WPCP! 2MB%RK Z3|aTimes 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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN ZRXKB HP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRSX\  P6G;\"\Py.X80,IX\  P6G;P7jC:,+Xj\  P6G;XP2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,D&e4  pG;&d|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^5>I\\>>>\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\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xj\  P6G;+XP##&a\  P6G;0&P#2Kp KKKQ"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\"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNM\\>>>\}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\"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>lBBn72KKZd"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""that Cencom had not justified its CPST rate. The Bureau recalculated Cencom's maximum permitted  x[CPST rate and ordered refunds of the overcharge amount. In recalculating Cencom's maximum permitted  xrate, the Bureau corrected errors in the inflation information Cencom used in its inflation calculation in",**88f!"  xForm 393, the form for calculating initial regulated rates with the benchmark methodology, and the Bureau  x"refreshed" the inflation figure with the most accurate data from the U.S. Department of Commerce Gross  xNational Product Price Index ("GNPPI"). Cencom argued in its application for review that the  xCommission should not refresh inflation data and also argued that it should allow the operator to offset  x[alleged undercharges for its basic service tier against the CPST refunds it owed. Cencom also argued that  xit should be allowed to take advantage of the inflation adjustment allowed by the Commission for a longer period of time than it had claimed in its rate form.  S- ` x4.` ` In the Cencom Order, the Commission agreed that, although Cencom had not claimed the  xylonger period for the inflation adjustment, it could have done so. The Commission recalculated Cencom's  xrate with this adjustment. The Commission rejected Cencom's arguments against Bureau use of refreshed  xinflation data. The Commission explained that determining an operator's initial regulated rate as  xaccurately as possible when an operator's actual rate is not justified by the operator's calculation is neither  xunlawful nor contrary to Commission policy, is not inconsistent with instructions given operators on rate  xLforms, and is not inconsistent with the Commission's stated intention not to penalize operators for good  xfaith efforts to restructure rates when rate regulation became effective. Cencom's arguments in its petition  xfor reconsideration repeat its earlier arguments without alleging new or newly discovered facts or changed circumstances that would warrant further review.  S - ` x5.` ` In the Cencom Order, the Commission also rejected Cencom's argument that it should be  xallowed to take offsets in order to reduce its CPST refund liability. Cencom had charged CPST  xsubscribers for one more channel than it delivered to them and used the higher channel count in its rate  x calculation. Because the total number of channels delivered by a cable system is one of the variables  x[affecting the per channel maximum permitted rate determined by the benchmark methodology, the higher  xchannel count Cencom used in its rate calculation resulted in a slightly lower permitted rate on a per  x{channel basis than Cencom could have used in setting its rates. Cencom claimed that it could have  xcharged basic service tier ("BST") subscribers a higher per channel rate, and therefore a higher tier rate,  xif it had used the correct channel count in the first instance. It sought to use this BST "undercharge" to  x>offset its CPST overcharge. The Commission explained that the Communications Act sets up a dual  xyregulatory structure for cable services, giving local franchising authorities jurisdiction to regulate BST and  xassociated equipment rates and the Commission jurisdiction to regulate CPST upon the filing of a valid  xcomplaint. The Commission also explained that allowing intertier offsets would create practical problems  xin determining the correct CPST rates for offset purposes and would be discordant with the dual regulatory  xstructure established by Congress. The Commission stated that the precedents cited by Cencom addressed  xoffsets within the BST but did not support offsets between tiers that are subject to review by different  S-regulatory authorities.  yO- xԍ Cencom cites additional cases in its Petition for Reconsideration at 6 n.3. These, too, deal only with offsets  xwithin the BST. Cencom argues that the Bureau "strongly suggested" that intertier offsets should be allowed in  xCablevision of New England, Inc., Kittery, ME, 10 FCC Rcd 7569 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). Petition at 7. In  {OL"- xCablevision, the cable operator sought offsets across tiers when the local franchising authority would not allow the  xoperator to correct an error in its rate justification form. The Bureau held that the local franchising authority should  xhave accepted the correction, which the operator had timely called to the franchising authority's attention. With the  xhcorrection, the offset issue was moot. The case does not suggest that intertier offsets would have been appropriate.  xCencom cites the global rate resolution in Viacom Cable, Inc., FCC 9732 (Feb. 7, 1997). The Commission  {O6&-distinguished global rate resolutions in the Cencom Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 7959. "d,`(`(88"Ԍ S- ` x6.` ` In its petition for reconsideration, Cencom takes issue with the Commission's reasoning.  xAccording to Cencom, the Commission has jurisdiction over BST rates. Also according to Cencom, there  xis no administrative impediment to calculating net refunds because offsets do not require a review of BST  xrates, only a review of the data on the Form 393 filed with the Commission in response to a CPST rate  xcomplaint. Cencom's arguments do not allege new or newly discovered facts or changed circumstances  x/as required by  1.106(b)(2). In addition, Cencom's arguments substantively are without merit. The  xCable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 established a regulatory structure  xbased on federal guidelines, but it placed jurisdiction to determine BST rates and associated equipment  S- x=basket charges with the local franchising authority. yO( -ԍ Public Law 102385,  3, 106 Stat 1460, 146468 (1992), 47 U.S.C.  543(a), (b). The Commission sets guidelines for BST regulation  xand hears appeals of local rate orders involving interpretation of these guidelines, but it does not set or  x review BST rates in the first instance unless a franchising authority's certification has been denied or  SH - xrevoked or the franchising authority asks the Commission to assume jurisdiction until it becomes certified.H X yO@ - xԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.913. Franchising authorities can also ask for assistance in reviewing cost of service filings.  {O-See  xIf the Commission reverses a local franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute its own decision,  S -but will remand the matter to the franchising authority.6X  yOJ- xԍ Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate  xRegulation, MM Docket 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631, 573132  149 (1993).6  S - ` x7.` ` Cencom argues that the Commission need not set or review BST rates when allowing  xoffsets because the Form 393 filed with the Commission includes sufficient information for calculating  xa permitted BST rate. However, if a local franchising authority assumes jurisdiction over an operator's  xBST rate at a different point in time, the permitted BST rate it determines may differ somewhat from that  x>which might be calculated at the time of the CPST rate justification because of intervening changes in  x]inflation or other costs. Offsets may have been used at the local level pursuant to  76.942 of the  S- xCommission's rules@  yO*-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.942.@ in determining net refunds for BST and equipment and installation costs. Local rates  xmay have changed during the period under consideration. Local review may be in a different status than  xthe Commission's review. None of this information is required in the CPST rate justification filed with  xthe Commission, but it is relevant to determining refund offsets across tiers. Cencom argues that local  x/franchising authorities see the CPST rate justifications filed with the Commission, but nothing in the  x[Commission's rules or procedures would alert a franchising authority that BST rate issues are relevant to  xthe Commission's CPST review. An intertier offset without either a determination of the BST rates used  xin computing the offset or an opportunity for local franchising authorities to address the offset issue would not assure subscribers of accurate offset amounts and reasonable refunds.  S(- ` x8.` ` Cencom also argues that consideration of administrative burden was rejected in Time  S- xWarner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. FCC.L b  yO&-ԍ 56 F.3d 151, 173 (D.C. Cir. 1995).L The court reviewed the Commission's decision not to allow  xcable operators to adjust their September 30, 1992 rates for external costs incurred between September" ,`(`(88L"  xM30, 1992 and the date rates became subject to regulation at the federal or local level, the "gap period."  xThe court rejected the Commission's argument that the burden of dealing with gap period external costs  xjustified its decision. In that case, the Commission had acknowledged that allowing these costs would  xmake rates more accurate, and the documentation needed would not differ from the documentation used  xto review external costs after the gap period. The offsets requested in the instant case do not affect the  xaccuracy of the CPST rates. The Commission has no mechanism for collecting information about local  xrate proceedings outside of the process for hearing appeals of local rate orders, and it has no need for such information.  S- ` x9.` ` Cencom argues in its Petition for Reconsideration that the staff worksheet used to  Sp- xrecompute the maximum permitted CPST rate for the Cencom Order was not placed in the public file  SJ - xbefore the deadline for filing its petition. Although Cencom is correct about the delay, the Cencom Order  xthoroughly discussed the adjustments made in calculating Cencom's maximum permitted CPST rate and  xydid not rely on the staff worksheet to explain its action. No rule requires that staff worksheets be placed  xin the public file. However, to avoid any prejudice to Cencom, Cencom was offered the opportunity to  S - x<supplement its petition in light of the staff worksheet.q  yO-ԍ Letter from M.J. Jones to P. Glist (8/27/97) enclosing staff worksheet.q It did not do so. No further Commission response is warranted.  S4- ` x 10.` ` ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 1.106 of the Commission's rules,  xk47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Order in Cencom Cable  xIncome Partners II, L.P., FCC 97205, 12 FCC Rcd 7948 (1997), filed by Cencom Cable Income Partners II, L.P. IS DENIED. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@William F. Caton x` ` hh@Acting Secretary