WPCl% 2B<J CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic3|j0_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@2%6r Z Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic3|jHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xj\  P6G;\_)^XP2KvcpkI"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxda8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2kQvtla5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   O  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   H  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2Ba8Right 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. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2tPa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2)(p3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2[e_DPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  Xe-ԍ New England Cablevision of Massachusetts, Inc. (Amesbury, Essex, Gloucester, Manchester, Merrimac, Rockport, and Salisbury, Massachusetts), DA 941607,  68 (Cable Services Bureau, released December 28, 1994).  That same reasoning applies to the situation here, where the new information was submitted on the day the City held a public meeting, during which the rate order was issued.  X1- x8. In this instance, the City notified TCI that it was certified to regulate rates by letter dated November 3, 1993. The City received TCI's initial Form 393 on December 22, 1993,  X -approximately 20 days late under our rules.K  X`-ԍ See, supra, fn. 12. K By letter dated January 12, 1994, the City notified TCI that the date for issuing a rate order was being extended until April 22, 1994, and that the City would be requesting additional information from TCI. The City's request for additional information concerned both equipment and installation issues. In responding to the equipment issue, TCI reaffirmed the number of its original units in service by including calculations using the same figures contained in its December 22, 1993 submission. On May 10, 1994, the City published a public notice of a May 23, 1994 meeting of its Cable Television Commission at which a proposed rate order was to be discussed. The City sent a copy of its consultant's report and the proposed rate order to TCI on May 12, 1994. At the Cable Television Commission meeting, it was noted that the City Council was scheduled to meet to take action on the proposed rate order on June 20, 1994. Following the Cable Television Commission meeting, TCI indicated that the numbers for converters and remotes in its original submission to the City were incorrect. TCI did not bring the errors regarding its"v0*((" unitsinservice calculations to the City's attention until June 20, 1994, the day the rate order was issued and approximately six months after TCI filed its original From 393 with the City. x9. Having not raised the issue with the City before the day the rate order was issued, when the record was open and the City could have considered the issue, TCI is not entitled to have its mistakes corrected by the Commission on appeal. Moreover, TCI has offered no reason why it could not have raised the issue earlier or why the City should be required to reopen the record in its proceeding. Furthermore, TCI provided no evidence to support its claim that the new figures are more accurate than the numbers originally submitted and reaffirmed. To hold otherwise would prevent LFAs from issuing rate orders in a timely fashion, since constant revisions by operators could indefinitely postpone final resolution. Based upon the best available information at the time, the City acted reasonably in issuing its rate order and in declining to consider the new, lastminute information.  X -x B. Hourly Service Charge (HSC) x10. TCI next contends that the City used an incorrect figure for total labor hours (for 1992) in calculating TCI's HSC. The City counters that since TCI was unable to substantiate its assumptions and estimates in calculating total labor hours, the City was forced to recalculate the figure, using installation figures for the sixmonth period from October 1993 through March 1994, the only actual figures provided by TCI. x11. TCI estimated 1992 total labor hours by multiplying the number of fulltime equivalent technical employees by the estimated average annual work hours for such employees, which, TCI claims, resulted in a figure representing the total number of hours worked by its technical employees. TCI then multiplied that number by the estimated percentage of time spent by technical employees on maintenance and installation, which resulted in an estimate of 2323 total labor hours devoted to equipment maintenance and installation. Because the City felt TCI's total labor hours figure was low, the City requested information regarding the number of installations TCI performs annually. TCI's response, however, did not provide any 1992 data, nor did it provide average annual installations calculated over a period of years. Instead, the only actual installation numbers provided by TCI were for the sixmonth period from October 1993 through March 1994. The City then extrapolated estimates from the number of installations which resulted in annual figures for each type of installation. The City then multiplied those figures by the number of hours required for each type of installation, information which was provided by TCI, to arrive at an estimate of 3648 total labor hours. x12. TCI's only objection to the City's actions in this regard is that the City used data from 1993 and 1994 to arrive at total labor hours rather than using data from 1992. TCI cites instructions to Form 393 which state that the total labor hours for maintenance of customer equipment and service installations should come from the "12 month period ending at the":&0*(($"  X-close of the most recent accounting period."x Xy-ԍ Instructions to FCC Form 393, Part III, Line 4 and Schedule B (August 1993). x The City explains, however, that it would have used 1992 data, but the only actual installation data provided by TCI was for a portion of both 1993 and 1994. Had TCI used 1992 data in its original Form 393 or given that data to the City, it is clear from the record below that the City would have used that information in calculating TCI's HSC. Since, however, the only actual installation information provided by TCI was for a portion of both 1993 and 1994, the City used the more recent data. Its actions in that regard were reasonable.  XH- III.xOrdering Clauses  X -x13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that TCI's appeal of the City's local rate order IS  X - DENIED . x14. This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by  0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321 (1993). x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau