WPCP 2a BKf Z CG Times3|x =9Xw PE37XP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`LHP LaserJet 4Si lpt2tional)HPLA4SAD.PRSXw PE37\WXP2  Z   3|x HP LaserJet 4Si lpt2tional)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\WX@2*/C f r f CourierCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxFx6X@`7X@l8wC;,=9Xw PE37XPDm7zC;,BXz_ pi7XnV"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,~Xu&_ x7XXC:\LDDML{L.TC8C:\LDDML{L.TC9\C:\L{L.TD0pxC:\LDDML{L.TD1llC:\LDDML{L.TD2a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 0k.|.v!/t/a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 22=0 0 z1 !2a1Right 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 6 2 3s4;5a4Right 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-(# 2m9=6788a8Right 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) . 2!<9&::{;a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2T?S<==3!>a1TechnicalTechnical 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)Documentg2D?eCCoDPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:"  Y-Town.l ( Yy-ԍTown of Albany, Ind., Ordinance No. 199319,  7 (1993).l    However, a local franchising authority is not required to specifically adopt in writing each and every rate provision promulgated by the Commission in order to comply with the certification provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. As the Commission stated previously, in order to adopt regulations consistent with those promulgated by the Commission, it is sufficient for a franchising authority to adopt a rule "stating that the local franchising authority will follow the rate regulations promulgated by  YH-this Commission."S Hy Yr -ԍRate Order, supra, at n.238.S The Town's ordinance does contain such a provision. Section 1 of the Town's Ordinance states in relevant part as follows:  Y -  A. That the Town Council and Council members hereby adopt the rules and  X Y -regulations set forth by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to  X Y -Section 623(b) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition  X Y -Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. [] 543(b)) for the review of the basic service tier of  X Y -cable television services and equipment necessary for the provision of such  X Y-service tier. Such rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal xx- Yy-Communications Commission are found in Exhibit A attached hereto.l y,( YV-ԍTown of Albany, Ind., Ordinance No. 199319,  1 (1993).l    Moreover, we note that both parties acknowledge that the Town has not commenced  Y4-regulation of Americable's basic rates.F 4 Y-ԍSee footnote 2.F Specifically, Americable has not submitted any rate  Y-justification forms, Y^-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.930 (initiation of review of basic cable service and equipment rates). and consequently, the Town has neither had an opportunity to review  Y-Americable's rates nor issue a rate order.F,  Y-ԍSee footnote 2.F When the Town commences regulation of Americable's rates, it must act, under its ordinance, in accordance with its rules and those of the Commission. In accordance with these rules, the Town will be required to provide cable operators with notice and an opportunity to comment before ordering a refund order. Accordingly, we find that the absence of a specific notice and opportunity to comment provision in the Town's ordinance is not grounds for rescission of the Town's certification in this case.  YN-5.` ` For the same reasons, we do not believe that the failure of the Town's"N 0*((z" ordinance to include a specific provision limiting refunds to one year constitutes grounds for the rescission of the Town's certification. As noted above, the Town's own rules require it  Y-to follow the rules set forth by the Commission "for the review of the basic service tier of (#(# Y-cable television services and equipment necessary for the provision of such service tier."v Y4-ԍSee Town of Albany, Ind., Ordinance No. 199319,  1 (1993).v  Y-The Town has also not commenced rate regulationF{ Y-ԍSee footnote 2.F and, therefore, there is no evidence that the Town has or will act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Commission's rules with respect to ordering rate refunds. Accordingly, we find that Americable's arguments on this issue lack merit.  Y1-6.` ` Next, we do not believe that the Town's ordinance impermissibly allows for refunds to be ordered where a cable operator has justified its rates through a costofservice showing, as Americable asserts. Americable's allegation is again based on the language  Y -contained in Section 7 of the Town's ordinance.v . Y-ԍSee Town of Albany, Ind., Ordinance No. 199319,  7 (1993).v However, there is nothing in this provision which states that the Town may order refunds even though a cable operator has permissibly justified its rates through a costofservice showing. Moreover, Americable points to nothing in any other section of the ordinance which allows the Town to take such action. Accordingly, we find that this argument also lacks merit.  Yb-7.` ` Finally, we address Americable's argument that the Town's certification should be rescinded due to its adoption of rules that are inconsistent with those of the Commission with regard to the period of review for cost of service cases. While Section 1 of the Town's ordinance demonstrates the Town's clear intent to adopt cable rate regulations consistent with those of the Commission, Section 4 of the Town's ordinance incorrectly states the time period allowed for review of costofservice cases by the franchising authority. Section 4 of the Town's Ordinance states in relevant part as follows:   A. That the Town of Albany, Delaware County, Indiana, shall establish that the period for review of the basic service tier of cable television services and the equipment necessary to provide said basic tier of service shall be ninety (90) days from the submission by the grantee of information and forms prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission for a showing of costofservice, as defined by the Federal Communications Commission. B. In the event that additional time for review of the costofservice showing submitted by the grantee is necessary, the Town of Albany or their designee shall issue a brief written order prior to the end of the ninety (90) day review period with a copy of said order to be sent by Certified United States Mail to the grantee, providing for an additional one hundred fifty (150) day period for review of rates of the basic service tier and the equipment necessary to provide said"!0*(("" basic tier of service. During the extended review period and before taking action on the proposed rate, the Town Council shall hold at least one public hearing in which interested citizens may express their views and record  Y-objections.l( Y4-ԍTown of Albany, Ind., Ordinance No. 199319,  4 (1993).l    On the other hand, Section 76.933(a) of the Commission's rules provides for an initial 30 Yv-day period for review of rate justifications submitted to the franchising authority.Jvy Y -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.933(a).J This period may be tolled for either an additional 90 days in cases not involving costofservice  YH-showings, or an additional 150 days in cases involving costofservice showings.PH* Y# -ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.933(b).P We note that the initial 90day period of review for costofservice cases referred to in Section 4 of the Town's ordinance is inconsistent with the initial period allowed under our rules. This reference in Section 4 is also inconsistent with the Town's stated intent to adopt regulations that are consistent with those of the Commission. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the Town's certification should be rescinded in this case. First, the Town has indicated that it intended to adopt rules that are consistent with those of the Commission. Second, we note that Americable has not been harmed by this inconsistency as the Town has not initiated rate  Y-regulation (i.e., Americable has not submitted rate justification forms and the Town has not commenced any review proceedings of Americable's rates). As such, the Town has not administered its rules in a manner that is inconsistent with our rules, and it will not have an opportunity to do so until rate regulation is initiated. Accordingly, we do not believe that rescinding the Town's certification would be justified at this time. We do, however, note that the Town should correct the inconsistency in Section 4 of its ordinance before rate regulation is initiated. Should the Town fail to correct the inconsistency before initiating rate regulation, Americable may then file a petition for revocation based on the Town's failure to adopt and administer regulations that are consistent with those of the Commission.  X- III.ORDERING CLAUSES  Y~-8.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by Americable International Indiana, Inc., challenging the certification of the Town of Albany,  YQ-Indiana to regulate Americable's basic cable service rates IS DENIED.  Y$-9.` ` This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321.  Y -` `   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION "!0*((""Ԍ ` `  Meredith J. Jones ` `  Chief, Cable Services Bureau