WPC 2MBERKZ3|jB X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"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\HP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRS&a\  P6G;\"\&P2gEKX X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdj2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XP\ @^.$h'j;U7G;A7 Xn-6F[w!/DTck{2 K< Z0 3|jB"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicHP4M (PCL) (Additional); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRSXj\  P6G;\"\XP2 KV v p I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddRtoc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#2\?DU@vbWAWBYtoc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ toc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#2cCF\Dd^E`Fvbindex 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF 2"eGlHcHrcI&dJ}d_Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH head1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ 2gKTeLeMofN ga2Paragraph 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 2GwOgPhQ[iR" %ja6Paragraph 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 MACDocumentuR      X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#T 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#2zSoywTvwUv^xVxFootnoteuSÍčendnote textendnote textT footnote textfootnote textU toa headingtoa headingV` hp x (#(#(#` hp x (#2~W${XB}Ym}Z.~footerfooterW` hp x (# (#  (# ` hp x (#footnote tex#X'n#d\  PCP# HeadlinenHeading for internal papersYql + WITNESS.STYIN WITNESS WHEREOFZ*Cqw  ` IN WITNESS WHEREOF,2[~\]5^1H-ART.STYARTICLES IAD[?qw )ARTICLE Iă  ` 2H-ART.STYARTICLE II\@`qw %ARTICLE IIЃ  ` 1H-WIL.STYMAIN TITLE]:\ LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT )OFă  ` 4H-ART.STYARTICLE IV^@`qw %ARTICLE IVЃ  ` 2_`\ab{3H-ART.STYARTICLE III_Aqw %ARTICLE IIIă  ` WILL.STYWILLS FORMATS`H, 3'3'Standard<'$<'StandardZ*pRHP L"nY4   (  '  (  ` hp x (# hp x (#ЁT I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I I I I I (a) i) a)TLH-TXTFull ltr, date, etc. etc.a' %June 9, 1989 LH-FULLFull Ltr headbLr   'h *  '2c7Qde0(fXLH-LOC.STYALL LOCATIONS LTR HEADcNp%` hp x (#` hp x (# 857 %June 16, 1989 ` hp x (#` hp x (#COL.STY3 columns w/line in meddoLj XX ` hp x (#` hp x (#CH$҇` hp x (#` hp x (#ЈCH$CH$SIGNLNS.STYWITNESS & ADDRESS LNS.eٹH0   'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS `   h%%+ HxFF KK(#Q `   h%%++00p6@64ADDRESS  'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS `   h%%+  `   h%%++0@0p/ADDRESS  'h%%++0  @ ` WITNESS  Memo Headerf(? i3$W Page  $=2*gh|iXpjbȑ LetterheadPersonal letterhead with address, etc.gG 37 J.G. Harrington ă 57221 Beechwood Road 1Alexandria, Virginia 22307 7(703) 7686987 >Normalh$ Xx  @ Headeripage numberpage numberj 2k(\l(mnʘheading 3heading 3k` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 4heading 4l` hp x (# @ HPX  @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 5heading 5m` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 6heading 6n` hp x (#@ l HPX @ l HPX ` hp x (#2op8qVrltheading 7heading 7o` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 8heading 8p` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#heading 9heading 9q` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#macromacror` hp x (#  @ `PX #d6X@DQ@##Xv6X@CX@#  @ `PX ` hp x (#2dst0ulNvAPOAPOs` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#envelope addressenvelope addresst` hp x (#@ HPX @ HPX ` hp x (#envelope returnenvelope returnu` hp x (#@ HPX #b6X@C@##Xv6X@CX@#@ HPX ` hp x (#whitewhitev.$US?? ??US2wlKKMKWFG Letter HeadingWFG Letter Headingw"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">=(G>$H*G>FJ` `@  ` `  2 S- X   UN X- #Xj\  P6G;9XP# #&a\  P6G;&P#Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 98 270 ă  yxdddy UՊ#Xj\  P6G;9XP##X\  P6G;P##&a\  P6G;&P#K$HK6  P3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  S-" Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter ofR) R) R)  S-TCI Communications, Inc. R)hCUID No.PA1855 (Pittsburgh) d/b/a TCI of Pennsylvania, Inc.R) R) Complaint RegardingR) Cable Programming Services TierR) Rate IncreaseR)  S -< ORDER TP  S0-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:it issued a written rate decision which found that Operator did not establish the showing required by  xSection 76.922(f)(6) as it pertains to the programming rate for the basic service tier ("BST").  xAccordingly, the LFA contends that "there is reason to doubt that the required Section 76.922(f)(6)  S- xshowing can be made by [Operator] as it pertains to CPST."f\W yO%-#X\  P6G;P#э Supplement at p. 4. f The LFA requests that the Commission"r,>(>(IIb"  S- x~require Operator to submit "record evidence"w\W {Oh-#X\  P6G;P#э See Supplement at p. 4, para. 9.w demonstrating that Operator has met its  xjburden under Section 76.922(f)(6) of the Commission's rules. In its Response, Operator contends that it  xhas "met its initial burden" of proving compliance with Section 76.922(f)(6) "[w]ith the documents  S-[already] delivered to the Commission."bZ\W yO-#X\  P6G;P#э Response at p. 1.b  S8- ` x5.` ` Second, the LFA requests that the Commission require Operator to provide information  xdemonstrating that Operator's projected costs of programming are "reasonably certain" and "reasonably  xquantifiable." The Commission's rules provide that "[i]n order that rates be adjusted for projections in  xexternal costs, the operator must demonstrate that such projections are reasonably certain and reasonably  S- xquantifiable."\W yO" -#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(A) (1996). The Commission's rules also state that "[p]rojections involving copyright fees,  xretransmission consent fees, other programming costs, Commission regulatory fees, and cable specific  SH - xtaxes are presumed to be reasonably certain and reasonably quantifiable."ZH z\W {Ob-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z The LFA contends that,  x[although the Commission's rules state that programming costs are presumed to be reasonably certain and  xKreasonably quantifiable, such presumption only is applicable "to the extent that programmers and operators  xMhave agreed in advance to the amount of programming cost changes and the date the cost changes will  S - xLtake effect." \W {OT-#X\  P6G;P#э Supplement at p. 5, citing Thirteenth Reconsideration Order at para. 73. In addition, the Commission has explained that "[t]his presumption does not eliminate an  S - xLoperator's duty to respond to reasonable requests for information in support of rate filings." \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Supplement at p. 5, citing Thirteenth Reconsideration Order at para. 72. The LFA  xstates that as part of its rate review of the FCC Form 1240 filed by Operator on April 14, 1997, requesting  x[a change in the basic service tier ("BST") rate, the LFA delivered to Operator a detailed Letter of Inquiry  x("LOI") requesting that Operator provide clarification and additional information. On April 24, 1997,  xOperator delivered to the LFA a reply in writing to the LOI. On May 30, 1997, the LFA issued its  xwritten rate decision in which the LFA found that Operator "did not establish the showing required by  S- xSection 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(a) of the FCC's Rules as it pertains to the [BST] rate."d0 \W yO`-#X\  P6G;P#э Supplement at p. 5.d Accordingly, the LFA  xxrequests that the Commission "make inquiry of [Operator] to ascertain whether [Operator's] projected costs  S@- xyof programming are 'reasonably certain' and 'reasonably quantifiable.'"g@ \W yO!-#X\  P6G;P#э Supplement at pp. 56.g In its Response, Operator states  S-that it has "no obligation to submit additional information unless specifically requested."bP \W yO$-#X\  P6G;P#э Response at p. 1.b  S- ` Qx6.` ` Upon review of these two issues raised by the LFA, the LFA has not stated, with any  xspecificity, why Operator has failed to meet its burden under Sections 76.922(f)(6) and 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(a)  xof the Commission's rules. The LFA states that it has issued a written rate decision which determined"x,>(>(II"  xLthat Operator had not met its burden, concerning Sections 76.922(f)(6) and 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(a), in its rate  xjustification for its BST rate. While encompassing similar concepts, the LFA's review of BST rates and  xthe Commission's review of CPST rates are independent proceedings. In a CPST complaint, an LFA must  xspecify its assertions and not rely on actions it has taken in its review of the BST. The LFA has failed  xto include its written decision, or any document outlining its reasons showing the deficiencies in  S8- xOperator's filing, with its CPST complaint.8\W yO- x-#X\  P6G;P#э The Commission will review a BST rate decision by a local franchising authority only upon the filing of a  {Oh-timely appeal. See 47 C.F.R. Section 76.944(a). We will not request additional information from Operator  x=concerning its showing under Sections 76.922(f)(6) and 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(a), except to the degree the LFA  xOarticulates a concern with Operator's programming costs and Operator's relationships with its  S- xprogrammers, affiliated and otherwise. Consistent with our other recent decisions,"\W {O - x;#X\  P6G;P#э See, e.g., TCI Communications, Inc. d/b/a TCI Cablevision of Greater Michigan (DA 98117, released January 23, 1998). we will order the  xOperator to provide, for each CPST channel for which programming costs are being increased or revenues  xMare being received from programmers, a channel by channel explanation of the revenues received from  xprogrammers, a description of the revenue, as well as a channel by channel explanation of its  xprogramming costs increases, along with documentation explaining why, pursuant to the Commission's  xrules, the revenues received from programmers should not offset the increases in Operator's programming  S -costs. |\W yO- x<#X\  P6G;P#э We reserve the right to modify this Order, if necessary, based on our review of the additional information provided by Operator.  S - ` Ax7.` ` Third, the LFA contends that Operator has failed to justify its CPST maximum permitted  xrate because the License Fee Reserve claimed by Operator was neither reported nor justified on  x."Worksheet 7 External Costs" as it asserts is required by FCC Form 1240 and Section 76.922(f) of the  S- xCommission's rules.\W yO|- x#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(f) (1996). Specifically, the LFA states that Operator charged subscribers $0.14 in  xDecember 1995 and $0.30 each month beginning January 1, 1996 through November, 1996, justified as a License  xFee Reserve (FCC Form 1240, Worksheet 2 Caps Method TrueUp Period). For the Projected Period in 1997,  xOperator proposed to charge $0.64 each month as a License Fee Reserve for the period June 1, 1997 through  xDecember 31, 1997. Beginning in 1998, Operator proposes to charge $0.66 each month for the first five months of 1988 (FCC Form 1240, Worksheet 2 Caps Method Projected Period).  The LFA argues that it is improper for Operator to recover license fee payments  xafter December 31, 1996 as a License Fee Reserve. Rather, the LFA contends that, after December 31,  x1996, license fees incurred (or to be incurred) by Operator are properly recovered under Section 76.922(f)  S-"External Costs."L \W {O|!-#X\  P6G;P#э See LFA's Supplement at p. 8, citing 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(f) (1996).  S@- ` x8.` ` In its Response, Operator states that beginning in 1997 "cable operators were allowed to  S- x'pass through' all licensing fees associated with Caps channels."b\W yO%-#X\  P6G;P#э Response at p. 2.b Operator contends that the LFA has  x.erred "in asserting that it was improper [for the Operator] to continue entering these additional licensing"n,>(>(II4"  S- x.fees on Worksheet 2 of the Form 1240."Z\W {Oh-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Based on its understanding of the FCC Form 1240, Operator  xMstates that it has "continued to include all of its Caps channels, and all Capsrelated licensing fees, on  S- xyWorksheet 2."Z Z\W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Operator contends that this approach ensures that these channels receive the regulatory  xtreatment intended by the Commission. Operator argues that, notwithstanding the LFA's assertions, "the  xapproach works to the customer's benefit, for it is the best means available to ensure that Capsrelated  S8- xylicensing fees are not improperly 'markedup' in Worksheet 7 by the 7.5% intended for other channels."Z!8\W {O -#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z  xOperator recognizes that "an operator could use the $.30 Capsrelated [license fee] reserve in 1995 and  S- x1996 only if it, in fact, incurred the claimed licensing fees."Z"~\W {O -#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z In addition, Operator recognizes that "an  xjoperator's unrestricted ability to claim Capsrelated licensing fees beginning in 1997 still requires that the  S- xjoperator actually incur the claimed licensing fees."Z#\W {OH-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Operator argues that the LFA "compounds its error  xby accusing [Operator] of trying to avoid scrutiny of its licensing fees by claiming them under the 'license  SH - xfee reserve' rather than as an ordinary 'external.'"Z$H \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Operator disputes this accusation and contends that  xit "has never argued to the [LFA] or the Commission that licensing fees associated with Caps channels  x(and recorded under the 'license fee reserve' entry on Worksheet 2) are entitled to a different standard of  S - xLreview than other licensing fees."Z% 4 \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Operator contends that the LFA's "arguments regarding [Operator's]  x]use of the license fee reserve are erroneous and have no consequence to the CPST rates ultimately  S -established."Z& \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z  S0- ` Cx9.` ` Operator has elected to justify adjustments to its rates by using the annual method  xavailable on FCC Form 1240 and has chosen to add channels using the Caps Method that is permitted  S- xpursuant to Section 76.922(g)(3) of the Commission's rules.'X \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(g)(3) (1996). See Response at pp. 12. The LFA has misinterpreted the  xCommission's rules. The Operator correctly raised its rates under the Caps Method. Using the Caps  xMethod, an Operator may increase its rates between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1997, by a per  xchannel adjustment of up to $0.20 per channel, exclusive of programming costs, for new channels added  xto CPSTs on or after May 15, 1994. The Operator may not make per channel adjustments totalling more  xthan $1.20 per month per subscriber through December 31, 1996, or by more than $1.40 per month per  S- x.subscriber through December 31, 1997 (the "Operator's Cap").z(\W yOz&-#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(g)(3)(i) (1996).z The Commission's rules also allow for"z(,>(>(IIa"  S- xa license fee reserve|)\W yOh-#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(g)(3)(iii) (1996).| when adding new channels. Operators that make channel additions on or after May  x15, 1994, may increase their rates by a total of $0.30 per month, per subscriber, between January 1, 1995,  S- xand December 31, 1996,`*X\W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.` for license fees associated with such channels. The $0.30 limit no longer  S- xapplies after December 31, 1996.`+\W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.` After December 31, 1996, "license fees may be passed through to  xsubscribers pursuant to [Section 76.922(f)], except that license fees associated with channels added  x[pursuant to [Section 76.922(g)(3)] will not be eligible for the 7.5% markup on increases in programming  S-costs."a,|\W {O, -#X\  P6G;P#э Id. a  S- ` x10.` ` The LFA argues that Operator was required to calculate its programming costs, including  xlicense fees, on Worksheet 7 of the FCC Form 1240. This is incorrect. Had Operator calculated its  xmprogramming costs on Worksheet 7, an automatic 7.5% markup would have been added to its  xjprogramming costs. This is not permitted because Operator's channels were added pursuant to the Caps  xMethod and Section 76.922(g)(3). Therefore, these channels are ineligible for the 7.5% markup on  xincreases in programming costs. As required by FCC Form 1240, Operator correctly calculated its  xprogramming costs for these channels on Worksheet 2 of FCC Form 1240, which does not add a 7.5%  S - xmarkup.- \W {OV- xK#X\  P6G;P#э See 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922(h) which explains that "[p]ermitted charges for a tier shall be determined in accordance with forms and associated instructions established by the Commission." We find that Operator has correctly calculated its programming costs associated with channels Operator added using the Caps Method.  S0- ` x11.` ` We have examined the documentation, including FCC Forms, which Operator has  x[submitted to justify its June 1, 1997 CPST rate. To justify rates for the period beginning May 15, 1994  S- xthrough a benchmark showing, operators must use the FCC Form 1200 series.j.h \W yO-#X\  P6G;P#э 47 C.F.R. Section 76.922.j Operators are permitted  S- xjto make changes to their rates on a quarterly basis using FCC Form 1210.Z/ \W {OP-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Operators may alternatively  xjustify adjustments to their rates on an annual basis using FCC Form 1240 to reflect reasonably certain  x0and quantifiable changes in external costs, inflation, and the number of regulated channels that are  S@- xprojected for the twelve months following the rate change.Z0@ \W {Oj"-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z Any incurred cost that is not projected may  S-be accrued with interest and added to rates at a later time.Z1\W {O$-#X\  P6G;P#э Id.Z  S- ` x12.` ` On February 22, 1996, the Commission issued an order granting Operator a waiver (the  x"Waiver Order") of certain rate adjustment requirements in its initial filing of the Commission's annual"1,>(>(II#"  S- x=rate adjustment form (FCC Form 1240).2\W {Oh- x#X\  P6G;P#э See Annual Rate Adjustment System for Cable Service Rates, Request for Waiver of Requirements Contained in the Thirteenth Order on Reconsideration, (DA 96220, released February 22, 1996). Specifically, the Waiver Order allowed Operator, in its initial  xFCC Form 1240 filings, to include estimated changes in costs, inflation, channels and subscriber  xinformation attributable to the period between the last date for which actual cost data was available and  xthe effective date of the new rates. In the Waiver Order, Operator was instructed to include in its initial  x0FCC Form 1240 filing certain calculations, such calculations to be performed on FCC Form 1240  x.(primarily in Module G), or off FCC Form 1240, in an alternative showing done pursuant to the Waiver  S- xOrder's "General Guidelines."l3"\W yO -#X\  P6G;P#э Waiver Order at Appendix A.l Operator chose to use an alternative showing pursuant to the "General Guidelines" rather than perform its calculations directly on FCC Form 1240.  S- ` 2x13.` ` On October 25, 1996, Operator wrote to the Commission requesting review and approval  x\of a modified FCC Form 1240 to justify rates for the projected period from June 1, 1997 to May 31,  SH - x1998.4H \W {O- x#X\  P6G;P#э See Letter from Angela Montoya, TCI Communications, Inc., to Alex Byron, Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated October 25, 1996. On January 9, 1997, we consented to the Operator's use of the form for such period in lieu of  S -filings on the Commission's standard FCC Form 1240.5 \W {O- x#X\  P6G;P#э See Letter from Meredith Jones, Chief, Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Angela Montoya, TCI Communications, Inc., dated January 9, 1997.  S - ` x14.` ` To justify its CPST rate, effective June 1, 1997, Operator submitted two FCC Forms 1240,  x.the first for the projected period June 1, 1996 to May 31, 1997 ("First Form 1240"), and the second for  S - xthe projected period June 1, 1997 to May 31, 1998 ("Second Form 1240").6 f \W {O-#X\  P6G;P#э  See Section 76.922(e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  76.922(e). Operator's First Form 1240  xused Operator's alternative showing, calculated pursuant to the Waiver Order. Operator's Second Form  x1240 followed the format set forth in Operator's October 25, 1996 letter. On reviewing the submitted  x[forms, we determined that neither of the submitted forms produced identical results to filings that would have been made on the Commission's standard FCC Form 1240.  S- ` Ax15.` ` Accordingly, on December 12, 1997, Operator submitted new standard FCC Forms 1240,  xfor the projected periods June 1, 1996 to May 31, 1997, and June 1, 1997 to May 31, 1998, which  xperformed the Waiver Order's calculations directly on the standard FCC Forms 1240 as well as the  S- x/calculations described in Operator's October 25, 1996 letter.q7 \W yO!- x#X\  P6G;P#э Operator submitted these forms but also stated that it "continues to believe that these additional forms are not  xrequired or necessary as [Operator used] the FCC approved waiver in filing the Form 1240 for this system." Letter  xfrom Angela Bricmont, Director of Regulatory Compliance, TCI Communications, Inc., to Margaret Egler, Assistant  xiChief, Financial Analysis and Compliance Division, Cable Services Bureau, Federal Communications Commission dated December 12, 1997.q Review of both forms is necessary to  xcalculate the appropriate maximum permitted rate ("MPR") and refund liability, if any, for the period  xbeginning June 1, 1997. Operator also submitted a refund plan which calculated the amount of refunds"7,>(>(II"  xjowed to subscribers in the community referenced above for the duration of the one year projected period ending May 31, 1998.  S- ` x16.` ` Upon review of Operator's new FCC Form 1240, for the projected period June 1, 1996  xto May 31, 1997, we find that Operator has correctly calculated its MPR of $18.22. Upon review of  xOperator's new FCC Form 1240, for the projected period June 1, 1997 to May31, 1998, we find that  xOperator has correctly calculated its MPR of $18.28. However, Operator's actual CPST rate, effective  S- xjJune 1, 1997, is $18.68. 8 \W yOP- x#X\  P6G;P#э These findings are based solely on the representations of Operator. Should information come to our attention  xYthat these representations were materially inaccurate, we reserve the right to take appropriate action. This Order is  xnot to be construed as a finding that we have accepted as correct any specific entry, explanation or argument made by any party to this proceeding not specifically addressed herein.  Operator has submitted a refund plan which calculates, with interest, the total  xamount of overcharges that will be collected from CPST subscribers in the community referenced above  S- xfrom June 2, 1997 (the date of the first subscriber complaint)9\W {O -#X\  P6G;P#э See Section 623(c)(1)(C) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 543(c)(1)(C) (1996). to May31, 1998.:B\W {Oz-#X\  P6G;P#э See Section 76.961 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.961. Upon review of  xOperator's refund plan, we find that Operator has correctly calculated, with interest, the amount of  x overcharges that will be received from subscribers during the projected period ending May 31, 1998.  xThese calculations result in a total refund amount of $4.98 per CPST subscriber, including interest. We  xwill order Operator to pay the refund amount of $4.98 to each current CPST subscriber within 60 days  S - xjof the release of this order.; \W {OD-#X\  P6G;P#э See Section 76.961(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.961(c). We will also order that any rate Operator charges on and after June 1, 1998  xshall be premised on Operator's use of (1) the standard FCC Form 1240 for rate calculation purposes and  x\(2) $18.28 as Operator's Current Maximum Permitted Rate as called for on Line A1 of its FCC Form  x1240 filing for the projected period beginning June 1, 1998. Contingent upon Operator's refund payment  xto its subscribers, we have determined that Operator's total CPST rate collections in the community  xyreferenced above, for the projected period June 1, 1997 to May 31, 1998, will be reasonable, pending our review of the revenue/offset issue.  S- ` x17.` ` Accordingly, subject to our review of issues reflected in paragraph 20, IT IS ORDERED,  x/pursuant to Section 76.961 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section 76.961, that Operator shall  xrefund to CPST subscribers in the franchise areas referenced above the amount of $4.98 within 60 days of the release of this Order.  S- ` x18.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 76.962 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R. Section 76.962, that Operator, within 90 days of the release of this Order, shall file with the Chief,  xkCable Services Bureau, a certification of compliance with the refund requirements of this Order, and a certification of its intent to comply with all other aspects of this Order.  S- ` x19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  x{C.F.R. Section 0.321, that Operator shall use (1) the standard FCC Form 1240 for rate calculation  xpurposes and (2) $18.28 as Operator's Current Maximum Permitted Rate as called for on Line A1 of its"f ;,>(>(II"  x0FCC Form 1240 filing for the projected period beginning June 1, 1998, pending our review of the revenue/offset issue.  S- ` x20.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R. Section 0.321, that Operator shall file with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, within 30 days of  xthe release of this Order, a channel by channel explanation of the revenues received from programmers,  x]a description of the revenue, as well as a channel by channel explanation of its programming costs  xincreases, for each CPST channel for which programming costs are being increased or revenues are being  xreceived from programmers, along with documentation explaining why, pursuant to the Commission's  xrules, the revenues received from programmers should not offset the increases in Operator's programming costs.  S - ` x 21.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R. Section 0.321, that the complaint referenced herein against the rates charged by Operator in the community set forth above IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  K$HK  x` `  hh@John E. Logan x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau  Xh-#Xj\  P6G;9XP#