WPC< 2BJ  Courier3|w Xw PE37XPCG Timeset 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@2 6 FPf w3|wCG 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@\@\`L2 Z f i X'HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\oeXP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L 8wC;,Xw PE37XPD7zC;, c!Xz_ pi7X  Document 6Document 6$ 2N%lJ&lK"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx%l ;&lx;'l;(P<Document 5Document 5% Document 2Document 2& Document 7Document 7' Right Par 1Right Par 1(` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2fE)>*l@+*A,HCRight Par 2Right Par 2)` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 3Document 3* Right Par 3Right Par 3+` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4,` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2N-E.G/I0KRight Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6.` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7/` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 80` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2U1(BN2$jP3$R4lTDocument 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 2pZ5lPU6$U7lW8$LXTechnical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2 c9$Z:\;^<aTechnical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2"j=Rc>pe?g@vitoc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ 2rATjBrlCnDptoc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2pvErFvuGluHrutoatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH 2f vQgFZ",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2: X'   $//Appeal ORDER, InterMedia Partners, on behalf of Kauai Cablevision, DA 951745//$ $/76.922 Rates for the basic service tier/$ $/76.923 Rates for equipment and installation/$  Y4$/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions/$ `(#(#  Ѓ X'  `(Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  XI'-Washington, D.C. 20554 \  Y 4In the Matter of:)pp  * DA 951745 ) InterMedia Partners, on behalf of) Kauai Cablevision, L.P.,) ) ` `  Petitioner,) ) ` `  v.) ) State of Hawaii Department of Commerce) and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television) Division,) ) ` `  Respondent ) ) Appeal of Rate Orders) of the State of Hawaii Department of ) Commerce and Consumer Affairs) ) Emergency Consolidated Petition for Stay ) of Rate Orders of the State of Hawaii) Department of Commerce and Consumer) Affairs)  Y 42  CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Y#4 Adopted :` ` August 8, 1995hhCqpp Released :  *August 15, 1995 By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau:  X''' I.Introduction  Y(41.` ` On March 16, 1995, InterMedia Partners, on behalf of Kauai Cablevision,"(0*0*0* '" L.P. ("InterMedia"), the franchisee in the above matters, filed an appeal of two rate orders adopted by the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable"&'0*0*0*P("  Y-Television Division (the "State") on February 14, 1995.k Yy-ԍ On March 13, 1995, InterMedia also filed an Emergency Consolidated Petition for Stay of the State's rate orders. In light of our ruling on InterMedia's appeal herein,  YK-InterMedia's Emergency Petition for Stay is rendered moot and is dismissed. See paragraph  Y6-19, infra.k On March 31, 1995, the State filed an opposition to InterMedia's appeal urging the Commission to deny InterMedia's appeal and  Y-to direct InterMedia to comply with all of the provisions of the State's rate orders.H8 Y-ԍ InterMedia is appealing, on a consolidated basis, two rate orders (Decision and Order Nos. 162 and 163) adopted by the State on February 14, 1995 and February 24, 1995. These orders govern the rates charged by InterMedia in its Kalaheo and Princeville systems. According to InterMedia, these two rate orders are substantially identical and pose the same issues for review. The State does not oppose InterMedia's consolidation of its appeals of these two rate orders. Therefore, in the interest of administrative efficiency, we will issue a consolidated order in the instant proceeding which will apply to both of the rate orders in question.  InterMedia filed a reply to the State's opposition on April 10, 1995.  Y-x2.` ` In its rate orders, the State established rates for InterMedia's basic tier service and associated equipment and installations and required InterMedia to refund overcharges to subscribers for the period of time between January 10, 1994 and July 14,  YH-1994. HH  YA-ԍ Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, and the Commission's implementing regulations, local franchising authorities may regulate rates  Y-for basic cable service, associated equipment and installations. See Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act, 623(b), 47 U.S.C. 543(b). The State's rate orders provide that InterMedia's refund liability period may be adjusted to require InterMedia to make additional refunds for the period of time between September 1, 1993 and January 9, 1994 in the event that the Commission grants the State's petition for a waiver of 76.942 of the Commission's rules, which the State filed on December 27, 1994. Simultaneously herewith, we are  Yt-releasing an order denying the State's petition for a waiver of our rules. See In the Matter of State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Cable Television Division,  YH -DA 951746 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released August 15, 1995) ("State of Hawaii"). InterMedia raises three issues in its appeal. First, InterMedia contends that the State  Y1-improperly adjusted Line 104 on each of its two FCC Form 393s in order to make that line equal to Line 301. This adjustment by the State reduced InterMedia's basic tier rate from $8.08 to $7.12 for its Kalaheo system and from $7.12 to $7.02 for its Princeville system, resulting in a combined refund liability in excess of $36,000.00. Second, InterMedia claims that the State acted unreasonably when it afforded InterMedia only 15 days within which to issue refunds pursuant to the rate orders. Third, InterMedia contends that the State unreasonably seeks to extend InterMedia's refund liability period beyond the oneyear" 0*((="  Y-maximum set forth in the Commission's rules.F Yy-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.942(b).F InterMedia asks the Commission to remand the State's rate orders to the State with appropriate instructions.  Y-x3.` ` In response, the State asserts that it acted in accordance with the Commission's rules and precedent when it adjusted InterMedia's entry on Line 104 on each of its FCC  Y-Form 393s to make that line equal to its entry on Line 301. Second, the State claims that InterMedia actually had 78 days within which to implement refunds to its subscribers, not 15 days as it asserts in its appeal. Finally, the State contends that its rate orders require InterMedia to issue refunds back to September 1, 1993 only in the event that the Commission grants the State's request for a waiver of 76.942 of the Commission's rules, as described in  Y -footnote 3, supra. As the Commission has not yet acted on this request, the State contends that InterMedia's appeal is not ripe with regard to this particular issue.  X - II.xStandard of Review  Y -x4.` ` Under the Commission's rules, appeals of franchising authorities' rate orders  Y-are reviewed by the Commission.@y Y-ԍ 47 C.F.R. 76.944.@ In ruling on appeals of franchising authorities' rate  Y{-orders, the Commission will not conduct a de novo review, but instead will sustain the  Yf-franchising authority's decision as long as there is a reasonable basis for that decision.ff* YA-ԍ  See Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket 92 Y,-266, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 5731 (1993) ("Rate Order"); Third Order on Reconsideration, MM  Y-Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4316, 4346 (1994) ("Third Recon. Order").f The Commission will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if it determines that the franchising authority acted unreasonably in applying the Commission's rules in rendering its  Y!-rate order.3! Y-ԍ Id.3 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  Y-instructions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission's decision on appeal.3f  Y -ԍ Id.3  X- III.x Discussion  X- xA.` ` Substitution of Line 301 For Line 104  Yi-x5.` ` InterMedia contends that the State acted improperly when it adjusted InterMedia's entry on Line 104 of its FCC Form 393s, which reflects its average monthly  Y;-equipment and installation revenue earned over the last fiscal year, to make it equal to its"; 0*(([" entry on Line 301 of its FCC Form 393s, which reflects the costs it incurs in an average month for customer equipment and installations. FCC Form 393 is the official form used by regulators to determine whether an operator's regulated rates for programming, equipment and installations were reasonable during the time period from September 1, 1993 until May  Y-14, 1994.` x Y-ԍ#Xw PE37XP# To the extent that an operator has sought to take advantage of the refund deferral  Y-period available under the Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 4119, 41834185  Y-(1994) ("Second Recon. Order"), the maximum permitted rates determined under Form 393 may also apply from May 15, 1994 until the date that the operator implemented its new rates, as determined under the Form 1200 series.` Form 393 is divided into three separate, but interrelated parts. In Part II, the operator calculates its maximum permitted programming rates, while in Part III, the operator calculates its equipment and installation costs and maximum permitted equipment and installation rates. Part I is a cover sheet that lists the various programming, equipment and installation rates that have been calculated in Parts II and III and compares them to the rates the operator has actually charged during the period of review.  Y -x6.` ` The operator's maximum permitted rates are derived by completing Parts II and III of the Form 393, pursuant to which the operator calculates the actual aggregate revenues collected by the operator for regulated programming, equipment and installation, as  Y -of the initial date of regulation ("current rate") or as of September 30, 1992.;   Yw-ԍ An operator must calculate its rate in effect on September 30, 1992, only if its current rate level is above the benchmark rate. If an operator's current rate level is at or below the benchmark rate, it is not required to calculate its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate.; After calculating actual aggregate revenues, the operator converts those revenues to a perchannel rate, and then compares the perchannel figures to the applicable benchmark rate. If an operator's current perchannel rate level is below the applicable benchmark rate, then the operator's rate level is deemed reasonable, but it must remain at its current level. If its current perchannel rate level exceeds the benchmark rate, the operator must then compare its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate level to the applicable benchmark rate. If its September 30, 1992 perchannel rate level is above the benchmark rate, it must reduce this rate level to the benchmark rate or by 10%, whichever reduction is less. After computing the permitted rate level in this manner (whether based on current rates or September, 1992 rates), monthly equipment and installation costs are removed to derive the maximum permitted programming rates. Maximum permitted rates for equipment and installation are based on actual cost and are separately calculated in Part III of the Form 393.  Y|-x7.` ` InterMedia contends that the State's adjustment of InterMedia's Line 104 entry resulted in an inappropriate reduction of its maximum permitted rate for the basic service tier. InterMedia states that because its entry on Line 104 was based upon 1992 data, it included revenues which it derived from monthly additional outlet charges. Citing"7 0*((." instructions in FCC Form 393 relative to Line 104, as well as paragraphs 93 and 94 of the  Y-Commission's Third Recon. Order, InterMedia asserts that it was entitled to use preregulatory data from 1992 in Line 104. InterMedia claims that the Commission permits operators to use thencurrent data to justify their rates as long as that data was accurate at the time. InterMedia contends that its data was accurate at the time, and, therefore, it should be  Y-allowed to use that data. _ Y-ԍ Under the Commission's rules, cable operators should base rates for installation of additional outlets on costs in the same manner that they do with other installations. If the operator retains ownership of the equipment associated with such installations (e.g., the outlet), the cost of that equipment may be recouped in a monthly lease rate that must be costjustified. Those installation and equipment costs are factored into the Line 301 amount. Prior to the advent of rate regulation, operators could charge subscribers a monthly fee for additional outlets that need not have been costjustified.  Thus, it is InterMedia's position that because it received revenues from additional outlet fees prior to rate regulation, and such revenue was included in its entry on Line 104, its entries on Lines 104 and 301 should differ by approximately the amount of the revenues received from additional outlets. Furthermore, InterMedia alleges that, simultaneous with Commission pronouncements that Lines 104 and 301 should be the same, or nearly the same for operators who restructured their rates as of September 1, 1993, the Commission has acknowledged that special circumstances may exist which produce  Y -discrepancies between lines 104 and 301.   Y-ԍ See FCC Public Notice, "Questions and Answers on Completion of FCC Form 393 and Associated Filing Requirements," Question and Answer No. 7 (released November 10,  Yb-1993) ("November 10, 1993 Public Notice").  Intermedia contends that the differing treatment of additional outlet revenues prior to and subsequent to the advent of rate regulation is a special circumstance that would not only permit, but would require a discrepancy between Lines 104 and 301.  Y{-x8.` ` In response, the State argues that it properly adjusted Intermedia's Line 104 entry on its FCC Form 393s in accordance with the Commission's applicable rules and precedent. The State points out that the Commission has previously stated that, absent special circumstances, an operator's entries for Lines 104 and 301 should be the same or nearly the same for operators who restructured their rates as of September 1, 1993, as  Y-InterMedia did. v  Y/!-ԍ The State cites as support for this proposition the Commission's November 10, 1993  Y"-Public Notice, as well as several recent Orders promulgated by the Cable Services Bureau  Y#-("Bureau"). See, e.g., In the Matter of Meredith Cable Television of North Suburban Roseville, Minn., DA 95319 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released February 23, 1995). The State asserts that no special circumstances exist which would justify InterMedia's Line 104 and 301 entries being substantially different. The State asserts that despite the instructions to FCC Form 393, InterMedia should have used "current" equipment revenues, rather than "prior" equipment revenues, in accordance with Commission policy as  Y-set forth in the November 10, 1993 Public Notice. The State asserts that InterMedia was not" 0*((" permitted to include additional outlet revenue in its Line 104 entry, because such revenue was no longer permissible after the Commission's costbased equipment rules became effective on September 1, 1993. InterMedia's Line 104 entry was thus not representative of equipment revenues as of the initial date of regulation. Accordingly, it is the State's position that it properly equated InterMedia's entry on Line 104 with its entry on Line 301 in order to provide a more accurate representation of current revenue on Line 104.  Y_-x9.` ` InterMedia correctly points out that the instructions pertaining to Line 104 of FCC Form 393 specifically state that revenue earned over the last fiscal year, including revenue from additional outlet fees, should be used to determine an operator's monthly  Y -equipment revenue entry on Line 104.G  Y -ԍ See FCC Form 393 at 10.G However, in the November 10, 1993 Public Notice, we discussed the issue of the relationship between Lines 104 and 301 on FCC Form 393:   The instructions for completing Worksheet I Line 104 of FCC Form 393 specify that equipment revenues for the year preceding [September 1, 1993] shall be used in computations of the current rate per channel which is to be compared to the benchmark. Revenues for the previous years may not be sufficiently representative where the operator has already unbundled and instituted costbased pricing in accordance with our requirements. This answer  YM-clarifies that in completing Line 104 operators must use equipment revenues that will be representative of the equipment rates that were in effect as of the  Y!-initial date of regulation. Where available, actual revenues should be used. Where operators have restructured equipment rates as of September 1, 1993 in accordance with our regulations, we would anticipate that in most cases, absent special circumstances, operators will enter on Line 104 the same, or nearly the same, number as on Line 301. Line 301 is the anticipated revenues  Y-based on equipment rates derived in accordance with FCC rate regulations.w{ Y-ԍ See November 10, 1993 Public Notice (emphasis added).w    Thus, because InterMedia restructured its rates on September 1, 1993, it was reasonable for the State to presume that InterMedia's entries for Lines 104 and 301 on its FCC Form 393s should be the same, or nearly the same.  Y&-x10.` ` InterMedia's assertion that its inclusion of additional outlet revenue in Line 104 amounts to a special circumstance which permits a discrepancy between its entries on  Y-Lines 104 and 301 is not convincing because the November 10, 1993 Public Notice seeks to ensure that operators did not include such revenues in Line 104. In completing Line 104, InterMedia must use equipment revenues that are representative of equipment rates in effect on the initial date of regulation. Additional outlet revenues generated from noncostbased rates established prior to the initial date of regulation are not representative of rates in effect"".0*((#" on the initial date of regulation. Because InterMedia's Line 104 entry included noncostbased additional outlet revenue, it was not representative of its equipment rates in effect as of  Y-the initial date of regulation, as is required by the Commission's November 10, 1993 Public  Y-Notice. Y6-ԍ Because InterMedia's FCC Form 393s were filed with the State more than seven  Y-months subsequent to the issuance of the Commission's November 10, 1993 Public Notice, InterMedia should have known that the Commission intended that operators' entries on Line 104 of FCC Form 393 should be representative of equipment rates in effect on the initial date of regulation.  Therefore, the State acted reasonably in equating InterMedia's entry on Line 104  Y-with its entry on Line 301.z Yx -ԍ As noted above, InterMedia's rates are not accurately justified because InterMedia's Line 104 entry, which relied upon preregulatory 1992 data, is not representative of its rates in effect as of its initial date of regulation, as required by the Commission. Accordingly,  Y3-InterMedia is not entitled to rely upon the exception in the Third Recon. Order which permits operators to rely upon "old" data if its current rates are accurately justified using the old data  Y-and that data was accurate at the time. See Third Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 434950.  Accordingly, we deny this portion of InterMedia's appeal.  Xz- xB. Refund Timetable  YL-x11.` ` InterMedia next contends that the State's requirement that InterMedia issue refunds for overcharges within 15 days from the date the rate orders were adopted violates the Commission's procedural rules. InterMedia relies on language in our rules which, in the context of cable programming service rate orders, requires operators to issue rate reductions or refunds within 60 days from the date an order is released declaring rates unreasonable and  Y -mandating a remedy.Z a  Y-ԍxRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 586768. Z InterMedia also relies upon a recent Bureau order which held that a  Y -local franchising authority's 30day refund implementation period was unreasonable.  Y-ԍ See In the Matter of Times Mirror Cable Television of Orange County, Inc. d/b/a  Yr-Dimension Cable Services, DA 95451 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released March 10, 1995) ("Times  Y]-Mirror Orange County"). The State, on the other hand, contends that because InterMedia had draft copies of the State's proposed rate orders as of December 23, 1994, InterMedia actually had 78 days to implement its refund plan. According to the State, this is ample time to allow for the preparation and distribution of notices and bills and to accommodate the demands of InterMedia's billing practices. The State also argues that neither the Commission's rules,  Y8-nor Times Mirror Orange County, require that franchising authorities provide operators 60 days to implement refunds for basic tier overcharges. "0*(("  Y-x12.` ` The 60day requirement, on which InterMedia relies, was specifically applicable to cable programming service rate reductions or refunds ordered by the  Y-Commission.c YK-ԍxId.; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 586768.c Our rules do not explicitly require franchising authorities to provide cable  Y-operators with 60 days to comply with local rate orders. We have stated that franchising authorities should consider the amount of time required to prepare and send notices and bills reflecting rate changes with particular attention paid to the impact of cycle billing, if  Yv-applicable..v{ Y -ԍxSee In the Matter of Times Mirror Cable Television of Springfield, Inc. (Springfield, Illinois), 10 FCC Rcd 2340 (Cab. Serv. Bur., 1995); Questions and Answers on Cable Television Rate Regulation, Question/Answer 3 (released May 18, 1994). . This instruction to franchising authorities is based on the same rationale we used in concluding that cable operators should have 60 days to implement a Commission order requiring refunds of cable programming service tier rates. Thus we find that, while a franchising authority may, in its discretion, specify a reasonable time period for compliance with its rate order, the time specified must be sufficient to allow preparation and distribution of notices and bills, and must accommodate the time demands of cycle billing. We have  Y -found that with respect to cable programming service tier rates such a time period was at least 60 days. We have no reason to believe that implementation of a local order sh ould be any less timeconsuming than the implementation of our orders.  Y-x13.` ` The State's 15day time limit on issuing refunds does not give InterMedia the opportunity to provide its subscribers notice, nor does it appear from the record below that the State gave proper consideration to other issues, such as whether InterMedia uses cycle billing. The State's argument that InterMedia actually had 78 days to comply because it had received drafts of the proposed rate orders on December 23, 1994 is not compelling. We  Y-have previously stated that draft local rate orders do not have the force of law. Y-ԍ See In the Matter of Cablevision of Connecticut, Limited Partnership, DA 95742 (Cab. Serv. Bur., released April 7, 1995). ("A local rate order carries with it the force of law, unlike a draft decision, which may simply be designed to give interested parties an opportunity to review and comment upon the franchising authority's proposed rate order, as then drafted.")  Because a draft rate order does not have the force of law, and because such an order may be modified prior to the adoption of a final order, it would be inequitable to expect a cable operator to rely upon such a draft rate order. The State's rate orders, which do carry with them the force of law, provided that InterMedia had only 15 days within which to implement the refunds ordered by the State's rate orders. This portion of InterMedia's appeal is remanded to the State for resolution in accordance with the terms of this order.  Y|- ` `  Xe- xC.` ` Refund Liability  Y7-x14.` ` InterMedia's refund liability period, as set forth in the rate orders, runs from"7W 0*((="  Y-January 10, 1994 to July 14, 1994. However, as noted in footnote 3, supra, the State's rate orders also allow for additional refunds to be ordered for the period of time between September 1, 1993 and January 9, 1994 in the event that the Commission grants the State's December 27, 1994 petition requesting a waiver of 76.942(b) of the Commission's rules. In its waiver request, the State requested that the Commission permit the State to extend  Y-InterMedia's refund liability back to September 1, 1993. Y-ԍ InterMedia opposed the State's request in an opposition filed with the Commission on January 26, 1995. The State submitted a reply to InterMedia's opposition on February 3, 1995. As noted in footnote 3, supra, the State's request for waiver of 76.942 of our rules is being denied in an order to be released  Ya-simultaneously herewith.   Y3-x15.` ` Because the State's waiver request is denied, InterMedia will only be required to issue refunds for the period of time from January 10, 1994 to July 14, 1994. Because InterMedia does not contest this refund liability period, this portion of its appeal is dismissed as moot.  X -  X -IV.XxOrdering Clauses (#  Y-x16.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal filed by InterMedia IS  Y|-DENIED with respect to that portion of the State's rate orders adjusting InterMedia's entry  Yf-on Line 104 of its FCC Form 393 s.  Y8-x17.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal filed by InterMedia IS  Y"-REMANDED with respect to that portion of InterMedia's appeal regarding the State's requirement that InterMedia issue refunds within 15 days from the effective date of the  Y-State's rate orders .  Y-x18.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that portion of InterMedia's appeal regarding the State's attempt to order InterMedia to issue refunds for a period of time greater  Y-than one year IS DISMISSED as moot.  Ym-x19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the decision on its appeal  YW-herein, InterMedia's Emergency Petition for Stay is DISMISSED as moot. "* K0*(("  Y-x20.` ` 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