WPC;B 2MB%RK<3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN Tech InitT(PȗInitialize Technical Style.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+> 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical22a1Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,4"     a2Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,*    a3Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,'     a4Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&     2b  la5Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&   . a6Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+,&  . a7Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . a8Technical+>ȗ&Technical Document Style&ȏ(6+.K+, &  . 2 #  jDoc InitT(PȗInitialize Document Style.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>     I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, F *  ׃  a2Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, *    a3Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,0     2q2ff qoa4Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, . a5Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,   a6Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+, !" a7Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,#$` ` ` 2q*epa8Document+>ȗ&Document Style7&ȏ(6+#.K+,%&` ` ` PleadingT(PȗHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper,ȗ&+Bȗ+>'(   ,#6X@@# X  y*dddyy*dddy HJ1 HJ2 HJ3 HJ4 HJ5 HJ6 HJ7 HJ8 HJ9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӲHeading 2T(PȗUnderlined Heading Flush Left.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>)* Heading 1T(PȗCentered Heading6+).K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>+,* Ã  2 s'V Bullet List(PȗIndented Bullet List+*.K+,ȗ&+Bȗ+>-.` ` ` a1Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,8/0@   a2Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,A12@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,J34` ` @  ` `  2$-!!"R#a4Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,S56` `  @  a5Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,\78` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,e9:` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,n;<` `  hh#(@- ( 2,M$K%Kj'K)a8Right Par+>ȗ&Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers6+6.K+,w=>` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp "i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNK2,K}.K0Z3"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""I8y.X80,X\  P6G;P97jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP:7nC:,|Xn4  pG;X;y.\80,T\4  pG;<W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP=H5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\>{,W80,%0W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%2Xh*f9 xr G;XXx 0  Times New Roman` n   Rk p29B yO- X   ) X-w #Xj\  P6G;9XP# Federal Communications Commission`)(# DA 971013 ă  yxdddy )v3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  yO -T#Xj\  P6G;9XP#уh  X-In the Matter of  hh@h)  X-Petition for Relief of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X-LORILEI COMMUNICATIONS INC.,@h)  X- d/b/a THE FIRM, hh@h)  Xu-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:available for $4.45, $8.91, and $17.81 per hour for other specified times of the day. The Firm  xhas not alleged that the corrected parttime rates fail to comply with the requirements for part X- xtime rates set forth in Tootlevision v. Prime CableP  yO!-ԍ10 FCC Rcd 3340 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1995).P and TV24 Sarasota v. Comcast.P,  yO#-ԍ10 FCC Rcd 3512 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1995).P In the  X- xLSecond Report, the Commission modified these requirements and mandated that a schedule of  x=parttime rates be developed either by prorating the full time rate or by applying different rates  xfor different times of the day, provided that the total of the rates for a 24hour period not exceed"m ,N(N(ZZ1"  X- x-the maximum daily leased access rate.z {Oy-ԍSee Second Report,  70 and Appendix D, Revised Rules, Section 76.970(g).z Scripps Howard's parttime rate schedule, which consists  x<of different rates for different times of day, does not violate these recently modified requirements,  x.since the total of the highest rates for a 24 hour period ($332.59) does not exceed the maximum  X-daily rate ($349.90)."Z yO- xZԍScripps Howard's rate schedule does not contain a daily rate. However, prorating the monthly full time rate  xZ($10,497 monthly full time rate divided by 30 days) yields a daily rate of $349.90. No allegation has been made  xthat the full time monthly rate exceeds the highest implicit fee calculated pursuant to the Commission's regulations  {O -in effect when the petition was filed. See 47 C.F.R.  76.970 (1995).  X-x B. Administrative and Technical Support Fees  X_- ` #x7.` ` The Firm contends that the $25 per program administrative and technical support  xyfee imposed by Scripps Howard is excessive and that any such fee should not exceed $2.96 per  x\program. This $2.96 figure is based on one quarter of an hour of the regular daytime hourly  xlabor rate of production labor estimated by Scripps Howard. In response, Scripps Howard  xprovided for the record cost information showing the development of the $25 fee. Scripps  xHoward asserts that, although the cost information justifies a fee of $50, it seeks to recover only  x$25 per program. Scripps Howard asserts that The Firm's argument for a $2.96 per program  xcharge fails to recognize the cost of providing additional equipment and the cost of employee overtime.  Xy- ` x8.` ` Section 76.971(c) of the Commission's rules in effect when the petition was filed  xrequired cable operators to provide unaffiliated leased access users, such as The Firm, the  xMminimum level of technical support necessary for users to present their programming. That  xprovision also required leased access users to "reimburse operators for the reasonable cost of any  X- x\technical support that operators actually provide."RD {O-ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.971(c) (1995).R In the Second Report the Commission  xxclarified these requirements and made it clear that the leased access rate determined under Section  x@76.970 includes the cost of technical support ordinarily provided in common to other  xprogrammers. Under this clarification of the requirements of Section 76.971, a cable operator  xmay not impose an additional charge for technical support ordinarily provided in common to  X-other programmers.VZ {O3!- xԍSee Second Report,  114. The Second Report noted that an operator may impose a charge to recover the cost  x,of providing equipment such as a tape recorder or camera, if such equipment would be provided to nonleased access programmers for the same charge.V  X~- ` x9."Py` ` ` ` The information provided by Scripps Howard is relatively brief and falls short of  xa full justification for the $50 fee it asserts could be justified. Thus, for example, it is not clear  x why the cost allocated for modulators is not a cost ordinarily provided in common to other  xMprogrammers and thus recovered under the implicit fee calculation rather than as a separate"9 ,N(N(ZZ"  xtechnical support fee. We have, however, reviewed the labor and equipment cost information  xsubmitted by Scripps Howard and find it supports the reduced $25 per program fee. Scripps  xiHoward developed a clerical and production staff labor rate that takes into account estimated time  x[required for program administration and weighted that rate for estimated proportions of normal  xZand overtime required for presentation of leased access programs. It then added to that labor rate  xlan amount for cost of equipment used. Based on this information we believe the $25 per  Xv- xprogram administrative providing for technical support is reasonable.Xv yO- xjԍIn finding this $25 per program administrative fee reasonable, we have not conducted any audit or other  xexamination of the data presented with the costing information. Nor do we endorse this particular cost showing beyond concluding that the $25 fee appears reasonable in relation to the technical support being offered. We reject as unreasonable  xThe Firm's position that Scripps Howard should be allowed to recover soley the hourly labor rate  xfor a quarter hour of production labor for the presentation of leased access programs. Scripps  xHoward is entitled to recover as well for the technical equipment, if such equipment is not  xordinarily provided to nonleased access programmers and properly included with the leased access channel charge.  X - IV. ORDERING CLAUSES  X - ` _x10.` ` For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for relief of Lorilei  X- xCommunications, Inc. d/b/a The Firm in File No. CSR 4626L IS GRANTED to the extent  Xy-indicated in paragraph 8 above, and in all other respects IS DENIED.  XK- ` px11.` ` This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: