WPC& 2?BJ%<Courier3|a  #&a\  P6G;r&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;PYX@Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italicr&P#2,qK ZCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNI\\>>>\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\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S0Ԋ#&J\  P6Qr&P#P y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P y.\80,G\4  pG; 2e=5,d[&e4  pG;&\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2 X < v$ p  S0Ԋ#&J\  P6Qr&P#Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italica8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2-k< k  v a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2t_ m BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   J 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#@$(a) hh#((# 2|a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  25ja5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2C1a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2#3e ""Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:5l@6l@Technical 5Technical 53` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 64` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 25 Technical 3Technical 36 2fH7$A8lC9$D:$BFTechnical 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 (#2Q;H<J=L>Ntoc 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 (#2X?BQ@`SAv~UBUtoc 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`CDXDbZE\F^toc 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 (#2bGv`HldaIraJBbcaptioncaptionG _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionH endnote referenceendnote referenceI head1 #J'd#2p}wC@ #2)eK}bLpcMcNda1Paragraph 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` ` `  2AhO[ePfQfRwga5Paragraph 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 2jSpshTqhUeTiVei13,6gDocument Style=(/D ,*/3ES/0` ` ` 23-6gDocument Style=(/D -*/3ET1 2 . 33.6gDocument Style=(/D .*/3EU 34 43/6gDocument Style=(/D /*/3EV 56 2lWPjXpjYSkZk5306gDocument Style=(/D 0*/3EW*78   6316gDocument Style=(/D 1*/3EX9:` ` ` 7326gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EY8;<@   8336gRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers*/3EZA=>@` `  ` ` ` 2No[l\Gm]m^n9346gDocument 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 2r_o`?paqbq13386gRight-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 *  ׃  2tcrdIsesfjt173<6gTechnical Document StyleD <*/3Ec&OP  . 183=6gTechnical Document StyleD =*/3Ed&QR  . 193>6gTechnical Document StyleD >*/3Ee*ST    203?6gTechnical Document StyleD ?*/3Ef'UV   2wg1uhuiuvjv213@6gTechnical Document StyleD @*/3Eg&WX   223A6gTechnical Document StyleD A*/3Eh4Y$Z     233B6gTechnical Document StyleD B*/3Ei&[\  . 243C6gTechnical Document StyleD C*/3Ej&]^  . 2!kwlym.znmCitatorD6gFormat Secretary's Citator Output File/3Ekx_`#d6X@7@# XX  XX ##Xj\  PG;XP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#d6X@7@# XX *  #Format Downl6gFormat Downloaded DocumentD H*/3ElUab XX    X\ #d6X@7@#MACNormalI6g U/=(/D I*/3Em'cd    \ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4PXP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a),X0Í Í,X0Í Í,0Í Í,0Í Í,XÍ.,XÍ.,Í.,Í. .,., US#:}D4PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP# .,., US#:}D4P XP#FootnoteL6g( U/=(/D L*/3Enef2ToSpm҂q?r҄footnote tex6g6 U/=(/D M*/3Eo'gh#FxX  P CXP#headerO6gD U/=(/D O*/3Epi j  #FxX  P CXP# referenceP6g` U/=(/D P*/3Eq;kl#FxX  P CXP#itemizeQ6gn U/=(/D Q*/3Er*mn F r#FxX  PCXP#2smtbuSUvpheader2R6g| U/=(/D R*/3Eso p`    #FxX  PCXP# heading 3S6g U/=(/D S*/3Etqr #FxX  PCXP# footerT6g U/=(/D T*/3Eust!#X\  PG;P#Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O gv` ` ` 2wqJxeye zDocument[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gw  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gx  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gy  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gz*    2|{pJ|}L~Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g{  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g|8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g}A@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g~0     2tRRight Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O g\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O ge` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2~n?Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&!"  . 25іfTechnical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&#$  . 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&)*   2,ܘaTechnical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O g&/0  . Format DownloadFormat Downloaded Documentiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2}ٚVޛqParagraph[1]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B$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'A]Paragraph[5]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )BPij` ` ` hhh Paragraph[6]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )B[kl Paragraph[7]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bfmn Paragraph[8]C^i1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)C -2( -Ct )Bqop 2}Y֠^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` ` `  2jݤ29S&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 2ߨ٥uIDefault 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#2vvvvsheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2vvv}heading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text footnote textfootnote text toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2ͮdHeadingChapter HeadingJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd+. 2ZK`11)DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   2ݸ11n\LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedN X 2AdjsݹEHIGHLIGHT 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-s88ؿMEMORANDUMMemo 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$0 **(  ӧ XX 2LX[;[[NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleSMALLSmall TypestyleFINEFine TypestyleLARGELarge Typestyle2[~[4dEXTRA LARGEExtra Large TypestyleVERY LARGEVery Large TypestyleENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   A, B,|G?@6 Uppercase Letters=(*/|G?.E .2lMK_Equation Caption1_Equation Caption1 a12:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O8mn@   a22:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OAop@` `  ` ` ` a32:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OJqr` ` @  ` `  2ia42:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*OSst` `  @  a52:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*O\uv` `  @hh# hhh a62:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Oewx` `  hh#@( hh# a72:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Onyz` `  hh#(@- ( 2bl wa82:.E+O**Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers=(O*Ow{|` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp  ӎSMALL s†NSMALL s†NORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC ӆNORMAL¤ TNORMAL¤ Technical 4¸žC:\mw3022.tmp` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#2($l1bly 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 2jl9:\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 (#21Om: , : , ,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÷$t ?.E1.a11I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')8ij@   a21I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Akl@` `  ` ` ` 23a31I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Jmn` ` @  ` `  a41I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')Sop` `  @  a51I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')\qr` `  @hh# hhh a61I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')est` `  hh#@( hh# 2sq(a71I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')nuv` `  hh#(@- ( a81I.E+')*'0Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers')8?I u*')wwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp Chapter?I@6HChapter Heading=(')8?I *')'0 ?I.E9y z ` CHAPTER 3  Report Body@6HMain Text of Report8?I *')'0 ?I.E{|  2<mrTitleNotesTitle Page NotesH('0\F H rW?I ''#Z*f9 x$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 #  `  2ownHanging 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$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2(Al Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5$$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  #  2Z|bStyle 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$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2t{ Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Point$$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  2KKKOK"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72 KZb5Z"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""(ԍ Id. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(b).W We stated that "[b]y implementing specific complaint  xprocedures for denial of access cases, we seek to establish swift and specific enforcement procedures that  S( xVwill allow for competition where access can be provided."T  ƌ {Oj!(ԍ Local Competition Order at  1224.T The Commission anticipated that all relevant  xinformation would be available to it upon receipt of the complaint, and stated that final decisions would  Sn( xzbe resolved expeditiously.@ n ƌ {O$(ԍ Id. at  1225.@ We did note, however, that a request for additional information from the  S;( xfCommission must be responded to within 5 days.> ;ƌ {O&(ԍ Id. at n. 3020.> While we agree that access complaints should be"; ,|(|(,,z"  xhandled expeditiously, we decline to establish a pleading cycle specific to this case. As we stated in the  S( xLocal Competition Order, "[b]ecause we are using the expedited process described herein, we do not  xDbelieve stays or other equitable relief will be granted . . . ". We believe the normal pleading cycle  xestablished by our rules is appropriate in this case as opposed to the hybrid process requested by Time  xjWarner. Therefore, we will deny Time Warner's Motion I. We have, however, completed an expedited review of the Complaint.  S( `  a1Order4.` ` In its Motion II, KCPL has requested that this proceeding be designated for hearing. We  xbdeny the Motion. The pole attachment complaint procedures are designed to ensure a simple and  S6( xexpeditious process. 6ƌ {O ( xnԍ See First Report and Order, CC Docket 78144, Adoption of the Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole Attachments, 68 F.C.C. 2d 1585 at  36 (1978). The Commission may resolve the complaint based upon the filings, it may meet  S( xwith the parties to clarify issues, and it may, at its discretion, order evidentiary proceedings.> "ƌ yO (ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1411.> Whether  S( x8to hold a hearing on any issue related to a complaint is solely at the discretion of the Commission.2ƌ {O"(ԍ Id.2 We  S ( xhave before us sufficient information upon which to base our decision.2 Dƌ {O(ԍ Id.2 Therefore, we will not hold a hearing in this proceeding and we will deny KCPL's Motion II.  S ( ` $ a1Order5.` ` On June 30, 1999 KCPL filed a complaint ("KCPL Complaint") against Time Warner  xalleging that Time Warner violated its agreement with KCPL regarding the process by which Time Warner  xmay overlash additional cable to its existing lines. The KCPL Complaint alleges that Time Warner's  x$practices regarding notice and application for attachments are unjust and unreasonable. KCPL does not  xplace in issue the rates, terms or conditions of the pole attachment agreements between the parties and  xtherefore, it does not invoke the Commission's jurisdiction. Rather, KCPL makes an issue of Time  xWarner's failure to comply with KCPL's interpretation of the rates, terms, and conditions of the  S( xagreements.ƌ yO( xԍ The terms of the agreement are memorialized in a letter dated October 8, 1996 to Michael A. Rump and Edward A. Caine, counsel for KCPL from Gardner F. Gillespie, attorney for Time Warner. The remedies sought by KCPL would enjoin Time Warner from behavior which KCPL  xasserts is in violation of the pole attachment agreements between the parties. The Commission will not  S9( xassert its jurisdiction merely to enforce the terms of a pole attachment agreement.9. ƌ {O( xЍ See Appalachian Power v. Capitol Cablevision Corp., 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 574 (1981) (The utility filed  xa complaint asking the Commission to order payment of unpaid pole attachment fees by the cable system. The cable  xsystem crosscomplained that the rate was unreasonable. The Commission ruled on the crosscomplaint, setting an  xdappropriate rate, and dismissed the utility's complaint for lack of jurisdiction as a contractual matter to be resolved  {O)"( xby a local court.); see also, TeleCeption of Winchester, Inc. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F)  xz1572 (1981); CablecomGeneral, Inc. v. Central Power and Light Co., 50 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 473 (1981);  xTexarkana TV Cable Co., Inc. v. Southwestern Electric Power Co., 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1043 (1981) (Each of  x<these three cases involved a complaint about unreasonable rates and a counterclaim by the utility for nonpayment.  xdIn 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.) The Commission's  S( xauthority under Section 224 "does not supplant that of the local jurisdiction when the issue between the",|(|(,,<"  x6/!parties is a breach of contract not involving unjust or unreasonable contractual terms, rates or  S( x$conditions."ƌ yO5(ԍ Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co., 12 FCC Rcd 10362 at  10 (1997). We dismiss the complaint for failure to state a rate, term or condition which is claimed to  S( xbe unjust and unreasonable.aXƌ {O(ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 1.1406(b) & 1.1404(e).a In doing so, we make no determination whether the rates, terms and  Sg( xNconditions in the agreements between KCPL and Time Warner involving overlashing are just and  S4( xreasonable."$4ƌ yO( xԍ The Commission has repeatedly affirmed its position encouraging cable systems to overlash on its existing  {O ( xlines.  See Report and Order, Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CS Docket  xdNo. 97151, Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, 13 FCC Rcd 6777  {O (at  59, et seq. (1998); see also Public Notice, DA 9535 (January 11, 1995). " Because we are dismissing the KCPL Complaint as invalid on its face, we decline to accept or address any additional pleadings in that matter which are now moot.  S( ` Z a1Order6.` ` Section 224(b)(1) of the Act provides that "the Commission shall regulate the rates, terms,  x0and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms, and conditions are just and  S5( x~reasonable"A5ƌ yO(ԍ 47 U.S.C. 224(b)(1).A except where these matters are regulated by a State.A5f ƌ yO;(ԍ 47 U.S.C. 224(c)(1).A Section 224(f) provides that a utility  xmust provide nondiscriminatory access to its poles except "where there is insufficient capacity and for  S( xreasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes."> ƌ yOe(ԍ 47 C.F.R. 224(f).> We have concluded that  x"under the 'just and reasonable' standard, we have ample authority to consider terms and conditions in  Si ( xour ultimate decision on a complaint."i ƌ yO( xԍ 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 at  25 (1989). Further, we have concluded that "where onerous terms or  xconditions are found to exist on the basis of evidence, a cable company may be entitled to a rate  S ( xadjustment or the term or condition may be invalidated."> ƌ {O(ԍ Id. at  26.> We have also determined that we may take  S ( xaction when a utility has engaged in unjust or unreasonable practices.@Z pƌ {O( x.ԍ Cable Information Services, Inc., et al v. Appalachian Power Company, PA 790008, 81 F.C.C. 2d. 383 at  x 25 (1980); Newport News Cablevision, Ltd. Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Electric Power Company, PA 87-0006, 7 FCC Rcd 2610 (1992).@CABLE SVCS Private negotiation is the preferred/!  S ( x8method for creating pole attachment arrangements and for dispute resolution.2X ƌ yO"( xԍ Report and Order, Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CS Docket No.  x97151, Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies Governing Pole Attachments, 13 FCC Rcd 6777 at  10!21 (1998).2 Should negotiations fail,  Sj(the parties may seek resolution of disputes by the Commission by filing a complaint.jƌ {O&(ԍ See Part 1, Subpart J of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.1401!1.1418. "7D,|(|(,,"Ԍ S( `  a1Order7.` ` On September 30, 1998, Time Warner filed applications to place new attachments on poles  xowned by KCPL together with maps indicating overlashing of existing attachments to begin upgrading  xTime Warner's cable system in Overland Park, Kansas. Time Warner was informed by KCPL that a  x number of the poles needed to be replaced at the expense of Time Warner. KCPL informed Time Warner  xthat the replacement was necessary because KCPL's contractor, Capital Electric, had determined that the  xpoles would not meet National Electrical Safety Code ("NESC") guidelines for wind and ice loading  S( x conditions after Time Warner's attachments had been added. Time Warner hired its own consulting  S( xengineers ("BHC")Xƌ yO(ԍ Brungardt, Honomichi, & Co. Complaint at p. 5.X for an independent evaluation of the poles. BHC examined a sample of 52 of the  xpoles that KCPL identified as needing replacement and determined that many of the poles it examined  S5( xBeither would meet NESC guidelines or were in need of replacement before additional attachments would  S(be added.BXƌ yO (ԍ Complaint, Ex. A at p. 3.B  S ( `  a1Order8.` ` Through January and February 1999, the parties engaged in a dialogue over engineering  Si ( xmethods and other issues related to determining the number of poles needing replacement and who should  S6 ( xbear the cost of that replacement.>6 ƌ {O(ԍ Id. at pp. 57.> By letter dated February 22, 1999, Time Warner reminded KCPL of  xthe requirement in the pole attachment agreement that applications be processed within 30 days and the  S ( xfrequirement of the Commission's rules that a response in writing be provided within 45 days.R zƌ yO(ԍ Complaint, Ex. A , Attachment 8, at p. 2.R Time Warner then insisted that KCPL provide the following information by February 26, 1999:  XFor all listed applications submitted in September 1998, provide us with a final  determination regarding which poles need to be replaced, as well as sufficient backup  <information so that we can understand the basis for that determination. As to these poles,   also advise us of the cost to Time Warner for any poles for which Time Warner is  2responsible for paying the replacement cost. In addition, set forth exactly when each pole  S8( tcan be replaced, assuming that Time Warner provides immediate payment of any costs  Vto be charged to it, with the understanding that we would want the pole replacement to  S(proceed in the order the poles are listed on the chart.;! ƌ {O|(ԍ Id. at p. 3.;   Sl( ` t a1Order9.` ` KCPL responded in a lengthy letter dated February 26, 1999, in which they committed  S9(to completing the engineering review by March 5, 1999.Q"9ƌ yOu!(ԍ Complaint, Ex. A, Attachment 9, at p. 3.Q LETTER  This letter advised that  HXTime Warner is responsible for the replacement of (1) all poles which are currently   overloaded due to Time Warner's or its predecessors' cable loadings and (2) all poles that  ~will become overloaded as a result of Time Warner's cable upgrade program. KCPL is  pwilling to permit Time Warner to proceed with its upgrade project provided that the   following conditions are met (1) a method acceptable to both parties is reached for  S( `resolving any controversy regarding how many poles will be replaced and who will pay", ",|(|(,,"  for them, (2) Time Warner will submit overlash and pole attachment applications for  ZKCPL approval, and (3) the past due balance on invoices submitted to Time Warner must  S(be brought current.;#ƌ {O(ԍ Id. at p. 4.;   Sg(  xIt further advised that "the cost to replace a pole typically ranges between $3,000 to $5,000, depending  x~on the class and length of pole and the equipment attached to the pole. A more specific estimate of costs  xcannot be done until the review process is completed. As soon as practicable, KCPL will provide Time  S( x8Warner with an estimate of the costs."2$Zƌ {O (ԍ Id.2 By letter dated March 22, 1999, KCPL notified Time Warner of the estimated costs: $556,275.  S( `  a1Order 10.` ` With a letter dated April 27, 1999, Time Warner sent a check in the amount of $556,275  xto KCPL. The letter recited that, "This amount includes payment for pole replacements that Time Warner  xbelieves are not its responsibility to replace. If our companies cannot agree on a proper and fair allocation  x2of the pole replacement costs, Time Warner reserves the right to contest these charges and to seek a refund  x$of a portion of this payment . . . ." The letter requests that KCPL begin replacing poles with 25 already  xidentified by Time Warner in an April 21, 1999, letter and proceeding in order to poles identified by Time  xWarner in subsequent correspondence. The letter ultimately requests that Time Warner be notified by  xLApril 30, 1999, that work has commenced. No such notice appears in the record. KCPL acknowledges  Sj(that the check was tendered.G%jƌ {O(ԍ See Opposition at p. 10.G  S( `  a1Order 11.` ` The Commission's rules provide that denial of access must be in writing and that it must  S( xjbe explicit and absolute.A&~ƌ yO(ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(b).A Only two permissible reasons for denial of access are acceptable"insufficient  S( xcapacity or reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.A'ƌ yOL(ԍ 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(a).A The Local  Sl( xCompetition Order provides guidance on necessary and sufficient conditions for denial of access based  S:( x~upon these reasons. Where capacity can be expanded to accommodate the attachment, access cannot be  S( x8denied on the grounds of insufficient capacity.h(ƌ {OE(ԍ Local Competition Order  at  1161!1163.h The utility may rely on the NESC to provide standards  S( xfor safety, reliability, and generally applicable engineering standards,@)0 ƌ {O (ԍ Id. at  1151.@ but the utility is not the final arbiter  S(of such issues and its conclusions are not presumed reasonable.* ƌ {O#( xԍ Id. at  1158. See also Mile Hi Cable Partners, et al., v. Public Service Company of Colorado, FCC 9925, 1999 WL 79632,  19 (1999).  S;( `  a1Order 12.` ` The parties have adopted these principles in their negotiations. The matters in contention  xare whether certain poles should be changed out and, for poles that do require replacement, who should  xbear the cost. KCPL has recognized the validity of the analysis for compliance with the NESC performed"*,|(|(,,("  S( xfby Time Warner's contractor.d+ƌ {Oh(ԍ See Response at  13; Response, Ex. 2, at  20.d There is no explicit approval or denial of specific requests for access  xincluded in the pleadings. KCPL notified Time Warner which poles would accommodate its proposed  xattachments and which poles would require replacement to accommodate the proposed attachment.  xBAlthough KCPL's February 26, 1999 letter articulates conditions which must be met to proceed with the project, none of these conditions are acceptable reasons for denial of access to the poles.  S( `  a1Order 13.` ` Both parties must meet the requirements of the NESC. KCPL is insisting that Time  S( xWarner choose between what it frames as two engineering methodologies to determine which poles require  xreplacement. It asserts that the results of its methodology is essentially the same as that of Time Warner's  S5( xcontractor, BHC, although it concedes that BHC's method is more precise than its predictive model.=,5Zƌ yO/ (ԍ Response at  13.=  S( xKCPL allows that BHC's method is "more apt to identify poles that fail the requirements of the NESC  S( xtas a result of problems with actual vertical clearances.";-ƌ yOY(ԍ Response at p. 17.; KCPL's method makes assumptions about the  S ( xpheight of attachments6. zƌ yO(ԍ Reply, Ex. C.6 and consider, primarily, longitudinal loading.Y/ ƌ yOF(ԍ Response, Ex.3, at  9 & Ex. 4, Attachment 8.Y BHC's method determines the  Si (actual placement of attachments and focuses on transverse loading.G0i ƌ yO(ԍ Response, Ex. 4, Attachment 4.G  S ( `  a1Order 14.` ` The main issue then is not whether poles need to be replaced, but who is responsible for  x that replacement. KCPL's analysis provided only an estimate of the number of poles needing replacement.  x`In one sample of 50 poles which KCPL had identified as Time Warner's responsibility to replace, KCPL  xlater determined, based on BHC's findings, that 9 did not need replacement, 28 were overloaded by  xKCPL, 10 were overloaded with Time Warner facilities, and 3 were overloaded with a combination of  S( x telephone and Time Warner attachments.E1* ƌ yO(ԍ Response, Ex.2, at  22.E The February 26, 1999 letter asserts, and Time Warner  S( xconcurs52 ƌ yO+(ԍ Reply, n. 7.5 that Time Warner will be responsible for replacing all poles that are overloaded due to Time  xWarner's current attachments and those poles that will become overloaded as a result of Time Warner's  xattachments. KCPL, in the document estimating costs for Time Warner at $556,275, identified 152 poles  S8( xout of 347 needing replacement that are KCPL's responsibility to replace.X38J ƌ yO""(ԍ Response, Ex. 3, Attachment 4 (March 25, 1999).X There is no indication that replacement of these poles has begun.  S( `  a1Order15.` ` Time Warner has tendered payment for the cost of replacing poles according to KCPL's  xpreferred methodology, with the reservation that it will seek refunds as appropriate. Time Warner has  x:chosen a more precise methodology and both parties agree that it assures compliance with NESC  S( xstandards. KCPL has identified under its less precise method poles which tentatively need to be replaced. "3,|(|(,,`"  xTime Warner's contractor has begun eliminating from that number poles which do not need to be replaced.  xKCPL advises that on May 24, 1999, their contractor, Capital Electric, began planning for pole  xreplacements and that KCPL has retained contract crews to replace poles on sections 1, 2 and 3, the ones  Sg( x~on which BHC has completed its review.;4gƌ yO(ԍ Response at p. 23.; KCPL should commence replacement of the remaining poles  xwhich the parties have essentially agreed need to be replaced. As Time Warner appears to be willing, and  S( xobligated,Y5Xƌ yO(ԍ Pole Attachment Agreement, Article IV, Clause 1.Y to pay for the additional engineering analysis, which KCPL has stated is acceptable to it, Time  xWarner can continue to assess the rest of the poles identified for replacement while change out progresses on those poles already conclusively identified for it.  S5( `  a1Order16.` ` The tenor of the Response is that KCPL is continuing to pressure Time Warner to accept  xthe results of its methodology. Because KCPL's methodology is merely an estimate, and Time Warner  xHhas paid the estimated cost, KCPL must proceed. As stated above, time is of the essence on access  S ( xjmatters and dilatory cooperation is as effective as denial. KCPL is protected as it has in hand a tendered  xpayment for its costs. Should it later be determined that some of those costs are not incurred or should be incurred by KCPL, a refund may be appropriate.  S ( `  a1Order17.` ` KCPL has interjected into this proceeding its conflict with Time Warner regarding  xapplications for or notice of overlashing by Time Warner of its own facilities. Whether any of the  xrequirements related to this topic are just and reasonable are not an issue in this proceeding. The issue  xvof overlashing is relevant only to the extent that the proposed expansion of Time Warner's system  xinvolves replacement of poles to accommodate the overlashing. Identification of poles needing  xreplacement has been accomplished; KCPL cannot deny access to enforce unrelated procedural  S(requirements of the pole attachment agreement.K6ƌ {O&(ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 1.1403(a).K  S8( `  a1Order18.` ` Neither can KCPL condition access on payment of a disputed claim. KCPL has insisted  xjthat all past due balances be brought current by Time Warner. Time Warner states that they fully intend  S( xto "pay a fair price for all work performed," but indicates that the appropriate amount is in dispute.A7zƌ yO(ԍ Reply, Ex. B, at  4.A Debt collection is not permissible grounds for denial of access.  S9( `  a1Order19.` ` The record indicates a significant number of poles at issue which currently violate NESC  xjloading standards, some with existing Time Warner attachments and some with only KCPL attachments.  xKCPL asserts that it did not agree to allow Time Warner to attach to poles which were already overloaded  xin violation of NESC standards or which would become overloaded in violation of NESC standards when  Sm( xfTime Warner's attachment was added.=8m ƌ yO#(ԍ Response at  18.= KCPL has stated its obligation to meet NESC standards. It  xVappears that a number of poles that need replacement violate NESC requirements prior to attachment by  xTime Warner and the violation of the NESC would not be caused by Time Warner's facilities. Correction  S( xof the preexisting code violation is reasonably the responsibility of KCPL and only additional expenses"8,|(|(,,"  x.incurred to accommodate Time Warner's attachment to keep the pole within NESC standards should be  S(borne by Time Warner.[9ƌ {O5(ԍ Local Competition Order  at  1212.[  Sg( `   a1Order20.` ` The pole attachment agreements between KCPL and Time Warner:gZƌ {Oa( xԍ See, for example, Pole Attachment Agreement for Community Antenna Television System dated March 20, 1984 between KCPL and Telecable of Overland Park, Inc. anticipate a process  xVwhereby Time Warner files an application to request a permit to attach. Upon receipt of the application,  xKCPL determines whether the space is available, without the necessity of incurring makeready or change xtout costs. If so, KCPL approves the application for the permit and upon approval, Time Warner has the  x`right to attach. If KCPL determines that makeready or changeout costs must be incurred, KCPL gives  xLTime Warner the estimated cost of the work. If Time Warner approves the estimate, the application for  xBpermit is approved and Time Warner reimburses KCPL for the actual costs incurred. Apparently, Time  x.Warner's upgrade of its Overland Park system overwhelmed the application process, requiring KCPL to  xreview a large number of applications in a timely manner. Time Warner challenged KCPL's methodology  xfor determining the estimate for necessary makeready and changeout work and that challenge had merit  xbased upon the apparent agreement among the two engineering firms used by the parties. Time Warner's  x`applications also appear to be a catalyst for KCPL's discovery that many of its poles did not meet NESC  xstandards even without Time Warner's attachments. We believe that KCPL has had adequate time to  xadjust to the Time Warner upgrade of its system which will involve a substantial number of additional  x$applications and that KCPL should not be allowed to hold up the upgrade unnecessarily. Time Warner,  xby tendering its payment of KCPL's estimate, despite the estimate's apparent faults, satisfied its requirements under the agreements and should be able to proceed with the upgrade.  S( ` ` a1Order21.` ` The record in this matter is notable for the number of points upon which Time Warner  xand KCPL do agree. The Commission has consistently promoted the negotiation process for resolving  x.pole attachment complaints. The record indicates that on numerous occasions, the parties were close to  xan agreement. However, because of the lengthy delay that Time Warner has already suffered, which is  xLpreventing Time Warner from providing upgraded services to its customers, we believe it is necessary to  xorder KCPL to grant the applications and proceed with the makeready and changeout work. The  xapplications should be approved, and Time Warner should be responsible only for the actual costs for  xmakeready or changeout work which is made necessary because of Time Warner's attachments. We  xBbelieve, based on the record, that both KCPL and Time Warner are capable of proceeding in this matter  xin good faith and that they will be able to reach agreement on the actual costs as the work is completed.  S( `   a1Order22.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1403 of the  xCommission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321 and 1.1403, that the complaint filed by Kansas City Cable Partners  xjd/b/a Time Warner Cable of Kansas City, PA 99001, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.  S( `  a1Order23.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321 and 1.1406 of the Commission's  x.rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321 and 1.1406, that the complaint filed by Kansas City Power & Light Company, PA 99002, IS DISMISSED.  S ( `  a1Order24.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Time Warner Cable of Kansas City's Motion for  x8Expedited Action and Kansas City Power & Light Company's Motion for Designation of Proceeding for Adjudicatory Hearing ARE DENIED."o" :,|(|(,,!"Ԍ S( ` ԙ a1Order25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kansas City Power & Light Company SHALL  xCOMMENCE WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE RELEASE OF THIS ORDER, pole changeout and  xmakeready work to make Kansas City Power & Light Company's poles ready for attachment by Time  xXWarner Cable of Kansas City in Overland Park, Kansas and SHALL PROCEED TO APPROVE  xWITHOUT DELAY all applications for access to poles in Overland Park, Kansas, submitted to it by Time Warner Cable of Kansas City between September 1, 1998 and May 1, 1999.  S( `  a1Order26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Time Warner Cable of Kansas City SHALL NOT  xoverlash its own lines or make new attachments to poles which have been identified as not meeting the  xrequirements of the National Electrical Safety Code, or which have been determined would be in violation  xVof the National Electrical Safety Code upon overlashing or attachment by Time Warner Cable of Kansas City, until the necessary pole changeout and/or makeready work for that pole is completed. ` `  ,hhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,hhhWilliam H. Johnson ` `  ,hhhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau