********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                     Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554



     
In the Matter of)
     )   
Falcon Cable TV )      CUID Nos. OR0011 (Astoria)
     )          OR0042 (Cannon Beach)
     )          OR0058 (Florence)
     )          OR0087 (Garibaldi)
     )          OR0186 (Dunes City)
     )                                 OR0209 (Veneta)
Order Denying Jurisdiction       )     OR0214 (Brownsville)

ORDER
                
      Adopted:  January 2, 1997               Released:  January 3, 1997  

By the Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau:

 1.   In this Order we dismiss complaints against the April 1, 1996 rate increases of
Falcon Cable TV ("Falcon") for its cable programming services tier ("CPST") in the
communities referenced above.  The Federal Communications Commission ("Commission")
received the complaints on October 4, 1996 from Lane Council of Governments on behalf of the
franchising authority, the Regional Cable Commission ("RCC").  On November 4, 1996, Falcon
moved to have the complaints dismissed on grounds that they were not filed with the
Commission within the period provided by our rules.  The RCC responded to Falcon's motion
on November 12, 1996.   As explained below, the complaints do not meet requirements found
in the Commission's Order, Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937("Interim Rules").  The complaints therefore
do not trigger the  Commission's jurisdiction to review Falcon's CPST rate increases.  

 2.   Under the Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission
("Commission") is authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to effective
competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.  The 1996 Act and our rules
implementing the new legislation, require that complaints against the CPST rates be filed with
the Commission by a local franchising authority ("LFA") that has received subscriber
complaints.  If the LFA receives more than one subscriber complaint within 90 days of an
operator's rate increase and decides to file its own complaint, it must do so no more than 180
days after the increase became effective.  The Commission considers a document filed when
the document is received at the location designated.  

 3.   Under Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, any provision of the rules may be
waived on petition if good cause is demonstrated.  In order to demonstrate good cause, a party
before the Commission must provide a legitimate reason for not being able to file within the time
specified.  In Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P., 9 FCC Rcd 6841 (1994), the
Commission defined a legitimate reason for a late-filed petition seeking review of a local
franchising decision as the intervention of something beyond its control which could not have
been foreseen, and for which no corrective action is available.  We shall use the same standard
to justify making an exception to our rules considering filing deadlines for LFA complaints.   
 
 4.   On April 1, 1996, Falcon implemented CPST rate increases in the communities
referenced above.  Under our rules, the RCC had 180 days or until September 30, 1996 to file
any complaints concerning this increase.  We did not receive the RCC complaints until October
4, 1996, more than 180 days after Falcon's implementation.  Therefore, the complaints were not
filed within the period provided by our rules. 

 5.   In its cover letter filed with its complaints and again in its response to Falcon's
motion to dismiss, the RCC requested a waiver for any procedural defects in its filings.  The
RCC asserts that the delay in filing and request for waiver were due in part to the timing of
Falcon's increase and our new rules.  The RCC asserts that delays were encountered while it
reviewed the impact of the changed rules.  We find this argument unpersuasive.  The RCC did
not specifically show how the timing of our rules delayed its filing process.  Further, the RCC
has argued that Falcon Holding Group, Inc. lacks standing to file a motion in this proceeding. 
However, according to Commission records Falcon Holding Group, Inc. is clearly affiliated with
Falcon Cable TV.  Therefore, Falcon Holding Group, Inc. has standing in this matter.       
 
 6.   For the reasons discussed above, we find that the RCC has failed to show good
cause sufficient to warrant granting a waiver of our rules.  Therefore, we will grant the motion
to dismiss filed by Falcon. 

 7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints referenced herein filed by Lane Council of
Government on behalf of the Regional Cable Commission, against the CPST rate increases
charged by Falcon in the above referenced communities ARE DISMISSED.

      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



      Elizabeth W. Beaty
      Chief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division
      Cable Services Bureau