Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

                                 )
Cable  Television Association of  )
Georgia, et al.,               )  )   File No. PA 98-004
         Complainants         )  )
                              )  )
         v.                   )  )
                              )  )
BellSouth    Telecommunications,  )
Inc.,     ))
         Respondent.          )
                              )

                            ORDER

     Adopted:  July 17, 2002                      Released:  
July 19, 2002

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:1

     1.   In this Order we grant a pole attachment complaint 
("Complaint") filed  by the Cable Television  Association of 
Georgia,    et     al.    ("CTAG")2     against    BellSouth 
Telecommunications, Inc.  ("BellSouth") pursuant  to Section 
224 of  the Communications  Act of  1934, as  amended ("Pole 
Attachment  Act")3   and  Subpart  J   of  Part  1   of  the 
Commission's rules.4   BellSouth, a local  exchange carrier, 
filed a  Response to the  Complaint and CTAG filed  a Reply.  
In this  Order, we  find BellSouth's annual  pole attachment 
rate of $5.03  to be unjust and unreasonable, we  set a just 
and  reasonable annual  pole  attachment rate  of $4.27  per 
pole, and we order refunds.

     2.   Pursuant   to  the   Pole   Attachment  Act,   the 
Commission has  the authority to regulate  the rates, terms, 
and conditions for attachments  by a cable television system 
or provider  of telecommunications service to  a pole, duct, 
conduit, or right-of-way owned  or controlled by a utility.5  
The  Pole  Attachment  Act  grants  the  Commission  general 
authority  to regulate  such  rates,  terms and  conditions, 
except where  such matters are  regulated by a State.6   The 
Commission   is  authorized   and  has   adopted  procedures 
necessary  to  resolve  complaints  concerning  such  rates, 
terms, and  conditions.7  The Commission has  concluded that 
"where onerous terms or conditions are found to exist on the 
basis of the evidence, a cable  company may be entitled to a 
rate   adjustment  or   the   term  or   condition  may   be 
invalidated."8

     3.   In addition,  the Pole Attachment Act,  as amended 
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("1996 Act"),9 imposes 
upon all utilities, the duty  to "provide a cable television 
system    or    any    telecommunications    carrier    with 
nondiscriminatory  access to  any  pole,  duct, conduit,  or 
right-of-way owned  or controlled by it."10   This directive 
ensures that "no party can use its control of the enumerated 
facilities   and  property   to  impede,   inadvertently  or 
otherwise,    the    installation   and    maintenance    of 
telecommunications and  cable equipment by those  seeking to 
compete in those fields."11  

     4.   The Commission has developed a formula methodology 
to  determine maximum  allowable  pole  attachment rates  to 
ensure that such rates are just and reasonable.12  A utility 
may not charge more than the maximum amount permitted by the 
formulas  developed  by  the Commission.   The  Commission's 
Cable  Formula,13  used  in resolving  complaints  by  cable 
systems, is  applicable in  this case.14  The  Cable Formula 
allocates the cost  of the entire pole by  the percentage of 
usable space occupied by  the attachment.  The Cable Formula 
includes  recovery  for  all pole-related  costs,  including 
administrative, maintenance,  and tax  expenses, as  well as 
depreciation and a rate of  return approved by the utility's 
state public  service commission.  The 1987  Pole Attachment 
Order15 provided a Cable  Formula for local exchange carrier 
("LEC") utilities using the  Commission's Part 31 regulatory 
accounts.16 At that  time, a LEC reported  data collected in 
accordance with the Commission's Part  31 accounts on an FCC 
Form M.  Effective January 1,  1988, Part 31 was replaced by 
Part  32, which  changed  how LECs  account  for and  report 
certain costs.17  The Commission's  Annual Report Form M was 
revised  on April  27, 1989  to reflect  the new  accounting 
system in Part 32.18

     5.   In 1990, the Common  Carrier Bureau responded to a 
request for clarification concerning  which Part 32 accounts 
should be used in place of the Part 31 accounts in the Cable 
Formula.   The Common  Carrier  Bureau  released a  guidance 
letter concerning the  use of Part 32 accounts  in the Cable 
Formula.19   In 1995,  the  Common  Carrier Bureau  provided 
further guidance concerning which Part 32 accounts should be 
included  in  the Cable  Formula  in  a hearing  designation 
order,  UACC Midwest,  Inc., et  al. v.  South Central  Bell 
Telephone  Company20 ("1995  Order").21   In  the 2000  Pole 
Attachment Order,22 the  Commission formalized and clarified 
the Part 32 accounts to be used in the Cable Formula for LEC 
utilities, acknowledging that an  exact tracking of expenses 
from  Part  31   accounts  to  Part  32   accounts  was  not 
possible.23  LECs  now maintain  their Part 32  accounts and 
file  their annual  operating  costs  with the  Commission's 
Automated  Reporting   and  Management   Information  System 
("ARMIS").24   ARMIS  Report  43-02   -  Uniform  System  of 
Accounts  contains the  financial  information necessary  to 
calculate pole attachments rates.25   In this case, we apply 
the  rules as  they existed  at the  time the  Complaint was 
filed ("1998 Cable Formula"), because the Commission had not 
yet adopted the  final rule clarifying the  specific Part 32 
accounts to be included in the Cable Formula.26  

     6.   In October  1997, BellSouth notified CTAG  that it 
was increasing its annual pole  attachment rate to $5.03 per 
pole  beginning January  1,  1998.  In  its Complaint,  CTAG 
claims  that the  $5.03 rate  exceeds the  maximum permitted 
rate  calculated using  the 1998  Cable Formula.   Using the 
1998 Cable  Formula, and  relying on the  public information 
reported  annually  by  BellSouth to  the  Commission,  CTAG 
calculates an annual pole attachment rate of $4.27.27   CTAG 
also  argues  that  the  new  rate  of  $5.03  violates  the 
nondiscrimination clause of the  Pole Attachment Act because 
is  exceeds  the  $4.20  annual pole  attachment  rate  that 
BellSouth   charges  certain   competitive  local   exchange 
carriers ("CLECs") that are attached to its poles.  

     7.   In  its  Response,  BellSouth  first  argues  that 
additional accounts  should be  included in  calculating the 
maximum  rate.   Specifically,  BellSouth seeks  to  include 
Accounts 612428  and 653529 in the  administrative component 
of the formula.  Although the Commission has since clarified 
that these specific  accounts are not to be  included in the 
Cable  Formula,30 at  that time  the standard  for including 
those accounts was detailed in  the 1995 Order.  In the 1995 
Order,  the Common  Carrier Bureau  stated that  portions of 
either of  these Part 32  accounts could be included  in the 
administrative component  of the  rate calculation  if those 
portions would have been  includable in the rate calculation 
when using Part 31 accounts.  In the 1995 Order, the utility 
was directed to  analyze the accounts in order  to make that 
determination and  to support its conclusions  by affidavit.  
In its  Response, BellSouth  admits that  under the  Part 31 
scheme, amounts that might now  be included in Accounts 6124 
and 6535 were booked to  pole expense based on monthly usage 
or  engineering  time  data.  However,  BellSouth  makes  no 
attempt to identify  a portion of these  accounts that might 
have  been includable  as  pole expense  under  the Part  31 
scheme.  Instead, BellSouth argues  that the entire accounts 
should be  included.31  We find  that BellSouth has  not met 
its burden to identify and substantiate any portion of these 
two accounts that might have been included under the Part 31 
scheme.   Therefore,  we  find  CTAG's  exclusion  of  these 
accounts from the administrative component of the 1998 Cable 
Formula to be reasonable.

     8.   BellSouth next  asserts that it should  be able to 
generate a  state-level rate  rather than  the company-level 
rate  calculated  by  CTAG.   BellSouth  seeks  to  rely  on 
internally generated  data for certain accounts  rather than 
the publicly available and independently verifiable company-
level data  reported to ARMIS.  Specifically,  in this case, 
public  reports  are  not  available  for  state-level  pole 
investment related  accumulated depreciation  (Account 3100) 
and accumulated  deferred taxes  (Account 4340)  and certain 
state-level expenses (e.g., rents  and benefits) included in 
Account  6411.  BellSouth  argues that  internally generated 
reports are  sufficiently reliable  for use in  developing a 
state-level  pole  attachment  rate  provided  the  internal 
values are reconciled with  company-level data made publicly 
available   in  BellSouth's   ARMIS  reports.    BellSouth's 
Response incorporates  the affidavit of William  J. P. Tyler 
("Tyler Affidavit") to justify its rate calculation.32  

     9.   CTAG  objects to  BellSouth's  use of  state-level 
data  because  it  is  not publicly  filed  and  subject  to 
regulatory review and analysis  for purposes other than pole 
attachments.  CTAG also points out that internal data is not 
available for  pre-complaint negotiation  because it  is not 
part of ARMIS or otherwise publicly available.  

     10.  To determine a just and reasonable pole attachment 
rate,  Congress  directed  the Commission  to  institute  an 
expeditious  program "which  will necessitate  a minimum  of 
staff,  paperwork and  procedures consistent  with fair  and 
efficient regulation."33   To that end, Congress  noted that 
although  there may  be some  difficulty in  determining the 
components  of the  operating  expenses  and actual  capital 
costs of the utility, special accounting measures or studies 
should not be  necessary since the majority of  the cost and 
expense  items attributable  to the  utility pole  plant are 
already  established  and  reported  to  various  regulatory 
bodies and therefore the information  is already a matter of 
public record.34   The Commission has stated,  "we expect to 
continue  to  use  a  methodology  which  utilizes  publicly 
available data, does not require ratemaking proceedings, and 
lends itself  to an expeditious resolution  of disputes.  It 
is  our intent to  conform to  the will  of Congress  and to 
avoid   protracted   proceedings,    special   studies,   or 
submissions of internal corporate data to the maximum extent 
possible."35

     11.  The  Commission  has  expressed a  preference  for 
using publicly available data  to calculate the maximum pole 
attachment  rate.36  In  Television Cable  Service, Inc.  v. 
Monongahela  Power  Co.,37   the  Commission  expressed  its 
preference for  "data developed for  regulatory purposes."38  
Nevertheless, we do not require that only publicly available 
data  be  used.   The  provisions  in  the  rules  requiring 
utilities to provide data  to attachers anticipate that some 
data may  be available only  from the utility.   However, in 
complaint proceedings, where the  Commission may take notice 
of  information in  publicly available  filings made  by the 
parties, it  is our  practice "in  the absence  of supported 
carrying  charges .  . .  to  use the  figure from  publicly 
available information."39

     12.  The  methodology   used  to   arrive  at   a  pole 
attachment  rate  should be  simple  and  based on  publicly 
identifiable and verifiable data whenever it is available.40   
Section 1.1404(g)  of the  Commission's rules  describes the 
requirements for  the submission of data.41   It states that 
data  and information  should  be based  upon historical  or 
original  cost methodology.   Data  should  be derived  from 
ARMIS,  FERC  1,42 or  other  reports  filed with  state  or 
federal   regulatory   agencies.    Calculations   made   in 
connection with  figures should also be  submitted.  Section 
1.1409(a)  of the  Commission's rules43  also provides  that 
publicly available data may be relied upon by the Commission 
when insufficient data is available in the record upon which 
to base its determination.

     13.   BellSouth's reliance  on Teleprompter v. Southern 
Bell, 44  is misplaced.   In that  case, the  Common Carrier 
Bureau accepted state-wide data in lieu of company-wide data 
but  did not  comment  on whether  the  state-wide data  was 
publicly filed.   In addition,  the state-wide  data lowered 
the carrying charge rate component  of the formula.   As the 
Commission  stated in  Teleprompter v.  C&P Telephone45  the 
Commission's  formula   methodology  "passes  the   test  of 
reasonableness under the  circumstances: it employs publicly 
available  figures;  it  is  simple;  and  it  includes  the 
critical elements  identified by Congress as  part of annual 
carrying charges."46  

     14.  In this case, BellSouth does not offer support for 
the data it presents.  The Tyler Affidavit includes exhibits 
that  list the  individual states  included in  the company-
level filing along  with an amount for each  state that when 
totaled  equals  the  amount  on  the  ARMIS  report  for  a 
particular   account.    However,  BellSouth   provides   no 
information about the  basis it used to  allocate costs from 
its aggregate company-level accounts  to the various states.  
Neither  does  BellSouth  provide any  specific  information 
about its  data source for the  specific amounts apportioned 
to  each  state.  Many  of  BellSouth's  attachments to  its 
original  Response   are  fairly   illegible  and   some  of 
BellSouth's figures are not reconciled to anything.  Indeed, 
the Tyler  Affidavit relies on  alternative data as  well as 
differing  reporting   time  frames  in   its  calculations, 
demonstrating  the  difficulty  BellSouth  itself  had  with 
acquiring internal data to use in the 1998 Cable Formula.

     15.  We find CTAG's reliance  on the company-wide ARMIS 
data to  be reasonable.   In this  case, calculation  of the 
annual  pole attachment  rate  using  company-level data  is 
efficient and expedient,  publicly verifiable and represents 
an equitable portion of BellSouth's actual capital costs and 
operating expenses.   BellSouth does not  provide sufficient 
information or  explanation of its proposed  calculations to 
support  its  use  of internally  generated  reports.   Upon 
review of  CTAG's amended calculation, we  agree with CTAG's 
calculated  rate  of $4.27  using  the  1998 Cable  Formula.  
Therefore, we  set the maximum  permitted rate at  $4.27 per 
annum per  pole.  We order  BellSouth to refund to  the CTAG 
members represented herein, any amount paid over the maximum 
just and  reasonable per pole  attachment rate of  $4.27 for 
1998, plus interest,47 beginning April  1, 1998 (the date of 
the filing of the Complaint) or the date the individual CTAG 
member was added via supplemental filing.48

     16.  Finally, we address briefly CTAG's allegation that 
the  rate of  $5.03 is  discriminatory and  in violation  of 
Section 224(f)(1) of the  Pole Attachment Act.  CTAG asserts 
that BellSouth  charges CLEC attachers in  Georgia an annual 
pole  attachment  rate  of   $4.20  per  pole.49   BellSouth 
responds that not  all CLECs in Georgia pay a  rate of $4.20 
and the rate  was set for a previous year,  not 1998.  Given 
our decision requiring BellSouth to lower its rate to $4.27, 
we  need not  reach  the  issue of  whether  the $5.03  rate 
constitutes   discrimination  in   violation  of   the  Pole 
Attachment Act.  

     17.  Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED, pursuant  to Sections 
0.111, 0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R.     0.111,   0.311  and  1.1401-1.1414,   that  the 
Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.  

     18.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of  the Commission's  rules, 47  C.F.R.  
0.111,  0.311 and  1.1410, that  the annual  pole attachment 
rate of $5.03, effective April 1, 1998, IS UNREASONABLE.
  
     19.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of  the Commission's  rules, 47  C.F.R.  
0.111, 0.311 and  1.1410, that the annual rate  of $4.27 for 
1998 for each pole attachment IS SUBSTITUTED for the rate of 
$5.03, effective upon the release of this Order.
  
     20.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of  the Commission's  rules, 47  C.F.R.  
0.111, 0.311 and 1.1410, that BellSouth SHALL REFUND to CTAG 
members,  within thirty  (30) days  of the  release of  this 
Order,  that portion  of the  amount paid  in excess  of the 
maximum permitted pole  rate of $4.27, plus  interest to the 
date of  refund, for the  period beginning April 1,  1998 or 
the date the individual CTAG  member joined the Complaint as 
indicated in Attachment A, through December 31, 1998.

     21.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 
 0.111,  0.311 and 1.1401-1.1418, that  CTAG and BellSouth 
SHALL NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, a maximum just and reasonable 
rate for the rates beginning in 1999, in accordance with the 
Commission's rules.


                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau                             ATTACHMENT A

  GROUP A (Refunds begin 4/01/98)  
  1.      Brenmor Cable Partners, L.P., d/b/a InterMedia
  2.      Robin Media Grp., Inc. d/b/a/ InterMedia     
  3.      Time Warner Cable
  4.      Insight Communications 
  5.      TCI of Columbus
  6.      James Cable Partners
  7.      Cable Equities of CO., Ltd. 

  GROUP B (Refunds begin 4/23/98)
  8.      Comcast Communications, Inc.
  9.      Jones Communications of GA/SC, Inc.
  10.     Peachtree Cable TV, Inc.
  11.     Charter Communications, L.P.  
  12.     Charter Communications II, L.P.    
  13.     Falcon Cablevision

  GROUP C (Refunds begin 4/29/98) 
  14.     Cox Cable of Middle GA

  GROUP D (Refunds begin 5/21/98)
  15.     Wometco  CA  TV  of  GA (&  various  Wometco  CATV 
     systems: Clayton  Co., Cobb  Co., Rockdale  Co., Fulton 
     Co., Fayette Co.)
  16.     Media One, Inc. (various systems) 

  GROUP E (Refunds begin10/22/98)
  17.     Northland Cable Properties Seven L.P.
  18.     Northland Cable Properties Eight L.P.

  GROUP F (Refunds begin 3/04/99) 
  19.     InterMedia  Partners (Peachtree  City, GA)  (Note: 
     Brenmor  Cable Partners,  L.P. and  Robin Media  Group, 
     Inc. filed on April 1, 1998)
_________________________

1  Effective  March  25, 2002,  the  Commission  transferred 
responsibility for resolving pole attachment complaints from 
the former Cable Services  Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau.  
See  Establishment   of  the  Media  Bureau,   the  Wireline 
Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, Reorganization of the International Bureau and Other 
Organizational Changes, FCC 02-10, 17 FCC Rcd 4672 (2002).
2 CTAG filed  on behalf of 19 of its  cable operator members 
that have  pole attachment  agreements with  BellSouth.  See 
Attachment A  for a list  of cable operators  represented by 
CTAG in this matter and  the dates the members were included 
in the Complaint.
3 47 U.S.C. 224.
4 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418.
5 47 U.S.C.  224 (b) (1).
6 47  U.S.C.  224  (b) and  (c). Georgia has  not certified 
that  it  regulates  rates,  terms and  conditions  of  pole 
attachments. See Public Notice,  "States That Have Certified 
That They Regulate Pole Attachments," 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992).
747 U.S.C.  224 (b)(1).
8Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing the Attachment of 
Cable Television Hardware to Utility Poles, Memorandum Order 
and Opinion on  Reconsideration, 4 FCC Rcd 468, 471  at  26 
(1989).
9 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
10 47 U.S.C.  224 (f) (1).
11 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the 
Telecommunications Act of  1996, 11 FCC Rcd 15499  at  1123 
(1996),  on  reconsideration,  14   FCC  Rcd  18049  (1999); 
affirmed in part Southern Company v. FCC, No. 99-15160 (11th 
Cir., released June 13, 2002).
12  See  Adoption  of  Rules for  the  Regulation  of  Cable 
Television  Pole Attachments,  First  Report  and Order,  68 
F.C.C. 2d 1585 (1978); Second Report and Order, 72 F.C.C. 2d 
59 (1979);  Memorandum and Order,  77 F.C.C. 2d  187 (1980), 
aff'd, Monongahela  Power Co.  v. FCC,  655 F.2d  1254 (D.C. 
Cir. 1985) (per curiam); and Amendment of Rules and Policies 
Governing  the Attachment  of Cable  Television Hardware  to 
Utility   Poles,  2   FCC  Rcd   4387  (1987).    See  also, 
Implementation of  Section 703(e) of  the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996,  13 FCC Rcd 6777 (1998) and  Amendment of Rules 
and  Policies Governing  Pole Attachments,  15 FCC  Rcd 6453 
(2000),  pet.  for  recon.  denied  in  part,  Amendment  of 
Commission's Rules and  Policies Governing Pole Attachments, 
CS Docket No. 97-98; Implementation of Section 703(e) of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 01-170, 16 FCC Rcd 12103 
(2001), appeal  pending sub nom. Southern  Company Services, 
Inc. et al. v. FCC, Case  No. 01-1326 (D.C. Cir., filed July 
26, 2001).
13 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1409 (e)(1).
14 The  Cable Formula applies  to attachments made  by cable 
systems    and    telecommunications   carriers    providing 
telecommunications   services   until  February   8,   2001.  
Beginning February 8, 2001, it  applies only to cable system 
attachments.  See Amendment of  Rules and Policies Governing 
Pole Attachments, FCC 00-116, 15 FCC Rcd 6453 at  5 (2000).
15 Amendment of Rules  and Policies Governing the Attachment 
of Cable Television Hardware to Utility Poles, CC Docket No. 
86-212,  2  FCC  Rcd  4387  (1987)  ("1987  Pole  Attachment 
Order").
16  1987 Pole  Attachment Order,  2 FCC  Rcd 4387,  4402-03, 
Appendix B (1987).  
17   See Revision  of  the Uniform  System  of Accounts  and 
Financial  Reporting Requirements  for Class  A and  Class B 
Telephone  Companies (Parts  31,  33, 42,  43  of the  FCC's 
Rules), Report and  Order, FCC 86-221, 60 Rad.  Reg. 2d 1111 
(1986); on reconsideration,  2 FCC Rcd 1086 (1987).  
18 Revision  of Annual Report Form  M, DA 89-503, 4  FCC Rcd 
4879 (1989); erratum DA 89-519, 4 FCC Rcd 4565 (1989). 
19  Letter  from Kenneth  P.  Moran,  Chief, Accounting  and 
Audits Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to Paul Glist, Esq., 
Cole, Raywid & Braverman, 5 FCC Rcd 3898 (CCB 1990).
20  UACC  Midwest,  Inc.,  et  al.  v.  South  Central  Bell 
Telephone Company, DA 95-1363, 10 FCC Rcd 10905 (CCB 1995).
21  See also  Multimedia Cablevision,  Inc. v.  Southwestern 
Bell Telephone Company, FCC 96-362, 11 FCC Rcd 11202 (1996).
22   Amendment  of   Rules  and   Policies  Governing   Pole 
Attachments, 15 FCC Rcd 6453 (2000), on reconsideration, FCC 
01-170, 16  FCC Rcd  12103 (2001),  appeal pending  sub nom. 
Southern Company Services, Inc. et  al. v. FCC, Case No. 01-
1326 (D.C. Cir., filed July 26, 2001) ("2000 Pole Attachment 
Order").
23 Id. at  45.
24Reporting  Requirements for  Certain  Class A  and Tier  1 
Telephone Companies  (Parts 31, 43,  67 and 69 of  the FCC's 
Rules),  CC  Docket  No.  86?182, 2  FCC  Rcd  5770  (1987), 
modified on recon., 3 FCC Rcd 6375 (1988).
25The  ARMIS  43-02  Report provides  the  annual  operating 
results of  the carriers' telecommunications  operations for 
every account in Part 32.  See 47 C.F.R. Part 32.
26 We  note that CTAG calculated  a rate of $4.27  using the 
1998 Cable Formula.  Using the same public records that CTAG 
used, our current Cable Formula would yield a rate of $4.25.
27  In  its  Reply,  CTAG  recalculated  its  rate  with  an 
additional  amount  added  to the  administrative  component 
based on BellSouth's Response.  This addition did not change 
the $4.27 rate.
28 47 C.F.R.  32.6124 (General purpose computers expense).
29 47 C.F.R.  32.6535 (Engineering expense).
30 See 2000 Pole Attachment Order at  45-52.
31  In  support of  its  argument,  BellSouth cites  to  the 
Commission's Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 7449 
(1997).  However, the proposed rules  in the Notice were not 
adopted by  the Commission and,  in fact, Accounts  6124 and 
6535  were  specifically  excluded from  the  Cable  Formula 
calculation by  the Commission  in the 2000  Pole Attachment 
Order.
32 Response  at pp.  2-11, referencing Affidavit  of William 
J.P. Tyler ("Tyler Affidavit"). 
33  See S.  Rep. No.  95-580, 95th  Cong., 1st  Sess. at  21 
(1977).  
34 Id. at 19-20.
35  Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking,  Amendment of  Rules and 
Policies  Governing  the   Attachment  of  Cable  Television 
Hardware to  Utility Poles, CC  Dkt. No. 86-212,  FCC 86-274 
(released June 6, 1986).  
36  See  Amendment  of  Rules  and  Policies  Governing  the 
Attachment of Cable Television  Hardware to Utility Poles, 2 
FCC Rcd 4387 at  37, 47, and 52 (1987).
37 Television Cable Services, Inc. v. Monongahela Power Co., 
88 F.C.C. 2d 63 (CCB 1981), modified in part, FCC 81-488, 88 
F.C.C. 2d 56 (1981). 
38 Id. at  20.
39  Teleprompter v.  C&P of  West Virginia,  FCC 80-372,  79 
F.C.C.  2d 232 at   17  (1980).  See  also Texas  Cable and 
Telecommunications    Association     v.    GTE    Southwest 
Incorporated, DA  99-348, 14 FCC  Rcd 2975 at   26-29 (CSB 
1999).
40 First Report and Order, 68  FCC 2d 1585 (1978); 1987 Pole 
Attachment Order, 2 FCC Rcd 4387 (1987). 
41 47 C.F.R. 1.1404(g).
42 Form 1 is the  Annual Report that electric utilities file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
43 47 C.F.R. 1.1409(a).
44 Teleprompter Corp.,  et al. v. Southern Bell  Tel. & Tel. 
Co., 49 RR 2d 1428, 1430 (CCB 1981).
45 Teleprompter  of Fairmont, Inc.,  et al. v.  Chesapeake & 
Potomac Telephone  Company of West Virginia,  FCC 81-32,  85 
F.C.C. 2d 243 at  16 (1981).  
46 Id. at  16.
47  The  Commission  has   determined  previously  that  the 
appropriate  rate  of interest  on  the  overcharges is  the 
current interest rate for Federal tax refunds and additional 
tax  payments.   See  Teleprompter  of  Fairmont,   Inc.  v. 
Chesapeake and  Potomac Telephone Co. of  West Virginia, FCC 
80-372, 79 F.C.C. 2d 232 at  24 (1980), order on recon., 85 
F.C.C. 2d 243 (1981). 
48 See  Attachment A of  this Order for  a list of  the CTAG 
members and the dates they are eligible to receive refunds.  
49  Complaint  at p.  3,  referencing  Complaint, Exhibit  6 
(Review of Cost Studies, Methodologies, and Cost-Based Rates 
for    Interconnection   and    Unbundling   of    BellSouth 
Telecommunications  Services,  Georgia   Pub.  Serv.  Comm'n 
Docket 7061-U (October 21, 1997) at 64).