BST rate exceeded its maximum permitted rate computed on Form 1200.  S*' e z.47.` ` In support of its position regarding the accounting order for Falcon's Form 1210, the  xCounty submitted a copy of a June 14, 1995 letter directing Falcon to keep accounts of rates implemented  S'pursuant to its Form 1210 rate submission.e;S yO$' x ԍLetter from Lenard Whaley, Administrator, Whitfield County, GA to James Ashjian, Falcon First, Inc., Pasadena, CA (June 14, 1995), found at County March 1996 Opposition, Exh. G. Falcon no longer contests that accounting order.If` ;S yO&'ԍFalcon April 1996 Reply at 2 n.1.I" f,`(`(88"Ԍ S'ԙ 2.` ` "Gap" Period  S' e #/48.` ` When Falcon filed its Form 1200, cable operators using the benchmark methodology to  x<set rates were permitted to adjust rates on account of external costs starting with the initial date of  S`' xregulation for the system or February 28, 1994, whichever was earlier.rgZ`;S {O' x  ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  76.922(d)(3)(vii)(1994). The initial date of regulation was the date after the September 1,  x 1993 effective date of the Commission's rate regulations that an individual operator first became subject to rate regulation for either the basic or the cable programming service. r The benchmark system was  xbased on a survey that demonstrated the difference between rates in competitive and noncompetitive  xtsituations on September 30, 1992. Under the benchmark system, most regulated cable operators were  xrequired to reduce their regulated rates to a level that represented their September 30, 1992 regulated  xrevenues reduced by a 17% competitive differential. The Commission's initial rate regulations did not  xallow cable operators to account for changes in external costs between September 30, 1992 and the date  x7of initial regulation, the "gap" period. Before the County adopted its February 1996 Rate local rate order,  SH ' xthe court in Time Warner Entertainment I found that the Commission's rationale for not permitting rate  xjustifications based on external costs during this gap period was unacceptable and vacated the  S ' xCommission's rule insofar as it denied cable operators recovery of gap period external cost increases.<h ;S yO'ԍ56 F.3d at 174, 178.<  S ' xSubsequent to the February 1996 local rate order, the Commission adopted its Gap Order amending its  xrate rule to provide that an operator whose initial rates were set on the basis of rates in effect on  xSeptember 30, 1992 could adjust its rates for changes in external costs incurred between September 30,  xl1992 and either the initial date of regulation or February 28, 1994, whichever date applied in the  S4' xindividual operator's circumstances.i4z;S yON' x ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(f)(4); Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act  {O' x of 1992, Rate Regulation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20206 (1996) ("Gap Order"), vacated in  {O' xQ part Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC, 144 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Time Warner Entertainment II")  xo (vacated to the extent that the Commission's order did not allow full reduction rate operators to recover their revenue deficiencies for the years during which they were denied recovery for gap costs).  The Commission explained that an operator's then current  S ' xpermissible rates could be adjusted in the operator's next rate adjustment after the Commission's Gap  S' xOrder to reflect the rates the operator would be charging at the time of the adjustment if it had been  S' xpermitted to include increases in external costs occurring during the gap period.Mj. ;S {O'ԍGap Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 20216.M The adjustment was  xto be calculated from information in a previously filed Form 1200. Because the Commission did not  x7provide for the recovery of the revenue deficiencies experienced by operators during the years before the  SH' xcgap period costs could be reflected in rates, the court in Time Warner Entertainment II vacated the  S"'Commission's Gap Order to that extent.7k" ;S yO"'ԍ144 F.3d at 82.7  S' e 049.` ` The County argues that its failure to take into account rules that had not yet been adopted  xcannot be a basis for granting Falcon's appeal. Because Falcon's rate forms appealed in the February 1996  x/local rate order are being remanded for further review for other reasons, we are granting the relief  xrequested by Falcon. The rule the County applied was found to be invalid by the Court, and Falcon"\P k,`(`(88"  xttimely questioned the impact of its gap period costs on its potential refund liability when it appealed the February 1996 local rate order.  S' 3.` ` Refund Period  S8' e 150.` ` In a footnote to its April 1996 Reply, Falcon for the first time in this proceeding states  S' xits belief that the County has used an erroneous refund period in its February 1996 local rate order.Il;S yOx'ԍFalcon April 1996 Reply at 9 n.7.I  x&Falcon does not elaborate on this point, and the County moved to dismiss the argument as improperly  S' x7raised.OmX;S yO 'ԍCounty May 1996 Motion to Dismiss at 3.O While we do not condone arguments raised for the first time in reply pleadings and do not need  xVto pursue the merits of the argument here, we expect the County will determine any refund liability pursuant to the Commission's rules after resolving the remanded matters.  S ' H.Forfeiture  S ' e 251.` ` The County filed a Petition for Enforcement of Local Rate Order and Imposition of  xForfeiture ("Petition for Enforcement") concurrently with its November 1997 Opposition, asking that the  xkCommission direct Falcon to comply with its September 1997 local rate order and impose a forfeiture and  xany additional remedies deemed appropriate. According to the County, Falcon willfully implemented its  xrate changes on October 1, 1997 in spite of the County's September 1997 local rate order denying Falcon's  S' xBST rate changes.]n;S yO'ԍCounty November 1997 Petition for Enforcement at 23.] The County argues that Falcon will not be harmed by the County's order because  xof the trueup mechanism available in the Form 1240 for operators like Falcon using the annual method  xfor adjusting rates and states that Falcon did not seek a stay of the local rate order. In its opposition,  xFalcon points out that it did seek a stay from the Commission and argues that it had justified its rates  Sh' xQbefore the County.iohx;S yO'ԍFalcon November 1997 Opposition to Petition for Enforcement at 2.i The County replies that its consultant has now finished his review of Falcon's rates  xMand the County will consider a new rate order authorizing a rate in excess of the rate in the September  S' xt1997 local rate order.jp;S yO'ԍCounty December 1997 Reply re Petition for Enforcement at 2 & n.5.j The County disagrees that Falcon justified the full amount of the rate increase it implemented, however.  S' e 352.` ` As discussed above, the County's September 1997 local rate order was not consistent with  x*the Commission's rules in that it denied the operator's rate adjustment pending further County review and  xxwithout stating a reason for the denial cognizable under the Commission's rules or attempting to determine  xthe correct adjustment. Although the Commission has stated that local rate orders are not stayed  S' xkautomatically by the filing of an appeal,q;S {O8%' x ԍSee Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 388, 428 (1995). we do not believe the circumstances in this case warrant formal administrative sanctions. Therefore, we are denying the County's Petition for Enforcement." q,`(`(888"Ԍ S'ԙ I.Conclusion  S' e 453.` ` The County's February 1996, August 1996, and September 1997 local rate orders are  x7remanded to the County for further action consistent with this memorandum opinion and order. Because  xthe County's June 1996 local rate order was superseded by the August 1996 local rate order, it is dismissed as moot.  S' J.Ordering Clauses  S' e 554.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Portions of the Reply to  xtOpposition to Petition for Review of Rate Order filed by Whitfield County, Georgia on May 1, 1996 IS  xDENIED; the Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleading filed by Whitfield County, Georgia on May1,  x71996 IS GRANTED; the Supplement to Petitions for Review filed by Falcon Cablevision and Falcon First  xCommunications, L.P. on January 17, 1997 IS DISMISSED with respect to this proceeding; and the  xMotion for Extension of Time and Leave to File Opposition to Supplement to Petitions for Review filed by Whitfield County, Georgia on February 11, 1997 IS DISMISSED.  SX' e 655.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Stay Pending Review of Rate Order filed by Falcon First Communications, L.P. on October 27, 1997 IS DISMISSED.  S' e  756.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Review of Rate Order filed by Falcon  xxFirst Communications, L.P. on March 14, 1996 IS GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the matter IS REMANDED to Whitfield County, Georgia.  S@' e  857.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Review of Rate Order filed by Falcon First Communications, L.P. on July 15, 1996, IS DISMISSED.  S' e  958.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Review of Rate Order filed by Falcon  xDFirst Communications, L.P. on September 12, 1996 IS GRANTED to the extent addressed herein and the matter IS REMANDED to Whitfield County, Georgia.  S(' e  :59.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Review of Rate Order filed by Falcon  xFirst Communications, L.P. on October 27, 1997 IS GRANTED and the matter IS REMANDED to Whitfield County, Georgia.  S' e ;60.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days of the release of this order,  xFalcon First Communications, L.P. MUST SUBMIT to its Whitfield County, Georgia franchising authority "8q,`(`(88*"  xits 1992 contract labor expenses and detailed information necessary to justify its treatment of expenses associated with its inside wiring maintenance plan as directed herein.  S' e <61.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqWilliam H. Johnson ` `  hhCqDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau