WPC 2MBERKZ3|a 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<"dxtldpxxd2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P7jC:,9Xj\  P6G;XPnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\HP4M (PCL) (Addnal); Local PrintHL4MPCAD.PRS&a\  P6G;\"\&P2 K< Z0 3|a"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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;9XP#  #&a\  P6G;&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\2!KK@KK"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"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"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""T yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.937.> The local   franchising authority must provide the cable operator with an opportunity to participate in the rate review  S-  process and to provide documentation supporting its proposed rates.x yO"-  iԍImplementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, Report and  {O"-Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd. 5631, 572324 (1993) ("Rate Order"). In addition, the local franchising  S-  authority must provide a reasonable opportunity for the consideration of the views of interested parties.> yON%-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.935.>   yIf the local franchising authority determines that the cable operator's proposed rates exceed the maximum   jlevels set forth in the Commission's rate standards, it may prescribe rates different from those proposed,"b ,**88"  S-  [provided that it affirmatively demonstrates, in a written decision that is available to the public,A] yOh-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.936(b).A why the  S-cable operator's rates are unreasonable and why its prescribed rates are reasonable.PX] {O-ԍRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd. at 572324.P  S-  S-  3.` ` A rate order entered by local franchising authorities may be appealed directly to the  S`-  Commission.>` yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  76.944.> The Commission will not conduct a de novo review of the challenged rate order, but will   jexamine the decision to determine whether the local franchising authority has provided a reasonable basis  S-  for its decision.f ^z {O, -  ԍRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd. at 573132; Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection  {O -  ,and Competition Act of 1992, Third Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd. 4316, 4347 n.51 (1994) ("Third Order  {O -on Reconsideration").f If the Commission determines that no reasonable basis exists in the record to sustain the   =local franchising authority's challenged rate order, the Commission will remand the rate order to the local  S-  .franchising authority for resolution of the matter in a manner consistent with the Commission's decision  S-and appropriate authority.M  {O-ԍRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd. at 5732.M  Sr-  SJ -III.Discussion  S" -  S -  o4.` ` Falcon submitted FCC Form 1240v 2  yO-ԍFCC Form 1240 (Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services).v to Roseburg on August 28, 1996, seeking approval  S -  for an increase of its BST rate from $21.05 to $23.40 (an increase of $2.35).8  yO4-ԍPetition at 12.8 According to Falcon,   lRoseburg's Cable consultant found that Falcon had used an inflation rate that was higher than that  S -  sanctioned and published by the Commission. \ R  {Ot-  ԍId. at 2. The Commission releases a new quarterly inflation factor four times a year for cable operators using  {O>-  <FCC Form 1240. See e.g., Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd. 290 (Cab. Servs. Bur. 1998) (third quarter 1997 inflation adjustment factor and previously released factors since the third quarter of 1995). Recalculating Falcon's BST rate with the correct inflation   jrate, the consultant determined that Falcon was entitled to increase its BST rate to $22.43 (an increase of  S2-  /$1.38, an amount $0.97 lower than Falcon's proposed increase).62v yOH!-ԍPetition at 2.6 Roseburg, however, rejected all of   =Falcon's proposed increase, finding that Falcon used an "excessively high" inflation figure to calculate its   yproposed BST rate increase and that its proposed BST rate exceeded the maximum permitted rate, which  S-  it did not specify.F {O`%-ԍOctober 1996 Rate Order.F On appeal, Falcon alleges that Roseburg erred in rejecting the entire amount of its",(("   proposed increase to its BST rate and compounded that error by not providing any explanation for its  S-decision other than stating that Falcon used the wrong inflation rate.d yO@-  ԍFalcon does not dispute the validity of the inflation rate used by Roseburg's consultant to recalculate Falcon's   ZBST rate increase. Falcon does dispute the consultant's reduction of the period for which it could claim inflation   to match the trueup period and asks that we clarify this point in the event Roseburg relies on the consultant's   analysis on remand. Unclaimed inflation should be determined as directed in FCC Form 1240, Instructions Module C: Inflation Information at 1314 (July 1996).d   S-  5.` ` Roseburg failed to issue a proper rate order. Roseburg carries the burden of affirmatively   demonstrating in its written decision why Falcon's proposed BST rate was unreasonable and why, on the  S8-  other hand, its prescribed rate was reasonable.?8x {OP -ԍSee supra note 7.? The requirement of a written order protects the cable   operator's right to due process by having the local franchising authority explain why it is rejecting the rate   and also provides that cable operator with a basis to refile its rate or appeal the local franchising  S-  authority's decision to the Commission.n  {Oj-ԍRate Order, 8 FCC Rcd. at 5715; see 47 C.F.R.  76.936.n As evidenced by previous Commission rulings, local rate orders   that summarily or vaguely reject a cable operator's proposed rate increase cannot be sustained and will  Sp-  be remanded.p {O-ԍSee Valley Cable TV, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 637879, 6379 n.8 (Cab. Servs. Bur. 1998). Although Roseburg states that Falcon used the wrong inflation figure, that finding,  SH -  standing alone, is insufficient to explain why Roseburg rejected Falcon's proposed BST rate increase in  S -  its entirety. Thus, we remand the October 1996 Rate Order for further proceedings consistent with the  S -discussion contained in this Order.  S -IV.Ordering Clauses  SZ-  6.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petition for Review filed by Falcon Community  S2-Ventures I IS GRANTED to the extent noted herein.  S-  7.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter IS REMANDED to the City of Roseburg   to conduct further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and appropriate authority.  SB-  8.` ` This action is undertaken by the Acting Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated under 47 C.F.R.  0.321(a)(3). ` `  hh,VFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION    ` `  hh,V ` `  hh,VJohn E. Logan ` `  hh,VActing Chief, Cable Services Bureau