WPCg 2MB%RK Z3|XTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTMtoc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2tV?O@vQA8RBVTtoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2v]CVDXEZFv]index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2_Gl]Hr^I^J}__Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ 2bK_L<`M`Nmaa2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh 2dOHbPbQcRvda6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq endnote textendnote textR 2^jSv-eTeUgVifootnote textfootnote textS toa headingtoa headingT` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#footerfooterU` hp x (# (#  (# ` hp x (#footnote tex#V'n#d\  PCP#2lWmjXjYkZ.l HeadlinenHeading for internal papersWql + WITNESS.STYIN WITNESS WHEREOFX*Cqw  ` IN WITNESS WHEREOF,1H-ART.STYARTICLES IADY?qw )ARTICLE Iă  ` 2H-ART.STYARTICLE IIZ@`qw %ARTICLE IIЃ  ` 2q[m\m]Tn^n1H-WIL.STYMAIN TITLE[:\ LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT )OFă  ` 4H-ART.STYARTICLE IV\@`qw %ARTICLE IVЃ  ` 3H-ART.STYARTICLE III]Aqw %ARTICLE IIIă  ` WILL.STYWILLS FORMATS^H, 3'3'Standard<'$<'StandardZ*pRHP L"nY4   (  '  (  ` hp x (# hp x (#ЁT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I I I I I (a) i) a)T2x_q`Jra7rb%uLH-TXTFull ltr, date, etc. etc._' %June 9, 1989 LH-FULLFull Ltr head`Lr   'h *  'LH-LOC.STYALL LOCATIONS LTR HEADaNp%` hp x (#` hp x (# 857 %June 16, 1989 ` hp x (#` hp x (#COL.STY3 columns w/line in medboLj XX ` hp x (#` hp x (#CH$҇` hp x (#` hp x (#ЈCH$CH$2 ~c0xd'|e|f|}SIGNLNS.STYWITNESS & ADDRESS LNS.cٹH0   'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS `   h%%+ HxFF KK(#Q `   h%%++00p6@64ADDRESS  'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS `   h%%+  `   h%%++0@0p/ADDRESS  'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS  Memo Headerd(? i3$W Page  $= LetterheadPersonal letterhead with address, etc.eG 37 J.G. Harrington ă 57221 Beechwood Road 1Alexandria, Virginia 22307 7(703) 7686987 >Normalf$ Xx  @ 2gX?~hi~ibj(bHeadergFootnotehÍ/page numberpage numberi heading 3heading 3j` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#2>k(lmn heading 4heading 4k` hp x (# @ HPX  @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 5heading 5l` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 6heading 6m` hp x (#@ l HPX @ l HPX ` hp x (#heading 7heading 7n` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#26oppqlrheading 8heading 8o` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 9heading 9p` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#macromacroq` hp x (#  @ `PX #d6X@DQ@##Xv6X@CX@#  @ `PX ` hp x (#APOAPOr` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#2shtluvlenvelope addressenvelope addresss` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#envelope returnenvelope returnt` hp x (#@ HPX #b6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#@ HPX ` hp x (#whitewhiteu.$US?? ??USWFG Letter HeadingWFG Letter Headingv2K:X*KK "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddy.X80,IX\  P6G;P7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;Xy.\80, {\4  pG;BBddBdB/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!9-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"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""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,D&e4  pG;&"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2 K^.e"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7y.X80,IX\  P6G;P7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP7nC:,Xn4  pG;Xy.\80, {\4  pG;W!@(#,9h@\  P6G;hPH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,D&e4  pG;&P:% ,1J:\  P6G;JP\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&Xew Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicXPMXWIN_ICON yO X   P^} S-#&a\  P6G;0&P# Federal Communications Commission`}(#DA 971987 #Xj\  P6G;+XP#у  yxdddy PՊ v3 Before the à Federal Communications Commission  yO} Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S -#&a\  P6G;0&P#R)  S-In the Matter ofR)hCUID No. PA1686 (Northampton)  S-R)hpp Suburban Cable TV, Inc.R) R) Complaint RegardingR) Cable Programming Services Tier RatesR) xandR) Petitions for ReconsiderationR)  Sh -P ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION E&AND  S-)RATE ORDER TP  S-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:%-ԍ Communications Act, Section 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. 543(c) (1996).| the Commission is authorized to review the CPST rates  xof cable systems not subject to effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.  S- x[The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act")S yO(-ԍ Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).S and our rules implementing the legislation ("Interim",))II9!"  S- xRules"),w {Oh- xԍ See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 (1996). require that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by a local  S-franchising authority ("LFA") that has received more than one subscriber complaint."w {O-ԍ See Communications Act, Section 623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(c) (1996).  S- ` x3.` ` The LFA for the franchise area referenced above filed a complaint with the Commission  xon June 19, 1997. The LFA verified that it had received more than one subscriber complaint for the  xfranchise area and that it had received the first valid complaint on April 2, 1997. The filing of a  xcomplete and timely complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to file a justification of its  S- xCPST rates.Pw {O< -ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.956 (1996).P The Operator has the burden of demonstrating that the CPST rates complained about are  S- xreasonable.3 Fw {O-ԍ Id.3 If the Commission finds a rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any  S-refund liability.\ w {O-ԍ  See 47 C.F.R. 76.957 (1996).\  SH - ` x4.` ` Operators may justify their rates on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to reflect  xreasonably certain and quantifiable changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated  S - xchannels that are projected for the twelve months following the rate change.P j w {O-ԍ See 47 C.F.R. 76.922 (1996).P Any incurred cost that is  S -not projected may be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later time.3 w {Ol-ԍ  Id.3  S - ` Qx5.` ` In our First Order, we found that Operator did not correctly account for its income tax  xexpense. Operator confirmed that it is a tax-paying entity but did not include the full allowance for federal  xyincome taxes applicable to the return on its investment in property, plant and equipment associated with  xthe provision, installation, and servicing of customer premises equipment. We therefore recalculated the  x[federal income tax allowance on the basis of a 34 percent corporate tax rate. Application of the gross-up  xprinciple to a 34 percent tax rate led to an allowance for federal income taxes at .51515 of the return on  xyinvestment allowed. Application of the grossed-up tax provision resulted in an increase in the federal tax  xjprovision on Schedule A and Schedule C, increasing the monthly equipment cost unbundled by Operator and thereby causing a decrease in its maximum permitted rate ("MPR") for its CPST.  S- ` _x6.` ` Because Operator failed to demonstrate that its price for the CPST was reasonable, we set  xa price for the tier, incorporating the adjustments discussed above. In doing so, we recalculated Operator's  xInflation Adjustment Factor in Form 393, Part II, Worksheet 1, on the basis of the most accurate data then  xLcurrently available for the date as to which Operator filed. Operator calculated the Inflation Adjustment  xFactor as of the end of September 1993 using data released on August 31, 1993. On July 29, 1994, the  xU.S. Department of Commerce released corrected inflation data including Gross National Product Price"( ,_(_(II"  xIndex ("GNP-PI") figures of 122.3 for the third quarter of 1992 and 125.7 for the third quarter of 1993.  x.Using these GNP-PI figures, we calculated an Inflation Adjustment Factor through September 1993, the  xbase date Operator used in justifying its rates, of 1.028. We concluded in our First Order that Operator  xjustified a revised MPR of $11.66 for its CPST for the period from November 8, 1993, the date the Commission received the first valid complaint against Operator's CPST rate, to May 14, 1994.  S- ` x7.` ` In its First Petition, Operator argues that the Commission erred when imputing normalized  xtaxes to its customer equipment costs prior to unbundling those costs from its service rates. Operator  xclaims that it calculated its FCC Form 393 equipment costs based on actual fiscal year 1992 data and that,  xyduring 1992 and at least ten years prior, it paid no income taxes. Operator argues that the grossedup tax  xentry based on a 34 percent corporate income tax rate is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and inconsistent with the assumptions underlying the benchmark rate methodology.  S - ` x8.` ` The primary objective of the benchmark methodology is to ensure that maximum permitted  xrates are reasonable, which means that the rates are no higher than those operators would charge if they  S - xwere subject to effective competition. ^ w {O- xԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  {O- xRate Regulation, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, 8 FCC  {O-Rcd 5631 at paras. 18588, 207, 39697 (1993) ("Rate Order"). If operators are unable to justify their rates on a benchmark basis,  xthe Commission permits them, as an alternative, to file costofservice rate justifications based upon actual  SX- xycost data.t\Xw {O- xԍ See Id. at paras. 25864, 400401; see also First Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, and  {O- xThird Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92266, 9 FCC Rcd 1164 at paras. 14, 14852 (1993) ("First  {Mz-Order on Reconsideration").t The benchmark rate applicable to operators choosing to submit FCC Form 393 is essentially  xan average rate per channel based on a survey the Commission conducted of charges for both cable  x[services and cable equipment by competitive cable systems; and, as such, it provides a surrogate method  S- xof allowing for full cost recovery for cable operations.^w {O-ԍ See Rate Order at paras. 199, 205207, 21315.^ The benchmark methodology is predicated on  xcost normalization, i.e., the development and use of average cost schedules based on the average  S- xSeptember 30, 1992 rates of systems subject to effective competition.Xw {O-ԍ See 58 Fed. Reg. 29,736; 29,742 (1993).X Consistent with the Commission's  x=reliance on the average rates charged by operators subject to competition is an indication that these rates  S@- xpermit a full recovery of the average costs incurred by those operators, including a reasonable return on  S- xinvestmentF$6 w {O - xԍ See First Order on Reconsideration at para. 13 ("[W]hen the Commission bases benchmark calculations on  xYthe rates charged by firms subject to effective competition, it effectively accounts for the costs of providing service  xYfor those systems, and also the need for any viable company to earn a 'normal' or 'competitive' rate of return.") and  {OH#-at n.80; see also Communications Act  623(b)(2)(C), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(b)(2)(C) (1996).F and taxes payable."w {O$-ԍ See Rate Order at para. 254; see also First Order on Reconsideration at paras. 5859, 103105. The surveyreported charges for service installation and customer  S-equipment were bundled in with the charges for cable services in determining the benchmark rates.Ww {OD'-ԍ See Rate Order at App. E, paras. 1721.W"F,_(_(II%"Ԍ S- ` ԙx9.` ` Because the benchmark rates are equipmentbundled averages, they are expected to provide  xkadequate recovery of an operator's total revenue requirement needed to cover all capital and operating  xcosts, including the full recovery of costs associated with service installation and customer equipment.  xOnce the proper benchmark rate for full recovery of cable services costs and equipment costs is  xdetermined for a system, the operator's equipment portion is unbundled based on its actual cost for  S8- xinstallation and customer equipment.ID8w yO- xԍ We determined in the initial rulemaking proceeding that established the rate regulatory framework for cable  {Oh- xprogram services, that an actual cost standard should be applied to equipment used for the CPST. See Id. at paras.  x406407. We decided that equipment used to receive cable programming services should be subject to the same actual  yO- xcost standard applied to basic tier equipment. Our basis for doing so was that it would be less burdensome than  xJapplying different standards to each. Moreover, using an actual cost plus a reasonable profit standard for equipment  xand installations would best protect subscribers and would enable operators to charge at least what they could charge  {OR - xwin a competitive market. Id. and at paras. 408412. See also 47 C.F.R.  76.923(b), both the current, 1996 version and as initially promulgated in 1993.I The result is that the full benchmark is effectively broken down  xfor each operator into two separate elements one for services and one for equipment. The total recovery  xexpected from the unbundled charges for services plus the actualcostdetermined unbundled charges for  xequipment and installation is exactly the same as would be expected from the operator's benchmark rate before unbundling.  SH - ` ox10.` ` Failure to unbundle all of the costs of customer equipment would effectively result in a  xMportion of such costs remaining in the rates for cable services. Accordingly, our review of CPST rate  S - x{submissions requires the complete unbundling of the equipment costs from the benchmark rates. w {Ol- xԍ Rate Order at paras. 408412; 47 C.F.R.  76.923(b), both the current, 1996 version and as initially promulgated in 1993.  x.Operators may price their equipment to include all costs associated with providing customer equipment  x=and installation, including our provision for income taxes using the grossedup statutory income tax rate,  x.or they may choose to charge less than that amount. In either case, charges for equipment must be fully unbundled from the service rates.  S- ` x11.` ` We addressed the issue of normalized tax obligations when we first issued guidelines for  S- xcompleting FCC Form 393.lf . w {O- xԍ See Cable Television Rate Regulation Questions and Answers Relating to FCC Form 393, Question No. 15 at 5 (released July 30, 1993):  yO- XxQuestion: Schedules A and C, Column D. If an operator currently pays no taxes and anticipates  ^no future tax liability, and would pay no taxes even without accelerated tax depreciation, does the operator enter zero in Column D?   yO("- XxAnswer: The provision for taxes is designed to provide a fair aftertax return on investment for  the business entity. If the entity has no income tax obligation, as is the case for sole  proprietorships, for partnerships, and for Subchapter S corporations, then the amount would be zero  {O$- in Column D. For corporations with income tax obligations, the amount included in Column D  {OJ%-is to be based on the "grossedup" statutory rates, not the tax rate actually paid. [emphasis added] l Those guidelines made it clear that taxpaying entities such as corporations  S- xwere required to calculate income tax expense based on the statutory rate. We later affirmed the"\,_(_(II"  S- x<applicability of that standard."w {Oh- xԍ See First Order on Reconsideration at para. 59. We stated that "[t]he provision for income taxes is made to  xcompensate the business entity for a cost of doing business and to allow it thereby to earn a fair aftertax return on  xinvestment . . . . For corporations with income tax obligations, the amount included . . . is based on the 'grossedup' statutory rates, not the tax rate actually paid." Operator's argument implies that it should be permitted to choose between  x/normalized and actual cost reporting, depending on which proves more advantageous. We reject this  x notion. Indeed, it would be contradictory if the Commission were to build normalized taxes into the  xpricing of tier offerings, yet unbundle actual taxes attributable to equipment costs. Because operators may  xMrecover the full equipment cost portion, such amounts when added in with the unbundled benchmark service rate will provide for full recovery of operating costs.  S- ` x12.` ` The application of the full income tax provision in the manner allowed, or tax  xnormalization, recognizes that the incurring of an income tax liability and the timing of the payment are  S- xoften not the same.V w yO - xԍ Such timing differences are often attributable to the use of different asset depreciation methodologies for book  xpurposes than for income tax purposes. This results in deferred income taxes. Using normalization provides for a  xmore equitable distribution of the tax liability associated with the use of the asset over all ratepayers benefitting from  yOB-the use of the asset, regardless of when the liability is actually paid. #Xj\  P6G;+XP#V Moreover, operators vary widely in their accounting for interest and taxes.w yO- xԍ For instance, the tax implications are completely different for corporations that report all of their debtrelated  xfinancing at the corporate level and corporations that allocate interest expenses to systems and franchises. More  xdifferences arise from the myriad of methods employed to allocate debtrelated costs. Again, tax reporting may differ  xamong operators that rely on accelerated depreciation practices. Many operators pay no taxes for reasons that have nothing to do with the profitability of their cable operations.  xAccounting for all of these considerations by permitting actual tax reporting would produce erratic results. The outcome would be at odds with the benchmark objective of consistent pricing for comparable services.  S - ` x13.` ` Tax normalization applied in the aggregate, i.e. for the purpose of calculating channel and  S - x=equipment rates, allows debtladen cable operators higher tax allowances than they would receive absent  xmtax normalization. This fact led the majority of commentators to advocate a preference for tax  S - xnormalization during our rulemaking comment period. J w {Ol- xԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  {O6- xwRate Regulation, MM Docket No. 93215, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 94 {O- xJ39, 9 FCC Rcd 4527 (1994) ("Cost Order"). The Commission's advocacy of normalized tax data under an otherwise  xactualcost based methodology such as costofservice suggests a clear preference for normalized tax data under the normalized benchmark methodology as well. To allow operators arbitrarily to substitute actual  SZ- xtax data simply because they perceive a benefit would unduly complicate the rate setting process.Zw {O!- xLԍ As we stated in the Cost Order, in response to comments concerning the application of the grossedup  xstatutory corporate tax rate regardless of actual business form, "we believe that the regulatory ease provided by  xapplication of a uniform income tax rate outweighs this concern. We reject [the] suggestion that operators be  xxallowed to include only taxes actually paid, not an amount based on the statutory tax rate, because that approach  {O%- xwould not be consistent with principles of tax normalization as traditionally applied to regulated industries." Cost  {O%-Order at n.298.#Xj\  P6G;+XP#  xzOperator's argument that the recalculation of Operator's equipment basket results in a greater revenue"2~,_(_(II"  xreduction than contemplated by the Commission's benchmark rate methodology mistakenly relies upon  S- xan assertion of zero actual tax expense. For the purposes of benchmark rate setting, Operator's actual tax  S- xexperience is irrelevant. The benchmark rate methodology contemplates the unbundling of normalized taxes. For all of these reasons, we reject Operator's argument.  S8- ` x14.` ` In its First Petition, Operator also argues that the recalculation of inflation was arbitrary  xand capricious because its result would differ depending on the time of review. As noted above, we  xjrecalculated the Inflation Adjustment Factor using corrected inflation data released by the Department of  x>Commerce on July 29, 1994. This issue was raised by Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P. in the  S- x0Commission's decision in Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P. ("Cencom").Nw yO -ԍ FCC 97205 (released June 13, 1997).N In Cencom, the Commission explained its policy regarding refreshing inflation:  XxThe Commission is charged with protecting subscribers from paying unreasonable CPST  rates, while also providing system operators with a fair return. Accurate information,  oincluding accurate inflation information, is central to setting an initial regulated rate that  meets the standard. Thus, the Commission requires that data used in setting a rate be  refreshed with the most current data available when an operator's rates become regulated  SZ- and are justified.ZXw {OR- x,ԍ See Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 434950; FCC Form 393 at 11 Instruction for Line 122 xGNPPI (Current) (Aug. 1993). The Bureau has explained the requirement to use current data in Cable Operators'  xwRate Justification Filings, Sections 76.945, 76.946 of the Commissions rules, 9 FCC Rcd 7752, 775455  3(8) (Cab.  {O- x>Serv. Bur. 1994) ("Rate Filings"); Nov. 10, 1993 Public Notice, Answer to Question No. 6 (in filing rate  x,justifications, operators must refresh data used in initial rates with most current information as of the date of initial regulation); July 30, 1993 Public Notice, Answer to Question 10. Because final inflation data for the period addressed in rate  Bjustifications may not be available when a justification is filed, the Commission directs  operators to estimate inflation by using the most recently available inflation data published  S- on an interim basis in the Commerce "Survey of Current Business" at Table 7.3, Line 5.~w {OV-ԍ See FCC Form 393 at 11 Instruction for Line 122GNPPI (Current) (Aug. 1993).~  The Bureau practice when reviewing rate justifications is to verify that the operator has  used this inflation data. The Bureau also determines whether the other information in the  rate justification is correct, and on the basis of the inflation and other information in the  Sform, including any corrections, whether the operator's rate meets the statutory  requirement that the rate not be unreasonable. The Bureau does not find a rate  #unreasonable solely because more accurate inflation data has become available by the time  it makes its review. This would churn rates, causing significant administrative expenses  to operators and confusion to subscribers. However, if a rate is unreasonable on its face  Bor has to be adjusted for reasons other than the availability of a more accurate inflation  5figure, e.g., because the operator failed to provide correct information in its rate  justification or failed to complete its rate justification form correctly, the Bureau  recalculates the maximum permitted rate using the most accurate inflation information"f ,_(_(IIM"  S- available, rather than earlier estimates.w {Oh- x-ԍ See Public Notice, Cable Services Bureau Announces Policy Regarding Inflation Adjustment on FCC Form  x-393, DA 95999 at 2 (Cab. Serv. Bur. May 2, 1995). The Bureau gave operators the opportunity to review and  xcorrect errors in their benchmark rate filings. Operators who had not previously correctly calculated the inflation  xKadjustment factor were directed to use the accurate factors through June 30, 1994. Public Notice, Cable Services  xhBureau Announces Optional Procedures with Respect to Pending PreMay 15 Benchmark Cases, DA 941556 at 34 (Dec. 29, 1994). The Public Notice listed the inflation adjustment factors through June 30, 1994. This practice is consistent with 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(9)(iii), which provides:   ` (XxX` ` [I]f the rates charged by a cable operator are not justified by an analysis  ` based on the data available at the time it initially adjusted its rates, the  ` Ucable operator must adjust its rates in accordance with the most accurate data available at the time of the analysis.x` Xx[footnotes in original]   Sp- ` Bx15.` ` Because we find that our action in the First Order is consistent with the Commission's  SH - xholding in Cencom, we reject Operator's argument regarding the adjustment of the Inflation Adjustment  S" - xFactor. In accordance with the Commission's decision in Cencom, however, we will adjust Line 124 of  S - xyOperator's FCC Form 393 from twelve months to fourteen months.G Bw {O-ԍ See Cencom at para. 17.G We deny Operator's First Petition  S - xin all other respects. The adjustment to the period of inflation results in a revised MPR of $11.76i! w yOH-ԍ As stated earlier, our First Order determined an MPR of $11.66.i rather  xjthan Operator's MPR of $12.06. Because Operator's actual CPST rate of $12.18, effective September 1,  x{1993, exceeds its revised MPR of $11.76, we find Operator's actual rate of $12.18, for the period November 8, 1993 through May 14, 1994, to be unreasonable.  S - ` x16.` ` In our Second Order, we reviewed Operator's FCC Forms 1200, 1210, and 1240 and  S- xadjusted each in accordance with the revisions made to Operator's CPST rate in our First Order."d w yO- xԍ We received valid complaints regarding Operator's March 1, 1995 and June 1, 1996 CPST rate increases. This review was also based on the November 8, 1993 complaint against Operator's CPST rate. We  x[further adjusted Operator's FCC Form 1240 to eliminate previous cost increases not included in a timely  x-manner in Operator's CPST rates charged to customers. Notwithstanding these adjustments, we found that Operator's CPST rates from May 15, 1994 through November 20, 1996 were not unreasonable.  S- ` x17.` ` In its Second Petition, Operator argues that the Commission erred in using Operator's FCC  xForm 1200 as a starting point for assessing the reasonableness of Operator's rates, when Operator had  x<instead attempted to justify its postMay 14, 1994 rate with a cost of service showing on FCC Form 1220.  xLOperator is correct. In our Second Order, we inadvertently overlooked Operator's FCC Form 1220 filed  x>on October 21, 1994. Consequently, we grant Operator's Second Petition and reconsider our Second Order here."T ",_(_(II"Ԍ S- ` x18.` ` The Commission has determined that a benchmark and price cap approach should serve  S- xas the primary method for regulating basic service tier ("BST") and CPST rates.E#\w {O@- xԍ See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992:  {O - xRate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993).E Because the benchmark  xmethodology might not produce fully compensatory rates in all cases, the Commission permits operators,  S- xas an alternative, to justify rates using cost of service showings.l$w {O-ԍ Id. at 579495; see also 47 C.F.R.  76.922 (1996).l The cost of service approach is intended  xzto be used only if an operator believes that the maximum rate permitted under the benchmark formula  xwould not enable the operator to recover costs reasonably incurred in providing rate regulated cable  S- xservices. On December 15, 1995, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order, First Order on  S- xReconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Final Cost Order")k%~w yO -ԍ MM Docket No. 93215 and CS Docket 9428, 11 FCC Rcd 2220 (1996).k setting forth its final rules to govern cost of service filings.  St- ` Px19.` ` Operator's cost of service filing seeks to establish that its CPST rate increases are justified  xbased on its cost of providing regulated cable service. According to information provided by Operator  xin its cost of service showing, the franchise area comprised approximately 9,372 CPST subscribers. In  xOour review we analyzed Operator's FCC Form 1220 to ensure that the rate increases were not unreasonable and to determine any associated refund liability.  S - ` Ax20.` ` In reviewing Operator's cost of service showing, we evaluated rate base and expense items  x.to determine whether Operator should be permitted to recover those items. Where a certain rate base or  xyexpense element was not supported, was excessive, or was unrelated to providing regulated cable service,  S - xwe disallowed such cost in whole or in part.& w yO- xԍ The Commission made clear that the fact that an operator has incurred costs does not necessarily establish  {O-its right to recover those costs from subscribers. See Rate Order at n.619. Where we disallowed reported costs, we have made  xappropriate adjustments. Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1220, we find that Operator has justified  xan MPR of $14.86, rather than the MPR of $16.27 calculated by Operator. However, because Operator's  x/actual CPST rate was $12.17, effective May 15, 1994, we find that Operator's CPST rate of $12.17, effective May 15, 1994, is not unreasonable.  S- ` x21.` ` Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1210 for the period January 1, 1994 to December  xL31, 1994, we have adjusted Operator's beginning rate at Line A2 from $14.86 to $16.27 to carry forward  xour adjustment to Operator's MPR on its FCC Form 1220. We have also corrected Line H21 (Residual  xof Channels Moved (added) to Tier) from $1.15 to $1.18. These corrections reduce Operator's MPR from  x$16.37 to $14.93. However, because Operator's actual CPST rate is $14.55, effective March 1, 1995, we find that Operator's actual CPST rate of $14.55, effective March 1, 1995, is not unreasonable.  S- ` x22.` ` Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 for the projected period April 1, 1996 to  xMarch 31, 1997 ("First FCC Form 1240"), we have corrected Line A1 (Current MPR) to $14.93 to  xconform to our revised MPR from Operator's FCC Form 1210. Because Operator used a trueup period  x.of July 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996, we also have adjusted Line E3 (Number of Months between the end"h &,_(_(II"  xof TrueUp Period 1 and the end of the most recent Projected Period) to zero. Our adjustments to  x<Operator's First FCC Form 1240 reduce its MPR for the projected period April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997  xfrom $19.86 to $17.45. However, because Operator's actual CPST rate, effective May 1, 1996, is $15.26,  xwe find that Operator's actual CPST rate, effective May 1, 1996 through March 31, 1997, is not  xunreasonable. Consequently, upon reconsideration we find, as we did in our Second Order, that Operator's CPST rates for the period May 15, 1994 through November 20, 1996 are not unreasonable.  S- ` x23.` ` Upon review of Operator's FCC Form 1240 for the projected period April 1, 1997 to  xMarch 31, 1998 ("Second FCC Form 1240"), we have corrected Line A1 (Current MPR) to $17.45 to  xconform to our revised MPR from Operator's First FCC Form 1240. We also have corrected Lines D6  xk(Current TrueUp Segment), D7 (Current Inflation Segment), and F8 (TrueUp Segment for TrueUp  x>Period 1) to conform to the adjustments we made to the First FCC Form 1240. In addition, we have  xcorrected Line I3 (Channel Movement Deletion Segment for Projected Period [Weeks 4/5]), because  xOperator omitted channel movement for the projected period. In total, the adjustments to the Second FCC  xForm 1240 reduce Operator's MPR for the projected period April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 from $23.45  xto $17.16. However, because Operator's actual CPST rate, effective April 1, 1997, is $16.65, we find that  S -Operator's actual CPST rate, effective April 1, 1997, is not unreasonable.'x w yO- x-ԍ The findings herein are based solely on the representations of Operator. Should information come to our  xattention that these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This  xOrder is not to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument  xmade by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein. Information regarding the specific  xadjustments made to Operator's filings can be found in the public file for CUID No. PA1686, which is available in  xthe Cable Services Bureau's public reference room, or through the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services (ITS), 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, DC, 20554, or by calling ITS at (202) 8573800.  S0- ` x24.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47  xZC.F.R.  1.106, that the First Petition for Reconsideration filed by Operator is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  S- ` x25.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that In The Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 6517 (1995) IS VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.  S- ` Bx26.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Stay, granted in The Matter of Battlefield Cable  S- xTV Co., et al., 10 FCC Rcd 10591 (1995), to the extent that it pertains to the franchise area referenced above, IS TERMINATED.  S~- ` x27.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Second Petition for Reconsideration filed by Operator is GRANTED.  S- ` `x28.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that In The Matter of Suburban Cable TV Co., Inc., DA 961930 (released November 20, 1996), IS VACATED.  S- ` x29.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  x[C.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $12.18, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above  S@- xduring the period November 8, 1993, the initial date of regulation, through May 14, 1994, IS UNREASONABLE." ',_(_(IIu!"Ԍ S- ` ԙx30.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rates charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above during the period May 15, 1994 through November 20, 1996 ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.  S`- ` x31.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rates charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above during the period November 20, 1996 through March 31, 1997 ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.  S- ` x32.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.321, that the CPST rate of $16.65, charged by Operator in the franchise area referenced above, effective April 1, 1997, IS NOT UNREASONABLE.  S - ` x33.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47  x C.F.R.  76.961, that Operator shall refund to subscribers in the franchise area referenced above that  xportion of the amount paid in excess of the maximum permitted CPST rate of $11.76 per month (plus  xyfranchise fees), plus interest to the date of the refund, for the period November 8, 1993 through May 14, 1994.  S0- ` x34.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Operator shall promptly determine the overcharges to  xCPST subscribers for the stated periods, and shall within 30 days of the release of this Order, file a report  xkwith the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount so determined (including  xfranchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan.  S@- ` x35.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xjC.F.R.  0.321, that Operator take into account our adjustments to its FCC Forms 1220, 1210, and 1240  xwhen calculating its maximum permitted rate and performing the trueup calculation on its next FCC Form 1240.  Sx- ` x36.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.321, that the complaints against the March 1, 1995 and June 1, 1996 CPST rate increases for the franchise area referenced above ARE DENIED.  S- ` x37.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xMC.F.R.  0.321, that the complaint against the April 1, 1997 CPST rate increase for the franchise area referenced above IS DENIED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Meredith J. Jones x` `  hh@Chief, Cable Services Bureau