WPCh 2a BKf Z CG Times3|wXw 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@\@\`LHP4M; Local Printer; LPT1tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXw PE37\NXP2 E E Z w  Y-#Xw PE37XP# c-#XR  P7jQXP#HP4M; Local Printer; LPT1tional)HL4MPCAD.PRSx  @\NX@3|w24/ f vNpCourierCG 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@\@\`La8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2Wkfk<va6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2t  :BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2!   t 3!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. ׃  2;(%_&&'a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2*m())[*a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2/13+F,eJ00Doc 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:><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxxxxCkkkkkkkkkkPCPCPCPCxxxxxxxxxxkxxxxxxjxjjjxxjxxjxxxxxxxPCxxxxPxxxxCVxHCxxxxxVVx[[[xVCxxxxxxxxjjjxxxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPkbbxxxxxxTxxxxTPP||x>>xxxxxP|x!T"x}xExPPPxxxxPxkxofxkkPPPPk]kxkPCkkxkxxxkkPxkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s[",tB^ f ^GPoxxPPPxPPPPxxxxxxxxxxPPx]sPPPxxPxkkTxCPCxk]Pxxxkxxxx>xxxxxPxxxxxxxxCxxxxxkkkkk]C]C]C]Cxxxxxxxxxxxxxjjxxjxxjxxxxx[Cxxx]xxC`x]Cxxjjx[][x`RxxjkjxxxxPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPxffxxxxxxTxxxxTPPx>>xxxxxPxT"xxExPPPxxxxPxkxsfxxxPPPPk]kkk]Ckkxkxxxkk]xkPPxxxxxxxPxkP8D%nZZB 3nMnMn..s[",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2h Y- @ $//TCI of Eastern Iowa, Inc., et al., MO&O, DA951506//$ $/ 76.922 Rates for Cable Programming Services tiers /$ $/benchmark cable rates/$  Y-  c<  Њ#Xw PE37XP# -Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  e<Washington, D.C. 20554  X-X(#  X-*DA 951506 ĐX(#P  Yf -In the Matter ofR)hpp  YO -R)h  Y8 -TCI of Eastern Iowa, Inc.R)hCUID No. IA0001 (Ft. Madison) R)  Y -TCI Cablevision of Princeton, Inc.R)hCUID No. IL0130 (Princeton) R)  Y-TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc.R)hCUID No. MO0152 (Cape Girardeau) R) Benchmark Filings to SupportR) Cable Programming Service PricesR)  Yi-}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Y<-x` ` Adopted: July 5, 1995@hppReleased: July 12, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  x1. Here we consider complaints about the prices that the abovecaptioned operators (individually "Operator" and, collectively, "Operators") were charging for their cable programming service ("CPS") tiers in the communities designated above. Operators have chosen to attempt to justify their prices through benchmark showings on FCC Form 393. This Order addresses the reasonableness of Operators' prices only through May 14, 1994. At a later date we will issue a separate order addressing the reasonableness of the prices after  YV -that date.SNV g Y"-#Xw PE37XP#э The findings in this Order do not in any way prejudge the reasonableness of the prices for CPS service after May 14, 1994 under our new rate regulations. However, to the extent Operators have sought to take advantage of the refund deferral period under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed  Ys&-Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 9438, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994) ("Second Order  Y^'-on Reconsideration"), the maximum permitted CPS prices determined herein might also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date on which such Operators #XR  P7jQXP#implemented their CPS  Y2)<prices under the new regulations. See para. 3, infra.#x6X@`7iX@# #XR  P7jQXP#Further, to the extent that the prices as"2)0*0*0*n)" of March31, 1994 are found to be excessive, reductions in prices for the period after May 14, 1994 may be required to reflect the fact that the prices during the earlier period, which are used as the starting point to calculate the prices for the prospective period, were  YK-unreasonable. See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C).S"V 60*0*0*W!"Ԍ Y-ԙx2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,6g Y-#Xw PE37XP#э Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as  Y-amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993). 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  Y-obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.ffF Y-#Xw PE37XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956.f Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a  Y-costofservice showing.iF YU -#Xw PE37XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).i In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its  Yv-CPS prices are not unreasonable.YvF Y -#Xw PE37XP#э Id.Y  YH-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993.H{F Yt-#Xw PE37XP#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).  Y1-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.i1 F Y-#Xw PE37XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b).i 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  Y -compliance with the revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. F Y5-#Xw PE37XP#э See Second Order on Reconsideration, 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 " b0*(( "  Y-complete and file FCC Form 393.Y F Yy-#Xw PE37XP#э Id.Y Generally, to justify their prices for the period beginning May 15, 1994 through a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200  Y-series. {F Y-#Xw PE37XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6); see also Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4189 n.195.  Y-  x4. The first valid CPS complaints in each of the franchise areas which are the subject of this Order were completed and served on the respective Operators and received by the Commission on the dates set forth on Appendix A. Operators filed FCC Form 393s in  Y_-response; Operators have also filed amended and supplemental Form 393 filings.J _F Y' -#Xw PE37XP#э For example, Operators filed amended FCC Forms 393 in response to a Cable Services Bureau Order citing common deficiencies observed in benchmark filings generally. Cable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994). J x5. For the franchise area designated as CUID No. MO0152, the Operator's actual CPS tier price equalled its calculated maximum permitted price. For each of the other franchise areas in this Order, the Operators' actual CPS tier prices were above the maximum permitted prices that they calculated for the CPS tier and, thus, the Operators failed to demonstrate that their prices for the CPS tier were not unreasonable. Upon review of Operators' Form 393 filings, we have found that they have not correctly calculated their maximum permitted prices, and it is therefore appropriate to make the following adjustments  Y-to Operators' calculations in Form 393: Xx` ` a. The 1992 Cable Act requires operators to fully unbundle equipment and  YK-installation costs from programming costs.i KF Y-#Xw PE37XP#э 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(3).i The Commission's regulations implement Congress's directive by requiring operators to establish an equipment  Y-basket.i K F Y-#Xw PE37XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.923(b).i Section 76.923(c) of the Commission's regulations specifically states that equipment basket costs shall include "the direct and indirect material and labor costs of providing, leasing, installing, repairing, and servicing customer equipment." In its Order adopting rate regulations, the Commission amplified this regulation by stating that "[t]he basket will include an allocation of all those system joint and common costs that service installation, leasing, and equipment repair share with other system" 0*(("  Y-activities, excluding general system overhead."F Yy-#Xw PE37XP#э Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92 Yb-266, FCC 93177, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 at 5815,  295 (1993) (footnote omitted). See also First Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, FCC 93428, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 at 1190,  47 (1993).  When completed correctly, Part III of FCC Form 393 unbundles equipment costs from programming costs. (# Xx` ` b. Operators, however, have not properly completed Part III of their FCC Form 393s and thus have not completely unbundled equipment and installation costs from programming costs as directed by the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's regulations. Specifically, on Schedule A of Part III, Operators have not reported any maintenance facility cost for installations and service of customer leased equipment, and on Schedule B they have not reported any costs for utilities. The lack of maintenance facility and utility costs might be correct if Operators' Schedule B allocations reflected that contract or thirdparty labor was performing all equipment installations and repairs. The allocations that Operators make in their Schedule B Analyses, however, indicate that their own employees performed customer equipment installation and maintenance. (# Xx` ` c. Not only are Operators' Schedule B allocations inconsistent with not having any maintenance facility costs, their allocations are also inconsistent with the argument that the repair of converters and remotes was performed offpremises by a third party. Operators have included on Schedule B and their Schedule B Analyses entries for contract labor and "Converter Maintenance." These entries, however, further indicate that Operators have not fully unbundled their equipment costs from their regulated service costs. In their Part III, Step C, Line 9 explanations, Operators set forth the number of hours that they devoted to maintenance and service of remotes  Y-and converters.6F Y-#Xw PE37XP#э See also Operators' FCC Form 393s at Part III, Line 9 and Line 16. If Operators' contract labor and converter maintenance entries are added together and the sum is divided by the number of reported hours for converter and remote maintenance, the resulting cost per hour in these communities ranges from $1.40 to $5.60. Moreover, this calculation overstates Operators' reported labor costs because it ignores that some portion of the converter maintenance cost must be for supplies. We have recognized that it is not unreasonable to assume that operators should incur a contract labor charge of $25.00 per hour for the service and  YN-maintenance of remotes and converters.GNF Y#-#Xw PE37XP#э See Harron Communications Corp. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Community Antenna Television Commission, CUID Nos. MA0225, MA0247, MA0229, MA0228, MA0245, MA0224, MA0246, DA 95160, at 1920 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released Feb. 7, 1995).G Not only are Operators' reported labor costs for the service and maintenance of remotes and converters substantially below"7W 0*((=" this figure, they are also well below their own hourly service charge as calculated on  Y-Line 5, Step A, Part III of their Form 393s.F Yb-#Xw PE37XP#э Operators' calculated hourly service charge in these communities ranges from $22.20 to $28.07. Thus, Operators' contract labor cost added to their Converter Maintenance cost cannot represent all of Operators' converter maintenance costs, and there must remain costs related to installations and service of customer leased equipment that Operators have not included on Form 393,  Y-Part III./vbF Y -#Xw PE37XP#э If, as in other communities, Operators are charging a wire maintenance fee, we would expect to see these costs reflected in Operators' rate justification filings. The absence of these costs would provide additional evidence that Operators have not fully unbundled their equipment costs from their programming costs, and our calculation of an imputed equipment cost figure is intended to correct for any distortion of Operators' permitted rates that may be caused by this error./(# Xx` ` d. Operators have not justified their Part III allocations. The Commission has repeatedly stated that where an operator does not provide adequate information to justify its rate, the Commission will set the maximum permitted rate based on the best  Y -evidence available to it.- F Yk-#Xw PE37XP#э See Third Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262, FCC 9490, 9 FCC Rcd 4316 at 4348,  90 (1994); Cable Operators' Rate Justification Filings, DA94526, 9 FCC Rcd 7752 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1994).- Simply put, Operators cannot be permitted to delay subscriber refunds by failing to provide information that is needed to determine a maximum permitted rate. Since Operators have not justified their Part III allocations and have not calculated an acceptable figure for unbundling equipment and installation costs from programming costs, we must impute an estimated equipment cost figure. We have determined based on the best evidence available to us at this time that Operators' PartII, Worksheet3, Line 303 entry in each community should be $0.060 of installation and customer equipment costs per subscriber per channel. We have derived this figure by analyzing a sample of other operators' FCC Form 393 filings, including both filings as to which we have already issued orders and filings that are currently under review, and we have observed that generally operators have an  Y-average unbundling figure of $0.06 per subscriber per channel.% F Y!-#Xw PE37XP#э Cf. United Video Cablevision, Inc., CUID Nos. MA0333 and MA0334, DA 941144, at 10(b) n.24 (Cab. Serv. Bur. released Nov. 9, 1994) (utilizing observed industry average depreciation lives where operator without explanation departed substantially from industry norms in costofservice justification). We have further determined that in order to yield an unbundling figure of $0.060 per subscriber per channel, Operators must have incurred more installation and customer equipment costs than they reported, and we have therefore revised their entries on Part II,"0*(("  Y-Worksheet 1, Line 104 and Part II, Worksheet 3, Line301.F Yy-#Xw PE37XP#э#Xw PE37XP# This adjustment to Worksheet 1 has the effect of causing Operators in some franchise areas to calculate their permitted rate from Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 2 rather than Worksheet 1. In those franchise areas where Operators did not file a Worksheet 2 and one is needed, we have computed Worksheet 2 by using data supplied by Operators on their Form 1200 filings. While we recognize that this is not an ideal way to determine the correct amount of costs to unbundle and thus to derive a maximum permitted CPS rate, it is the only approach available to us where an operator does not supply sufficient information to justify its price.(# Xx` ` e. Because the Operators for the franchise areas designated by CUID Nos. IA0001 and MO0152 have failed to demonstrate that their prices for the CPS tier were not unreasonable, we must recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheets 1 and 4, on the basis of the most accurate data currently  Y1-available for the date for which the Operators filed.1F Y-#Xw PE37XP#э See 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii) (if a cable operator fails to justify its rates, rates must be adjusted in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of analysis). On their amended Form 393s, the Operators calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor as of the end of December 1993 using data released on December 1, 1993. On July 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 126.5 for the fourth quarter of 1993. Using these GNPPI figures, we calculate an Inflation Adjustment Factor through December 1993, the base date the Operators used in justifying its rates, of 1.034.(# Xx` ` f. Because the Operator for the franchise area designated by CUID No. IL0130 has failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPS tier was not unreasonable, we must recalculate the Inflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheets 1 and 4, on the basis of the most accurate data currently available for the date for  Y-which the Operator filed.YF Yp-#Xw PE37XP#э Id.Y On its amended Form 393, the Operator calculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor as of the end of October 1993 using data released on August 31, 1993. On July 29, 1994, the U.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price Index ("GNPPI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 125.7 for the third quarter of 1993. Using these GNPPI figures, we calculate an Inflation Adjustment Factor through October 1993, the base date the Operator used in justifying its rate, of 1.030.(#  YN-  x6. Upon review of the record herein, and having incorporated the adjustments discussed above, we conclude that Operators have failed to justify the rates they were charging during the periods in question. Operators' showings justify the maximum" l 0*((-" reasonable CPS tier prices shown on Appendix B (plus franchise fee) for the period from the filing of the earliest complaint in each franchise area (as set forth in Appendix A) to May 14,  Y-1994.F YK-#Xw PE37XP#э This finding is based solely on the representations of Operators and the modifications described herein. Should information come to our attention that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein. However, we further determine that for CUID No. MO0152, the total overcharge  Y-per subscriber is de minimis. Therefore, it would not serve the public interest to order a refund in this franchise area. x7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referred to in Appendix A against the cable programming service prices charged by Operators in the areas referenced in the caption and at Appendix A herein ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. x8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.961, that Operators shall refund to subscribers in the communities shown in Appendix B, except for CUID No. MO0152, that portion of the amounts paid for cable programming service for the period from the filing of the first valid complaint in each  Y -franchise area (as set forth on Appendix A) F Yw-#Xw PE37XP#э Our jurisdiction to order a refund dates from the earliest date a valid complaint is filed with the Commission. 47 C.F.R.  76.961(b). to May 14, 1994 which exceeded the maximum price for each franchise area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee) per month, plus interest to the date of the refund. x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except for CUID No. MO0152, Operators shall promptly determine the overcharges to their CPS subscribers for the stated periods, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan.T x10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.922(b)(4)(C) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(4)(C), that Operators shall, within 30 days of the release of this Order, revise their Form 1200 filings with respect to the communities listed herein, for the period beginning May 15, 1994, to reduce the monthly charge per tier as of March 31, 1994 for Tier 2 (Line A6b) to equal the maximum price in each franchise  Y9-area set forth in Appendix B (plus franchise fee).9F Y&-#Xw PE37XP#э We reserve the right to make further adjustments to Operators' prices for the period after May 14, 1994, upon completion of our review of Operators' Form 1200 filings."9Q 0*((."Ԍx11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operators shall place into effect, within 30 days after their submission of the revised Form 1200 filings required above, prices that reflect the reductions in the CPS rates determined in this Order. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau" 0*((` "  Y-, Appendix A ă  Y-CUID No.` `  Date First ComplainthppDate Complaint xx  Y-x` `  Filed with FCC@hppServed  xx  Y`-IA0001` `  3/1/94hh@hpp2/22/94  Y2-IL0130` `  2/28/94hh@hpp2/23/94 x  Y -MO0152` `  3/30/94hh@hpp2/23/94 " 0*0*0*@ "  Y-- Appendix B ă T  Y-CUID No.` `  Actual Rateshh@Maximum Permitted Rates  Yw-IA0001` `  $11.06hh@$10.53  YI-IL0130` `  $11.39hh@$10.65 x  Y -MO0152` `  $10.23hh@$10.04