WPCè 2MBRK.3|wTimes New RomanCG Times#XP\  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>-?PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:l?ntoc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2w@v qAqBsCutoc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2-}DxE-zFvK|Gl|index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG 2UHr_}I}J}P~K~endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` 2LMNOaa3Paragraph 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 a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   2fPGQKЃKa7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq "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""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\xxxWIxkWWWWWWWWWW(xM\\>>>\}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\\c{,W80,<0W*f9 xr G;X2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,&e4  pG;&"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7\y.X80,X\  P6G;P ]8wC;,Xw PE37XP^7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP_7nC:,|Xn4  pG;XD`7zC;,.mXz_ pi7XaV"G($,=hG PE37hPbH5!,i,5\  P6G;,P\c{,W80,<0W*f9 xr G;Xh2a=5,&a\  P6G;&P g2e=5,&e4  pG;&iP:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\j0_=5,<&_*f9 xr G;&Xy.\80,T\4  pG;2 Kv"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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(>(II"   March 31, 1994 actual rate level (Module A plus external costs calculated in Module B) is then compared   to the benchmark rate level derived in Module C, with the operator carrying forward the smaller of the   two. If the March 31, 1994 actual rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module D, subtracting the   monthly per subscriber equipment cost calculated in Form 1205 and adding external costs calculated from   Module B. If the benchmark rate level is smaller, the operator completes Module E, subtracting the   monthly per subscriber equipment cost taken from Form 1205. Depending on which is used, either   Module D or E establishes pertier rates, which the operator carries forward into Module F, as its socalled  S-provisional rates.  ~&W yOP-  ԍAt the time of the local rate order, a "small operator" could elect "transition relief," which allowed it to keep   its regulated revenue at its March 31, 1994 levels and was not required to complete its benchmark in Module C and   its provisional rates were determined by completion of Module D. Pursuant to the Commission's Sixth Report and  {O -  xOrder and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995) ("Small Systems Order"), small systems  {Or -  eventually will have to convert to some other form of regulation, i.e., by establishing rates in accordance with our   ,benchmark or costofservice rules (the latter of which include the small system costofservice regulations adopted  {O -in the Small Systems Order). ģ  S-  6.` ` In the second part of Form 1200, the operator derives its full reduction rate based on its   .September 30, 1992 rates. To compute this rate, in Module G, the operator calculates its September 30,   1992 total monthly regulated revenues per subscriber, reduces that amount by 17% and then adjusts for   inflation. In Module H, the operator then adjusts the results from Module G for changes since September   30, 1992 with respect to subscribers, regulated channels, and satellite channels. In Module I, the operator   subtracts a monthly per subscriber equipment cost amount from Form 1205, establishes pertier rates, and   adjusts for changes in external costs. In Module J, the operator compares its aggregate provisional rate   with its aggregate full reduction rate. The maximum permitted rates an operator is actually allowed to   charge are either the provisional rates (Module F) or the full reduction rates (Module I), depending on   whether the aggregate provisional rate is greater or less than the aggregate full reduction rate, and are entered into Module K.   S-  7.` ` FCC Form 1205 is the official form used to determine the costs of regulated cable  S-  equipment and installation.@ &W {O>-ԍSee FCC Form 1205.@ Form 1205 has two distinct uses. First, Form 1205 is submitted along with   a Form 1200 and is used to establish equipment and installation costs in determining initial rates for   regulated cable services. These equipment and installation costs are converted to a monthly per subscriber   jcost that is subtracted from figures derived from programming and equipment revenues in the Form 1200   in order to determine maximum permitted programming service rates. In following the mathematical   principles embodied in these calculations, lower equipment basket costs lead to higher programming rates, while higher equipment basket costs lead to lower programming rates.  SP-  _8.` ` The second use for Form 1205 is to update permitted regulated equipment and installation   \charges based on equipment basket costs. Higher equipment basket costs on Form 1205 (resulting in   lower programming rates on Form 1200) correlate with higher equipment and installation rates.   yConversely, lower equipment basket costs on Form 1205 (resulting in higher programming rates on Form 1200) correlate with lower equipment and installation rates.  S- " ,>(>(II"Ԍ S-  9.` ` Form 1210 is the official form an operator uses to justify adjustments in the rates it   computed on its FCC Form 1200, which is used to establish an operator's initial maximum permitted rates,  S-  or on a previously filed Form 1210._ &W {O-ԍSee Second Recon. Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4119 (1994). _ In the Form 1200, an operator calculates its provisional rates and  S-  its full reduction rates. An operator's initial maximum permitted rates are the higher of the two. An   operator may file a Form 1210 to adjust its rates to reflect changes in external costs, channel additions  S8-  Mand deletions, and inflation. 8Z&W yO2-  ԍAt the time of Falcon's filing, an operator could adjust its full reduction rates for inflation, but not its   provisional rates. Since that time, however, the Commission has ruled that an operator may also adjust its  {O -  provisional rates for inflation. See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and   Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, and BuyThrough Prohibition, MM Docket  yOT -No. 92262, Ninth Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 5198 (1995). External costs include the following categories of costs: state and local   taxes specifically applicable to the provision of cable television service; franchise fees; costs of complying   with franchise requirements; retransmission consent fees and copyright fees incurred for the carriage of  S-  Lbroadcast signals; other programming costs; and Commission regulatory fees.H &W yOl-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(iv).H An operator may file for   changes in external costs for the period beginning at the end of the last quarter for which an adjustment   .was previously made through the end of the quarter that has most recently closed preceding the filing of  SH -  the Form 1210.IH &W yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(iii).I An operator may file a Form 1210 up to quarterly, but must file in the quarter following  S -  a decrease in costs due to channel deletions and within a year following a decrease in other costs. , &W yO-  ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(i) & (ii). Inflation may only be recovered for the nonexternal portion of the operator's rates on an annual basis. 47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(2). An   operator must file for a rate increase within a year of the cost increase in order to recover those costs in  S -its rates.G &W yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(d)(3)(i).G  S - IV.` ` DISCUSSION .  S0-` `  1.  Written Decision. ` `  S-` `  a. Position of the Parties. ` `  S-   10.` ` Falcon argues that, although the City provided copies of the recalculated Forms 1200 and   1210, the City failed to disclose the reason for its recalculations in its remand order. Falcon asserts that   .without the City's basis or rationale for recalculating its rates, it is impossible to substantively challenge   jthe actions taken by the City. Consequently, Falcon claims that the remand order is defective on its face   .and must be vacated by the Commission. In response, the City contends that it attached an explanation  S-of its analysis and conclusions to its remand order.  Sx-   11. ` ` Falcon denies that the City provided an explanation of its analysis and conclusions along   with its remand order. According to Falcon, the explanation and analysis referred to by the City were not"P,>(>(II"   part of the remand order. Instead, Falcon asserts that the explanation and analysis were provided the same  S-  day that Falcon filed its appeal of the remand order, almost one month after the City released this order.b&W yO@-  hԍFalcon asserts that its copy of the local rate order did not contain the City's explanation. According to Falcon,   wthe rate order makes no mention of the City's explanation either as an attachment or otherwise. The City contends   Ythat its explanation of the basis for the local rate order was attached to the rate order. The City further asserts that   JFalcon was aware of the basis for the local rate order because, prior to the adoption of the rate order the two parties met to discuss the issues.b  S`-` ` b.Discussion.  S-   12. ` ` In rate regulation proceedings, the cable operator bears the burden of proving the  S-  reasonableness of its proposed rates.x&W {O -  ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  76.937. See also, Sammons Communications, Inc., (Cities of Burbank and Glendale, CA), 10 FCC Rcd 5089 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995) at  14. The local franchising authority must provide the cable operator   with an opportunity to participate in the rate review proceeding and to provide documentation supporting  S-  its proposed rates.Y&W {O -ԍSee Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 572324.Y Thereafter, if the local franchising authority determines that the operator's proposed   rate exceeds the maximum permitted level as defined by the Commission's rate standards, it may prescribe   !a rate different from the proposed rate provided that the local franchising authority affirmatively  S -  Ldemonstrates in a written decision why the operator's rate is unreasonable and why its prescribed rate is  S -  reasonable.1 d &W {O-ԍId.1 While there is no requirement that the franchising authority embody its rate order in a single  S -  document, &W {Of-ԍSee Warner Communications, (Cincinnati, OH), 10 FCC Rcd 6015 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995). our rules do require that the franchising authority's decision be publicly available and provide   a sufficient basis for its decision to allow an operator and other interested parties to know why the rate   was disapproved so that the operator may appeal the local authority's decision. Here, the local authority's   /written decision is in two parts and consists of: (1) the remand order, a onepage document entitled   ="Ordinance No. 9504" dictating the maximum permitted rates that the operator may charge for the BST   =and equipment and including the City's recalculated Forms 1200 and 1210 and (2) the City's explanation   .for its decision. There is some question about when the City's explanatory information was available to  S-  Falcon. The City contends that it attached the information to the remand order; Falcon contends that it   did not receive the information until the day that it filed its appeal with the Commission. Based upon the   detailed, issuespecific appeal petition filed by the operator, we find Falcon knew and understood the  S@-City's reasons for rejecting its rates, and we deny Falcon's appeal with respect to this issue.@ &W {Oh"-ԍSee TCITKR of Northern Kentucky, (Boone, KY), 11 FCC Rcd 9816 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1996). ",>(>(IIS"Ԍ S- D$2o+  D$2o+ ` ` 2.  Revision of Channel Count.  S-` `  a. Positions of the parties.   S`-   13. ` ` Falcon alleges that the City improperly revised Falcon's Form 1200 and Form 1210 by:    D$2o+  D$2o+ (1) constructing a CPST by moving four channels from Falcon's BST to this CPST for the purposes of  S-  determining Falcon's beginning date and March 31, 1994 channel lineup;}z&W yOx-  -ԍFor systems, such as Falcon, whose BST was subject to regulation on March 31, 1994, the beginning date is   the date of initial regulation of the BST by the operator's local franchising authority. Here, Falcon used February   -8, 1994 as its beginning date because it is the date on which the City became officially certified to regulate cable  {O -  rates. See Supplemental Opposition, Exhibit 4. The beginning date and March 31, 1994 channel lineups are data   ,requirements of the rate forms. The City constructed the cable programming services tier by moving four channels   (the Weather Channel; the Discovery Channel; USA Network; and the SciFi channel) from Falcon's basic service tier to the cable programming services tier. } and (2) allocating a portion   of its beginning date and March 31, 1994 external costs to this CPST. According to Falcon, neither the   City's remand order nor the remand order's exhibits contain an explanation of why the City created this   CPST. Falcon states that it did not have a CPST either on the beginning date or on March 31, 1994.   yFalcon states that it did not begin to offer a CPST until July 14, 1994 when it restructured its service tier  SH -offerings by creating a fourchannel CPST.H &W {O-  ;ԍAppeal at 6, citing Declaration of Joe Johnson, Falcon Vice President of Operations, Appeal at Attachment F.   Mr. Johnson states that the tier restructuring took place on July 14, 1994. Falcon also asserts that its CPST rates   are not within the purview of the City. However, the City is not attempting to exercise jurisdiction over Falcon's   CPST rates. Instead, the City appears to have limited its review of Falcon's CPST channels to the issues of   determining the respective channel counts of the BST and CPST tiers and allocating external costs among the two tiers.   S -   14. ` ` The City states that Falcon restructured its service offerings on July 14, 1994 by moving   four channels from the basic service tier to the CPST. The City asserts that Falcon's Forms 1200 and   1210 should have reflected the restructuring. The City asserts that it recalculated the Forms 1200 and   1210 to reflect the restructuring because the Commission's rules require an operator to use the most  SX-  current information when completing its Forms 1200 and 1210.mX &W {O|-ԍOpposition at 3 citing Third Recon.Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 434950.m The City alleges that, as a result of the   [restructuring, Falcon's actual overall rates for (BST and CPST) were both higher than the rates calculated   =and submitted to the City by Falcon on its Form 1200 and higher than the rates recalculated by the City  S-  to reflect Falcon's restructuring.@&W yO -  ԍThe City asserts that the maximum permitted rate shown on Falcon's Form 1200 for the 27 channel BST was   <$20.55. After restructuring, Falcon's July 14, 1994 actual BST rate charged for 23 channels was $19.89 and the   CPST charged rate for 4 channels was $3.66, for a total rate of $23.55. The City revised Falcon's Form 1200 to   <reflect the restructuring and recalculated a BST rate for 23 channels of $17.51 and a CPST rate of $3.04, for an overall rate of $20.55.@ Finally, the City asserts that Falcon's restructuring on July 14, 1994  S-constituted an attempt to evade the postMay 14, 1994 rate reductions ordered by the Commission.O&W {O&-ԍSee Supplemental Opposition at 3.O  S-"X,>(>(II"Ԍ S-  Q15. ` ` In response, Falcon asserts that the Commission's refund deferral rules do not prohibit   operators from making rates changes during the refund period, rather the rules provide that the deferral  S-  .period ends when such changes are made or July 14, 1994; whichever comes first.H&W yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.922(b)(6)(ii).H Falcon asserts that,   because its restructuring occurred on July 14, 1994, it was not required to reflect the channel adjustments   related to the restructuring until its Form 1210 filing. With respect to its Form 1210 filing, Falcon asserts   that it correctly completed its Form 1210 by listing 27 channels on Line C because it contends the  S-  instructions for this line required it to enter the number of channels listed on Line A1 of its Form 1200  S-on which it had listed 27 channels.X&W yO -  YԍFalcon documented its restructured channel lineup on Line C2 of its Form 1210 (Current Number of Regulated Channels) by listing the four channels as CPST channels.   S-` ` b. Discussion.  SH -  16. ` ` The purpose of the Commission's refund deferral rules was to defer exposure to possible   Form 1200 refund liability from March 1994 until July 14, 1994, provided the operator met certain  S -  @conditions.k &W {OH-ԍSee Second Reconsideration Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 418384.k Here, Falcon verifies that its restructuring did not take place until the end of the  S -  Commission's refund deferral period, on July 14, 1994.  B&W {O-  ԍSee n.25 supra, statement of Joe Johnson, Falcon Vice President. Further, Falcon's Form 1200 indicated the existence of only one tier prior to July 14, 1994. Falcon's July 14, 1994 restructuring of its   channel lineup does not have any refund deferral implications. Therefore, the sole issue to be resolved   is whether Falcon correctly completed its Forms 1200 and 1210 (Line C) when it listed only one tier of service.  S-  17. ` ` The Form 1200 instructions for all lines of Module A (Monthly Regulated Revenues Per   Subscriber as of March 31, 1994); Lines B813 of Module B (Adjustments for Certain to External Costs);   Lines C1C3 of Module C (Calculating the Benchmark); Line I4 of Module I (Restructured Full Reduction   Rate); and Line J1 of Module J (Comparison of Provisional Rate with Full Reduction Rate) require  Sh-  operators to enter the number of channels and other associated data as of March 31, 1994.L!h&W yO-ԍSee Form 1200 Instructions at 1026.L Accordingly,   zFalcon correctly used March 31, 1994 data reflecting only one tier of service when it completed these   ysections of its Form 1200. Similarly, the instructions for Lines B1B7 of Module B, Lines I9I15 require   an operator to enter data current as of its "beginning date." Here, neither party disputes that the beginning   ldate is February 8, 1994. Accordingly, Falcon was correct in using data from February 8, 1994 in  S-  Lcompleting the sections regarding data current as of the beginning date. Additionally, Falcon was correct  Sx-  =in using data from March 31, 1994 in completing sections regarding data current as of March 31, 1994."x, &W {OD$-  xԍIn support of its use of the restructured channel counts, the City cites the Commission's Third Recon Order,   K9 FCC Rcd at 434950 (where current rates are not justified by using old data, a cable operator will be required to   justify their rates with data current at the time of filing.) However, the City has taken this section out of context.   This particular section was designed to address the problem of a cable operator who brought its rates into compliance   as of September 1, 1993, but was not regulated until a later date, at which time its rates could be deemed"f'!,>(>('"   <unreasonable as a results of changes in the data which occurred during the interim between the time the operator brought its rates into compliance and the time the operator became regulated. Such is not the case here. "x ",>(>(II"   =In reviewing the sections regarding data current as of the beginning date and data current as of March 31,   z1994, the City erred by revising Falcon's channel lineups and external costs to include a CPST, when   in fact no such tier at existed at the time. Instead, the City should have used Falcon's actual beginning date and March 31, 1994 channel lineups and external costs reflecting only one tier, the basic service tier.  S8-  #18. ` ` With respect to Falcon's Form 1210, the instructions for Line C of the Form 1210 require   Lan operator to enter the number of channels on each tier, as listed on the operator's Form 1200, Line A1.   Falcon was required to carry over the March 31, 1994 channel count from Line A1 of its Form 1200 to  S-  Line C of its Form 1210.E#X &W yO -  ԍWe note that this instruction only applies to those operators who have not previously completed a Form 1210.   For those operators who have previously completed a Form 1210, the instructions require the operator to enter data from the previous Form 1210.E The City was unreasonable in revising Line C to reflect a CPST tier, when   zno such tier existed at the time. The City should have reviewed this section using Falcon's March 31,   1994 channel count. Moreover, the instructions for the Form 1210, Module A (Transition and Full   Reduction Rates per Tier) require an operator to enter the transition and full reduction rates per tier, as  S -  recorded on its Form 1200.D$ @&W {O-ԍSee n. 39 infra.D Falcon correctly entered the data from its Form 1200 reflecting only one   jtier of service in completing this Module. The City erred by revising the data to reflect Falcon's July 14,   1994 tier restructuring and the creation of a CPST tier. Similarly, the instructions for Module B  S -  =(Calculating of Current and Net External Costs) require an operator to enter data as of March 31, 1994a% &W {O-ԍSee Form 1210 Instructions for Module B1a, B11ac. a  S -  and enter data reflecting changes since March 31, 1994.X& d &W {O-ԍSee Form 1210 Instructions for Line B1be.X In accordance with these instructions, Falcon   entered data as of March 31, 1994 and entered data reflecting its postMarch 31, 1994 changes (the tier   restructuring) where appropriate. The City erred by revising the March 31, 1994 data to reflect a CPST   tier, when no such tier existed on March 31, 1994. We remand this issue to the local franchising authority for further consideration in accordance with this order.  S- IV.ORDERING CLAUSES.  S@-  19.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the appeal of the local rate order filed by Falcon  S-Telecable with respect to the issue of the City's written decision is DENIED.  S-  S- 20. Ġ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the appeal of the local rate order filed by Falcon Telecable  S-  with respect to the issue of the City's recalculation of Falcon's Forms 1200 and 1210 IS REMANDED to the local franchising authority for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. "P &,>(>(II"  S-  l2D$2o-21. 221. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay request by Falcon Telecable IS DISMISSED as moot.  S-   S-  22.` ` 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. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,Meredith J. Jones ` `  hh,Chief, Cable Services Bureau