WPC 2BJZ Courier3|a?x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si Room 907HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\%CX@266KF ZK3|a"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/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\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2Xh<vpr S0Ԋ#&J\  P6Qu&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italica8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2 kkv a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2 t7  E  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#@$(a) hh#((# 2Ta7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2 Ba5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2 a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 23e]Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:D7$f=8l?9$?:$BTechnical 4Technical 47` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 18 Technical 7Technical 79` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8:` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2L;pD<F=H>Jtoc 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 (#2S?M@8OAvVQBQtoc 5toc 5?` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6@` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7A toc 8toc 8B` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2\CTD:VEXXFvZtoc 9toc 9C` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1D` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2E` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaF` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2^Gv\Hl<]Ir]J^captioncaptionG _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionH endnote referenceendnote referenceI head1 #J'd#2p}wC@ #2aK}^LH_M_Nc`a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfM:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNE` ` `  2dO3aPaQbROca5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfOP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfRq 2eSpKdTqdUe,eVee13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3ES/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3ET1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3EU 34 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3EV 56 2XhW(fXpfY+gZg5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3EW*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3EX9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EY8;<@   8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EZA=>@` `  ` ` ` 2&k[h\i]i^pj9346gDocument Style=(/D 4*/3E[0? @    10356gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E\JAB` ` @  ` `  11366gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E]SCD` `  @  12376gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E^\EF` `  @hh# hhh 2jn_Xk`lalbm13386gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E_eGH` `  hh#@( hh# 14396gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3E`nIJ` `  hh#(@- ( 153:6gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EawKL` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 163;6gDocument Style=(/D ;*/3EbFMN *  ׃  2pcnd!oeofBp173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Ec&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ed&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ee*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ef'UV   2Wsg qhqiMrjr213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Eg&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eh4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Ei&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ej&]^  . 2}kslYumvnm}CitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ekx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3ElUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3Em'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Enef2,o+~pm~qrfootnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3Eo'gh#FxX  P CXP#headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Epi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Eq;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Er*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2sm^tb˃uS-vpheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Eso p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Etqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Eust!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gv` ` ` 2wq"xeyez]Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz*    2T{p"|}$~Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g{  ` ` ` 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     2L*׌Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 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 2V~FѐRight 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&!"  . 2ғ >Technical[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&)*   29Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2}.IParagraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$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™v5Paragraph[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 2g}16ɝ25S&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` ` `  2B29S&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 2M!Default 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#2vv_vեvKheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2svvivߧUheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2YdHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. 22#81Ю1DRAFT 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;   21d1nƳ4LETTER 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 2djKEԷHIGHLIGHT 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-K8x8MEMORANDUMMemo 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$0 **(  ӧ XX 2$X[[n[ɿNORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[V[ 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 .2bl%#_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` ` @  ` `  2~Aa42:.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#(@- ( 2mblOa82:.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 (#2u($l bly remains several bly remains several years \softline \softlheight276 awa` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (# Technical 4¸ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#T 2 Ҷ TechnicaT 2 Ҷ Technical 7Ҳ Right Par 7z INV` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#ОC:\mw3022.tmpC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\C 2jl}:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMP` hp x (#` hp x (## P7P# ރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOCރC:\mw3022.tmpԸOC~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: ~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\~C:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\:\DOCS\COMPWHEN\: , ` hp x (# p x (# p x (#` hp x (#2c 'E: , : , ,0` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#е ,  , ,0` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#:\mw3024.tmpt :\mw3024.tmpt C:\WINDOWS\MSAPPS\TEXTCONV\RTF_W` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#wwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbwwwwwbbbbbwwbwwbbbwwwwbwwwwbwwwwbwbwwwbwbb` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2lZ[,,0kjH 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 2^ a31I.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# 2qzKqa71I.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{|  2mJTitleNotesTitle 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 #  `  2GwFHanging indent   #Xx PXP#  X` hp x (#%'0*#Xx PXP#WPC3  2BJZ Courier3|xix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@2 6 ZF v3|xHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Add) rm 804 L2HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\ ZX@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.ҲStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Margins$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2yldStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabs )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2z2|:Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Font4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Point$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2_LSZ Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advanced U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediate )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide  2KKK'Kr"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\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%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&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"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""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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\ S- X   ( S-  #&J\  P6Qu&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#AFCC 9925 ă  yx}dddy (PK Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-""Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)Order#&J\  P6Qu&P#CD(#҇In the Matter of Mile Hi Cable Partners, L.P.; Mountain States Video, Inc., d/b/a TCI of Colorado, Inc.; United Cable Television of Colorado, Inc., d/b/a TCI of Colorado, Inc.; TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.; Heritage Cablevision of Tennessee, Inc.; and TCI Cablevision of Florida, Inc., Complainants " v. Public Service Company of Colorado, Respondent. "7, * *,," j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) j) l"7, * *,,"         File No.: PA 98003R5, * *,,.N N e * *,,Rԯl  S-  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER j  Sk-ԇ" U Adopted: February 17, 1999hh,hh "k, * *,,7" "k, * *,,7"  Sk- Released: February 22, 1999 Rk, * *,,7.CCk7 * *,,Rԯ By the Commission:   S-- I. INTRODUCTION ă  S9-  # a1Order1.` ` The Commission has before it an Application for Review, filed pursuant to Section1.115  S-  of the Commission's Rules,=X yOn-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.115.= by the Public Service Company of Colorado ("PSCo") seeking review of an  S-  action ("Order")XX {O-  ԍ In the Matter of Mile Hi Cable Partners, L.P., et al v. Public Service Company of Colorado, DA 981396, released July 14, 1998. in a pole attachment complaint proceeding taken under delegated authority by the Chief  S-  kof the Cable Services Bureau ("Bureau")."X yO-  ԍ Pole attachment complaints are heard by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau under delegated authority pursuant   =to Sections 0.101(a)(2) and 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. 0.101(a)(2) & 0.321. The Chief,  {O!-  Common Carrier Bureau acted on pole attachment complaints prior to February 25, 1997. See 11 FCC Rcd 19697 (1996). On April 1, 1998, Mile Hi Cable Partners, L.P.; Mountain   States Video, Inc., d/b/a TCI of Colorado, Inc.; United Cable Television of Colorado, Inc., d/b/a TCI of   Colorado, Inc.; TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.; Heritage Cablevision of Tennessee, Inc.; and TCI   Cablevision of Florida, Inc., ("TCI") filed a complaint ("Complaint") alleging that certain terms and   {conditions of their pole attachment agreement with PSCo are unjust and unreasonable and that the   ypractices of PSCo in implementing those terms and conditions are unreasonable. On May 1, 1998, PSCo", * *,, "  S-  filed a motion to dismiss ("Motion") the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. yOh-ԍ PSCo also requested an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, which was granted. The Bureau dismissed PSCo's Motion in its Order and PSCo filed this Application for Review. We affirm the Order.  Sg-   a1Order2.` ` PSCo also seeks a stay of further action by the Bureau on the Complaint pending   Commission action on the Application for Review. Because we are denying PSCo's Application for Review, we dismiss the Motion for Stay as moot.  S-4l< II. Background ă  S5-   a1Order3.` ` On March 13, 1998, PSCo filed suit in the District Court for the City and County of   kDenver, Colorado, ("District Court") seeking damages for alleged unauthorized pole attachments.4 On   =April1, 1998, TCI filed its Complaint with the Commission invoking the Commission's jurisdiction and   |alleging that the terms and practices that gave rise to the civil action in Colorado are unjust and   iunreasonable and, therefore, should be negated by the Commission pursuant to its statutory authority under  S6 -  Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act").K6 X yO.-ԍX47 U.S.C. 224.(#K PSCo stated in its Motion that   the matter is strictly one of breach of contract over which the Commission does not have jurisdiction that   jshould be resolved by the local district court. TCI filed an opposition to the Motion ("Opposition") on   May 14, 1998, in which it reasserted that the Commission has jurisdiction to consider the Complaint and, consequently, urged denial of the Motion. PSCo also filed a reply to the Opposition on May 29, 1998.  S-  2 a1Order4.` ` In its Complaint, TCI asks the Commission to declare that both the previous $50 penalty   jand the newly imposed $250 penalty for unauthorized attachment are unreasonable. TCI also asks us to  S-  [declare that imposition of an unauthorized attachment fee with regard to drop polesI yO&- \ԍXA "subscriber drop" is a cable connecting a subscriber to the cable distribution network via a "tap" located  on or near a distribution pole. In cases where it is necessary for the drop to cross a roadway, a pole, called  a "drop pole," is placed on the side of the roadway opposite the cable tap and the drop is hung over the  roadway suspended on the distribution pole and the drop pole. The cable then enters the subscriber's premises from the drop pole.(#I is unreasonable and   that requiring the standard authorization process for drop poles is unreasonable. TCI further asks us to   rule that the costs charged to TCI by PSCo for its pole count audit are unreasonable and order PSCo to   disclose to TCI all materials necessary to verify the pole count audit and the resulting charges. Lastly,   .TCI asks that PSCo refund to TCI any amounts paid relating to matters addressed in the Complaint. In   !its Motion, PSCo asked the Commission to dismiss the Complaint for the following reasons: the   contractual matters at issue are of a type that the Commission has determined are not within its   jurisdiction; the Complaint does not implicate an interest cognizable by the Commission under Section 224  S-  of the Act;K yO>"-ԍX47 U.S.C. 224.(#K and invoking Commission jurisdiction would allow those who attach their cables to poles without authorization to escape responsibility for those acts.  Sm-   a1Order5.` ` In its Order, released July 14, 1998, the Bureau determined that it had jurisdiction to   yaddress the issues raised in the Complaint, and consequently dismissed PSCo's Motion. At this time the   Bureau has taken no further action on the Complaint. The District Court dismissed PSCo's suit on"( ,l(l(,,"  S-  July21, 1998.J yOh-ԍ Application for Review, Exhibit 2J The court acknowledged the primary jurisdiction of the Commission stating: "It is a   Mquestion involving the terms of a contract for the attachment of cable television lines to public utility   =poles. Therefore, the court finds that it is very much at the heart of what the federal statute was passed  Sg-  0to address."2 gX {O_-ԍ Id.2 This Application for Review was filed on August 13, 1998. An Opposition to the   Application for Review ("Opposition") was filed by TCI on August 28, 1998, followed by a reply to the Opposition ("Reply") filed by PSCO on September 10, 1998.  S-   a1Order6.` ` PSCo, in conjunction with its Application for Review, filed a Motion to Stay further   Bureau action. TCI filed its "Opposition to Motion to Stay" on August 24, 1998. PSCo moved to strike   as untimely the "Opposition to Motion to Stay" on September 4, 1998. This was followed by an   "Opposition to Motion to Strike" by TCI on September 8, 1998, and a "Reply to Opposition to Motion to Strike" by PSCo on September 18, 1998.  Si -= III. Discussion ă  S -  n a1Order7.` ` Section 224(b)(1) of the Act provides that "the Commission shall regulate the rates, terms,   ?and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms, and conditions are just and  S -  Lreasonable"A  yO'-ԍ 47 U.S.C. 224(b)(1).A except where these matters are regulated by a State.  z yO-  ԍ 47 U.S.C. 224(c)(1). Colorado has not applied for state certification and the state is not regulating pole attachments. 47 C.F.R. 1.1414(a)(3). Section 224(f) provides that a utility   must provide nondiscriminatory access to its poles except "where there is insufficient capacity and for  S7-  reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes."> 7 yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 224(f).> We have concluded that   "under the 'just and reasonable' standard, we have ample authority to consider terms and conditions in  S-  our ultimate decision on a complaint."> Xb  yO-  Lԍ Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing the   Attachment of Cable Television Hardware to Utility Poles, CC Docket No. 86212, 4 FCC Rcd 468, para. 25 (1989) [hereinafter "Second Proceeding MO&O"].> Further, we have concluded that "where onerous terms or   conditions are found to exist on the basis of evidence, a cable company may be entitled to a rate  Sk-  adjustment or the term or condition may be invalidated.">k  {O -ԍ Id at para. 26.> We have also determined that we may take  S8-action when a utility has engaged in unjust or unreasonable practices.?Z8 {O"-  ԍ Cable Information Services, Inc., et al v. Appalachian Power Company, PA790008, 81 F.C.C. 2d. 383,   para.25 (1980); Newport News Cablevision, Ltd. Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Electric Power Company, PA-87-0006, 7 FCC Rcd 2610 (1992).?CABLE SVCS "6,l(l(,,b"Ԍ S-   a1Order8.` ` Private negotiation is the preferred method for creating pole attachment arrangements and  S-  for dispute resolution.MX yO5-  Yԍ Report and Order, Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Cs Docket No.   97151, Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, 13 FCC Rcd 6777, paras. 10!21 (1998) [hereinafter "Telecomm Order"].M Should negotiations fail, the parties may seek resolution of disputes by the  S-  Commission by filing a complaint. {O"-ԍ See Part 1, Subpart J of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401!1.1418. Once the Commission acts on a complaint, such as reforming the   terms and conditions of their agreement, the parties must look to the local court system to further order  S4-their affairs and to obtain remedies for breach of terms or conditions established by us.d 4z {ON -  Kԍ See Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co., Pa 96002, 12 FCC Rcd 10362, para.10   (1997) citing Appalachian Power v. Capitol Cablevision Corp., 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 574 (1981) (The utility filed   a complaint asking the Commission to order payment of unpaid pole attachment fees by the cable system. The cable   system crosscomplained that the rate was unreasonable. The Commission ruled on the crosscomplaint, setting an   appropriate rate, and dismissed the utility's complaint for lack of jurisdiction as a contractual matter to be resolved  {O8-  ;by a local court. No unauthorized attachment penalty was involved.); See also, TeleCeption of Winchester, Inc. v   Kentucky Utilities Co., 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1572 (1981) ; CablecomGeneral, Inc. v. Central Power and Light   ZCo., 50 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 473 (1981) ; Texarkana TV Cable Co., Inc. v Southwestern Electric Power Co., 49   Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1043 (1981) (Each of these three cases involved a complaint about unreasonable rates and a   ,counterclaim by the utility for nonpayment. In each case the Commission set a reasonable rate then dismissed the   counterclaim as a breach of contract issue to be decided by a local court. No unauthorized attachment penalty was involved in any of the cases.)APPALACHIAN POWER  S-  o a1Order9.` ` Written pole attachment agreements are the industry norm, although such an agreement  S-  is not necessary. {O-ԍ Cable Information Services, supra note CABLE SVCS15, at n. 1; See 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(d). A common provision in pole attachment agreements is, such as here,O8 {Os-ԍ See Complaint, Exhibits 1 and 2.O a requirement   that the cable operator make an application to the utility to attach to specific poles and receive permission,   often called a license, before actually making the attachment. Some agreements contain a clause   jspecifying a dollar amount as a penalty for each pole on which the cable operator installs a cable without  S-  prior authorization. Though we have indicated that such a penalty may be appropriate,Z yO9-  ԍ Williamsburg Cablevision v. Carolina Power and Light Co., PA82007, and Alert Cable TV of North  {O-  Carolina, Inc. v. Carolina Power and Light, PA820012, 52 Rad. Reg. 2d. 1697, aff'd sub nom.Alert Cable TV of North Carolina, Inc. v Carolina Power and Light Company, 1985 FCC Lexis 3679 (1985).WILLIAMSBURG we have not   made a determination what would constitute a just and reasonable penalty. Such a clause and the practice in administering it are the basis of the Complaint.  S -  o a1Order 10.` ` PSCo states, "The single issue before the Commission is whether, under Section 224 of  S -  the Act, the Bureau properly may assert jurisdiction over contract provisions which remedy unauthorized  S -  pole attachment provisions."E  yO*%-ԍ Application for Review at 7.E "Unauthorized Attachments" are defined in clause 2.11 of the pole  Sk-  attachment agreement signed June 25, 1995, by PSCo.>k| yO'-ԍ Complaint, Exhibit 2.> An unauthorized attachment is one for which"k ,l(l(,,,"   no application has been approved by PSCo. The clause also provides for a $250 charge which may be assessed by PSCo for the unauthorized attachment.  Sg-  & a1Order 11.` ` First, PSCo argues that the Order violates Commission policy by involving the  S4-  Commission in a contract dispute that should be left to the state court. It charges that TCI "has not   alleged that the contractual, rates, terms, and conditions for authorized pole attachments are  S-  unreasonable."E yO6-ԍ Application for Review at 9.E It further charges that the only issues in the case are factual regarding the extent of TCI's  S-  yunauthorized attachments and the relief for "a simple claim of breach of contract."2X {O -ԍ Id.2 The tenor of PSCo's   argument is that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over what PSCo defines as unauthorized pole  S5-  attachments.85 {O -ԍ Id. at 3.8 PSCo argues that the decision in Appalachian PowerQ5| {OQ-ԍ Supra note CABLE SVCS15.Q makes a distinction between  S-  remedies involving authorized attachments and those involving unauthorized attachments. In Appalachian  S-  =Power, however, the unpaid fees were for authorized attachments. The cable system had simply ceased  S -  paying the fees during a dispute over a rate increase.U  yOM-ԍ The original rate was found to be excessive.U The Commission held simply that once the rate   !was set the remedy for collection was an action in the state court for breach of contract or unjust  S9 -enrichment. G9  yOw-ԍ Appalachian Power, at para. 7.G  S -   a1Order 12.` ` The Order is consistent with Commission policy and precedent. The Complaint clearly   .alleges that terms and conditions in the pole attachment agreement between the parties and the practices  Sm-  in implementing those terms and conditions are not just and reasonable.?m.  yO;-ԍ Complaint at para. 79.? We have jurisdiction over terms  S:-  and conditions of pole attachments.,:  {O-  ԍ ". . . the Commission shall regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such  {Ob-rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable . . . ." 47 U.S.C. 224(b)(1)(emphasis added)., This includes the conditions requiring authorization and any   concomitant fees or penalties. Issues in the Complaint relate to PSCo's practices for surveying   unauthorized attachments and billing TCI for the survey and whether the authorization requirement should   apply to drop poles. The Bureau must rule on whether the unauthorized penalty clause is reasonable and   Nwhether the authorization provisions as applied by PSCo are reasonable. It must also rule on the   reasonableness of the other actions which are challenged in the Complaint. Should TCI not pay its   obligations as determined by the Bureau, PSCo will be free to go to the state court for a remedy based on the facts and in light of the Bureau's ruling.  So-  $ a1Order 13.` ` Second, PSCo argues that the "Commission's assertion of jurisdiction, to the exclusion  S<-  of the state court's jurisdiction, is inappropriate under Section 414 of the Act."a < yO&-ԍ Application for Review at 10 (citing 47 U.S.C. 414).a It bases this upon the"< ,l(l(,,"  S-  assertion that Section 224 of the Act gives the Commission no authority over unauthorized attachments.2! {Oh-ԍ Id.2   As discussed above, the Commission's jurisdiction extends to all terms and conditions of pole attachments,   including requirements for authorization. Also, the Commission has not excluded state court jurisdiction.   The District Court, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, has dismissed PSCo's suit so that it may   appeal the ruling. As explained by the district court judge, the state suit could very well have been stayed  S-  jpending the outcome of the Commission's deliberations.K"Z yO-ԍ Application for Review, Exhibit 2.K The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is part of  S-  the jurisprudence of the State of Colorado which emphasizes its discretionary nature.# {OX -  ԍ See Arapahoe County Public Airport v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587, 592 (Colo. 1998); Great Western Sugar Co. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 661 P.2d 684, 690 (Colo. Ct. App.1982). The Commission   |has not excluded state jurisdiction, it has exercised its own jurisdiction and determined that the Commission has primary jurisdiction.  S-  ~ a1Order 14.` ` Third, PSCo argues that unauthorized attachments are uncompensated attachments and   regulation of penalties imposed for unauthorized attachments would render Section 224 of the Act  S -  >unconstitutional.F$ D yO-ԍ Application for Review at 11.F It further argues that the Commission would be depriving it "of the bargainedfor  Si -  Kremedy for theft, trespass and conversion."8%i  {O-ԍ Id at 12.8 PSCo is entitled to compensation for attachments to its poles   according to the provisions of Section 224 of the Act, whether those attachments are authorized or   .unauthorized. The Commission has held that collection of unpaid fees is a matter to be pursued in state  S -  <court.H& f  {O-ԍ Appalachian Power, supra.H The appropriate amount of compensation, however, is for the Commission to decide under Section  S -  224 of the Act'  {O5-ԍ See F.C.C. v. Florida Power Corporation, et al, 480 U.S. 245 (1987); Gulf Power v. U.S., 998 F.Supp. 1386. as is the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of the agreement. To the extent that  Sj-  the penalty, even if characterized as being for "theft, trespass and conversion," is "bargained for"(j  yO-  ԍ One element of the Complaint is that this clause was imposed by PSCo rather than freely bargained for by the parties. Complaint at paras. 2021. and   part of the agreement subject to Commission jurisdiction, it too is subject to Commission jurisdiction.   The Bureau must determine the reasonableness of the penalty and whether it is not just a penalty, but   excessive compensation for unpaid attachment fees. The Bureau must also determine whether the prior authorization requirement is reasonable in all instances raised in the Complaint.  S8-  C a1Order15.` ` Fourth, PSCo argues that the Bureau's Order violates the Tenth Amendment to the   Constitution by depriving the courts of the State of Colorado over jurisdiction of a private contractual   matter that has no impact on interstate commerce. We have addressed this issue above. The Commission   has jurisdiction under Section 224 of the Act to address the Complaint. The District Court agrees and has   exercised its discretion under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to refer to the Commission those matters which should be addressed by it. "(,l(l(,,"Ԍ S-  A a1Order16.` ` Fifth, PSCo urges us to overturn Williamsburg Cablevision and Alert CableR) {Oh-ԍ Supra note WILLIAMSBURG21R to the extent   those cases assert that the Commission has jurisdiction over unauthorized attachment penalties. PSCo   [points out that those cases were relied upon by the Bureau in the Order. It further points out that those   cases were staff decisions issued under delegated authority and that they were not appealed to the full   Commission. PSCo again asserts that unauthorized attachment penalties are simply a contractual issue between parties and not subject to Section 224 of the Act.  S-   a1Order17.` ` Williamsburg Cablevision is an order concerning two pole attachment complaint   proceedings, one involving Williamsburg Cablevision and the other, Alert Cable TV of North Carolina,  S7-  Inc. ("Alert"). The primary issue in the complaints was the appropriate annual rate for pole attachments.   Alert also alleged that a $15.00 fee charged by the utility for every attachment made without prior  S-  approval was unjust and unreasonable.H*Z yO -ԍ Williamsburg Cable at para. 20.H The pole attachment agreement at issue required prior approval   from the utility before attachments were made to its poles. It alleged this was necessary to prevent   attachments that violated the terms of the agreement and often the safety code. The utility believed the  S8 -  penalty was necessary as a disincentive to unauthorized attachments.2+8  {O-ԍ Id.2 The order was issued by the   Common Carrier Bureau ("CCB") under delegated authority. CCB recognized the legitimate interest of   !the utility in ensuring that all attachments are made in accordance with the contract and that pole  S -  attachments comply with safety codes.8, | {O-ԍ Id at 21.8 CCB also recognized that, as a penalty, the amount was not  Sl-  ?limited by the maximum attachment rate.2-l {O-ԍ Id.2 CCB, however, made no finding that the penalty was   .reasonable. CCB dismissed the portion of the complaint regarding the unauthorized attachment penalty   because Alert "presented no evidence" that the amount was unreasonable as a penalty or that the clause  S-  requiring prior approval was unreasonably administered.2. {O-ԍ Id.2 The reasonableness of the clause requiring prior approval was not at issue.  S:-   a1Order18.` ` Alert Cable is the unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order denying reconsideration  S-  [of the Alert portion of Williamsburg Cable. Alert asked CCB to rule that penalties are unreasonable per  S-  se. The utility, on the other hand, argued that Commission jurisdiction did not extend to determining what   a just and reasonable penalty would be. CCB found that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint, but that  Sq-  a penalty was not unreasonable per se and that Alert had not sustained the burden of showing the penalty   was unreasonable. PSCo argues that CCB "determined that unauthorized attachment penalties are not  S -  subject to measurement by the standards set forth in Section 224."G/ 2  yO#-ԍ Application for Review, at 13.G CCB did no such thing. It found   that the maximum rate criteria did not apply, but that the penalty was subject to the "just and reasonable"  S-standard of Section224.A0  yO'-ԍ Alert Cable, at para. 5.A "R 0,l(l(,,"Ԍ S-  $ԙ a1Order19.` ` Williamsburg Cablevision and Alert Cable are correct in the approach to penalties and   =unauthorized attachment provisions. Such terms and conditions and the practices in implementing them   are within Commission jurisdiction to address in a complaint proceeding. We recognize the interests of   the utility in receiving compensation for attachments to its poles and in ensuring that attachments to poles  S5-  are safe and in accordance with agreed upon standards.F15 yO-ԍ Application for Review, at 4.F We further recognize that penalty provisions  S-  may be a reasonable method to achieve its ends.N2XX yO-  ԍ Even though the concerns of the utility might be met by an agreement requiring notification after the   attachment is made with provisions for the utility to correct or require correction of any safety violations, a penalty might be required to assure compliance.N We recognize, too, the statutory requirements for  S-  access to polesA3x yO -ԍ 47 U.S.C. 224(f)(1).A and our "rejection of the contention of some utilities that they are primary arbiters of  S-  [safety, reliability, or engineering] concerns, or that their determinations should be presumed reasonable."P4 yOD-ԍ Local Competition Order, at para. 1158.P   -The terms and conditions and the practices employed authorizing pole attachments, including any penalties  S6-  [specified for failure to comply, must be just and reasonable. As CCB stated in Alert Cable: "The parties   should be aware that we will act expeditiously to eliminate any abuse that may arise related to the penalty  S-provision."A5 yO -ԍ Alert Cable, at para. 7.A  Sk -  _ a1Order20.` ` Sixth, PSCo asserts that it was denied due process before the Commission and the District   =Court. PSCO argues that the Complaint was not properly before the Bureau and the Bureau's improper   intervention resulted in the loss of PSCo's claim in the district court. PSCo does not explain, however,   how it was denied due process. The Complaint is pending before the Bureau. PSCo was granted an  S -  =extension of time to respond;6 (  yOg-ԍ Order, at para.10.; and has responded.i7  yO-ԍ Answer, July 28, 1998; Supplement to Answer, September 14, 1998.i The Bureau will accord PSCo all due process under   the Commission's Rules in considering the Complaint. The District Court opted not to retain jurisdiction,  S9-  /but dismissed the claim, to allow PSCo to appeal the District Court ruling.K89H  yO!-ԍ Application for Review, Exhibit 2.K There are two possible   outcomes"the claim will be reinstated upon appeal or the District Court will entertain any action   necessary to enforce any claim remaining upon the Bureau's resolution of the Complaint. Both the Bureau   and the District Court have exercised discretion in procedural matters in favor of PSCo. PSCo has not demonstrated anything that will operate to prevent it from receiving proper resolution of this matter.  S-   a1Order21.` ` Lastly, PSCo suggests that the Complaint should have been dismissed for failure to include  S-  information required by Sections 1.1404(f)(h) of the Commission's Rules.I9 yOL%-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(f)(h).I PSCo, however resolves the   issue itself by acknowledging that the information alluded to applies to rate disputes and that a rate is not"h9,l(l(,,3"  S-  in dispute in this Complaint.G: yOh-ԍ Application for Review, at 15.G Section 1.1406(b) of the Commission's Rules states that a complaint may   be dismissed if it does not contain "substantially all the information required under 1.1404" or the  S-  complainant may be required to submit more information. It further states that the complaint shall not   be dismissed if "the information is not available from the public records or from the respondent utility  S4-  -after reasonable request."A;4X yO,-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b).A The applicable provision is Section 1.1404(f) which states: "In any case, where   [it is claimed that a term or condition is unjust or unreasonable, the claim shall specify all information and  S-  argument relied upon to justify said claim."A< yOV -ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(f).A TCI has supplied this information and we will leave it to   the discretion of the Bureau to determine whether additional information is necessary to dispose of the Complaint.  S-{< IV. Conclusion ă  S -   a1Order22.` ` The Application for Review is without merit. The Bureau should proceed to process the   Complaint according to the procedures established in the Rules and Commission precedent as clarified herein.  S -   a1Order23.` ` The Bureau has not acted on the complaint. This order affirms the Order of the Bureau recognizing its jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Motion to Stay is, therefore, moot.  S7-g* V. Ordering Clauses ă  S-  2 a1Order24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the gCommunications   Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154(i) & (j); and Sections 1.115 and 1.1415 of the Commission's Rules; 47 C.F.R. 1.115 & 1.1415; that the relief requested in the Application for Review IS DENIED.  S- a1Order25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Stay IS DISMISSED as moot.  S- a1Order26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is EFFECTIVE upon release. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Magalie Roman Salas ` `  hh,Secretary S&i  S&i