WPC\- 2BJ Z Courier#|xw RomanTimes New Roman BoldX@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@26Fv#|xCourierTimes New RomanHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\:WX@  ЂX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:&-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993) (Cable Act of 1992). and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an""0*0*0*""  X-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.gu Xy-#Xj\  P6G;XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956.g Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a"!0*0*0* "  X-costofservice showing.j[ Xy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).j In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its CPS prices are not unreasonable.  X-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.y[ X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).  X-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.[ XQ -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC  X-Rcd 4119 (1994) (Benchmark Order): 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b). Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the  XH-revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward.Hl [ Xe-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э See Benchmark Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152. Operators attempting to justify their prices for the period prior to May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing must complete and file FCC  X -Form 393.Y  [ X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Id.Y In each case captioned above, CTEC did file either an FCC Form 393 benchmark rate justification submission, or a cost of service rate justification submission. x  X - x4. This Commission has now received from each of the captioned local franchising authorities a letter stating that it wished to withdraw its CPS rate complaint against CTEC. Under our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises when a valid complaint against those rates is filed. In every case noted here, the LFA is the only complainant against this operator in this community. Our mandate is to "protect subscribers of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the  XK-rates that would be charged if such a system were subject to effective competition." K [ X -#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э  Conference Report on the Cable Act of 1992, at 62. See also, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  X#-Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993) (Rate Order) at 5669. While our rules forbid collusive agreements between operators and local franchising authorities regarding forebearance from rate regulation, there is no evidence of such an agreement here. In many of these letters, in fact, the LFA states that it has completed a rate review of the basic rates, and has found them reasonable. It is on the basis of this finding of"B 0*((" reasonableness, rather than on the basis of an underlying agreement to forebear, that these LFAs are seeking to withdraw their CPS rate complaints. We will accordingly allow these complainants to withdraw their complaints. Because our review of the rate justification showings is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, and because in every case listed here, the operator no longer faces a rate complaint, we are terminating our review of those filings.  X -x5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate complaints against cable programming service rates in the abovenoted communities IS GRANTED, and the review of the resulting rate justification filings IS TERMINATED. x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau " 0*((" x  X-Բx` `  hh@h AAAAAAAAAAAA Attachment A  X-CTEC CPS Complaint Withdrawals  XH-X` hp}X` hp CUID No., Local Franchisinghh@Complaintspp   Complaints  X1-xAuthority hh@ Filed 1 X <ԍ#Xj\  P6G;yoXP# The date given is the date the LFA first filed a complaint. In some cases, the LFAs filed duplicate complaints at later dates.pp  Withdrawn  X -MI0733 Village of Middlevillehh@10/08/93pp  12/08/94  X -MI0677 Plainfield Ch. Townshiphh@12/22/93pp  11/09/94  X-MI0493 Village of Fowlervillehh@02/25/94pp  10/31/94  Xb-MI1062 City of Laingsburghh@11/30/93pp  11/04/94  X4-MI1089 Grass Lake Townshiphh@10/22/93pp  11/01/94  X-MI0487 Ch. Township of Allendale@11/11/93pp  11/04/94  X-X` hp X` hp xX` hp xX` hp MI1341 Gaines Charter Townshiphh@10/29/93pp      01/20/95