WPCQ 2a BKf Z CG Times3|w}Xw 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@\@\`LHP4Si; Rm. 700_1; LPT2onal)HPLA4SAD.PRSXw PE37\\xXP2 E E Z w  Y-#Xw PE37}XP# Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#HP4Si; Rm. 700_1; LPT2onal)HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\\xX@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*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxFx6X@`7X@r8wC;,=9Xw PE37XPDs7zC;,BXz_ pi7XtV"G($,hG PE37hP6uC;,~Xu&_ x7XX'^\2f EF[Q",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L X- $//ORDER Remanding Appeal in League City, TX, DA 951607//$ $//76.933 Franchising Authority Review of Basic Rates//$  X- lc   lc (2Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X_- x` `  hh@hpp DA 951607  Y -In the Matter of: hh@) x` `  hh@)  Y -TCI TKR OF HOUSTONhh@) x` `  hh@)  Y -Appeal of Local Rate Orderhh@)  Y -of City of ` `  hh@)  Y-League City, Texas hh@)  YK-: ORDER ă  Y- Adopted : July 18, 1995hh@ Released : July 24, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X- I.xINTRODUCTION  Y-x1.` ` On May 15, 1995, TCI TKR of Houston d/b/a/ TCI Cablevision of Houston ("TCIH"), filed with the Commission an appeal ("Appeal") of the local rate order ("local  Yg-order") adopted by the City of League City, Texas (the "City") on April 13, 1995.g  Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxThe City did not file an opposition to the Appeal. In its local order, the City denied a proposed rate increase sought by TCIH. In its Appeal, TCIH argues that the City failed to provide a written decision which comports with Commission requirements.  Y-x2. ` ` Under our rules, rate orders made by local franchising authorities may be  Y-appealed to the Commission.xy  Y$-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.944.x In ruling on appeals of local rate orders, the Commission will not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the franchising authority's decision as  Y!-long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.!,  Y'-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, Report and Order, MM Docket No. 92266, 8"w(0*0*0*("  Y-FCC Rcd 5631, 5731 (1993) ("Rate Order"); and Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; Rate Regulation & BuyThrough Prohibition, Third Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92266 and 92262,  YM-9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Reconsideration Order"). The Commission will reverse a"!80*0*0*"" franchising authority's decision only if it is determined that the franchising authority acted  Y-unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its local rate order.aM  Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxId.a If the Commission reverses a franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute its own decision, but instead will remand the issue to the franchising authority with instructions to  Y-resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.  YU -#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 5732;  See also Third Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 4346.  Xv- II.xDISCUSSION  YH-x3.` ` The City, by resolution dated April 13, 1995, denied a proposed rate increase  Y1-sought by TCIH in its FCC Form 1210 filing.,z1  Y~-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee Appeal, Exhibit A. FCC Form 1210 is used by cable operators to adjust their maximum permitted rates based upon changes in the number of regulated channels and to permit operators to pass through certain external costs and inflation to their subscribers.  Y;-Cable operators must file FCC Form 1200 before they can file the Form 1210. See Instructions For FCC Form 1210 Updating Maximum Permitted Rates For Regulated Cable Services. , The City's written decision consists of a onepage document that merely states that the City denies TCIH's proposed rate increase. The local order does not state why the City found TCIH's proposed rates to be unreasonable. In rate regulation proceedings, the cable operator bears the burden of proving  Y -the reasonableness of all of its proposed regulated rates.   Yd-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.937; See also Sammons Communications, Inc., DA 95194 (Cities of Burbank and Glendale, CA), at  14 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released February 10, 1995).  The local franchising authority, however, must provide the cable operator with an opportunity to participate in the rate  Y -review proceedings and to provide documentation supporting its proposed rates. c  Y!-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 57235724. While a local franchising authority is free to seek the assistance of a consultant to review and verify the information presented in an operator's rate justification filings, nothing in our rules requires the local franchising authorities to do so. Similarly nothing in our rules requires a local franchising authority to provide cable operators with reports and calculations that it may have relied upon in rendering its rate decision. If the local franchising authority determines that the operator's proposed rate exceeds the maximum permitted level as defined by the Commission's rate standards, it may prescribe a rate different from the proposed rate provided that, after giving the operator an opportunity to participate, the local franchising"0*0*0*" authority explains in a written decision why the operator's rate is unreasonable and why its  Y-prescribed rate is reasonable.a  Yb-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxId.a  Y-x4.` ` In order to comply with our rules, the City's rate order should have contained  Y-such an explanation. {  Y-#Xz_ pi7BX##Xw PE37=9XP#эxSee Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 57235724; See also Falcon Cablevision, DA 951178 (Warrensburg, MO) at  12 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released June 1, 1995) and Chillicothe Cablevision, Inc., DA 95479 (Washington Court House, OH) at  9 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released March 14, 1995).  Since it appears from the record below that the City's written decision did not comport with our rules in this area, we remand this case for further proceedings  Yv-consistent with this decision.D 3v  Y-#Xw PE37=9XP#эxTCIH has requested that, as a remedy for the City's actions, we permit its proposed rates to go into effect subject to any refund liability that may be later imposed by the City. Such a remedy is inappropriate for the Bureau to impose in this case and we decline to do so. We are remanding the case to the City in order to permit it to comply with our rules governing written decisions by local franchising authorities. Existing rates remain in effect  Y-until such time as the City approves TCIH's proposed rates. See  47 C.F.R.  76.942. Since the City has already reviewed TCIH's Form 1210 filing, it should take the City no longer than 30 days to issue a written decision which complies with Commission rules. D  XH- III.xORDERING CLAUSE  Y -x5.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that TCIH's Appeal of the local order of the City of League City, Texas, is hereby REMANDED to the City for further proceedings consistent with this Order.  Y -x6.` ` This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau x