WPC% 2?BJZECourier3|a #&a\  P6G;r&P#personal HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\o&YX@ S(#&a\  P6G;r&P#2,qKXCourierTimes New Roman"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\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\l?xxx,Gx6X@`7X@ 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>2^<nK3| Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicH[x+xHH+GbbCC2O^<nK Z3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNI\\>>>\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\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>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)#&a\  P6G;r&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\"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%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72KiKKKJ"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!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""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%%%7K%7777777777%%KKK7eDDIODDOO%0I>\IODOD7>OD\D>>**.7%77070770O7777**70I00*,,;%;.%%%%%%%%%7%7D7D7D7D7D7aII0D0D0D0D0%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7>0D7O7O7O7>0O7D7D7D7D7I0I0I;I0OBD0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7T7;;I0>>(>%>#>I7@I7I7O7O7gID*D*D*7*7*7*;;>(>>.O7O7O7O7O7O7\I>;>*>*>*O7>%I77*>%>7B77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(97*77777l7#TT7!#TT7T!%%>>7a&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(;TT77a%>7\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7KlBBn72\5Z# y.X80,QwX\  P6G;P 2a=5,r&a\  P6G;&P 2e=5,d[&e4  pG;& P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP H5!,x,5\  P6G;,P {,W80,%~UW*f9 xr G;X 0_=5,%]&_*f9 xr G;&X Q9% ,%Commissioners of Warrick County, the County rejected a proposed BST rate increase scheduled for  xMay1, 1999, submitted by Century by letter dated January 28, 1999. The County Resolution stated that  xthe proposed rate increase was disapproved because the cable system operator had failed to provide FCC  S( xForms 1240 and 12054XZ$ yO ( x(ԍ FCC Form 1240 is the official form a cable system operator uses to justify annual rate adjustments, and FCC  xLForm 1205 is the official form used to update permitted regulated equipment and installation charges based on equipment costs.4 with its January 28th letter to the County, and because Century had violated its  xpfranchise agreement with the County by continually producing a picture that was distorted and whose  SH (signal quality was less than adequate. UH z yO(ԍ Appeal at Exhibit A, Resolution, pages 12.U  S ( ` 4.` ` In its appeal, Century asserts that both reasons cited in the Resolution are spurious, and  xthat the County acted unreasonably in denying the rate increase. It contends that the FCC Form 1240 and  x1205 were attached to its letter and justified the rate increase; that the size and weight of the package sent  xjby Federal Express made it unlikely that only the onepage transmittal letter was received by the County;  x~that on February 24, 1999, an attorney for the County had sent a letter to Century stating that its attempt  xto "increase" the rate was violative of the law since there had been no hearing before the County  xCommissioners, but that the letter from the Attorney did not mention that the FCC Forms had not been  xreceived by the County; and that the County never notified Century that the rate forms supposedly did not  xaccompany the January 28th letter until issuance of the March 29th rate order. Regarding the County's  xdenial of the proposed rate increase on the basis of inadequate signal quality, Century contends that such  Sh( xa ground is legally impermissible under Commission precedent discussed infra; that an LFA must have  xa reasonable basis, under the Commission's Rules, for denial of a proposed rate increase; and that if there  xis no dispute with the calculations presented in the cable operator's FCC Forms, the proposed rate derived from the forms must be approved.  S( ` 5.` ` The Warrick County rate order reflects that Century requested a rate increase through its  Sz( xJanuary 28, 1999, letter but failed to include FCC Forms 1240 and 1205.lz $ yO$!( xԍ The January 28, 1999 letter from Richard W. Sander, Jr., Group Vice President, Financial Operations, Century Communications Corporation to Ms. Virginia Higginson, Warrick County Commissioners, states:  ` XX` ` In accordance with Federal Communications Commission regulations, Century  ` Communications ("Century") hereby submits the attached FCC Form 1240  ` "Updating Maximum Permitted Rates for Regulated Cable Services" with all" %0*&&$"  ` tattachments and FCC Form 1205. This filing is made pursuant to 47 CFR 76.922(e). x` XX` ` These rates are scheduled to take effect on May 1, 1999. x` XX` ` If you have any questions, please contact me at . . . .x` l The rate order also states that"z@0*&&88"  xthe County Commissioners reviewed the request and made a determination. Section 76.933(g) of the  xCommission's rules provides that the Commission's time periods for review of a rate filing under the  xannual filing system are tolled if the operator has submitted a facially incomplete filing and the franchising  S( xauthority has notified the operator of the incomplete filing within 45 days of the date the filing is made.C@$ yOh (ԍ 47 C.F.R.  76.933(g).C  xThe record before us shows that counsel for the County advised Century by letter dated February 24,  x1999, that the County Commissioners had not approved an increase in Century's basic rate and had not  S( xheld a hearing.p $ yO(ԍ Letter from Terry A. White to Richard W. Sander, Jr. (March 29, 1999).p The letter does not mention that the rate filing was incomplete, and nothing else in the  xrecord suggests that the County timely advised Century about any problem with the completeness of its  xfiling within the 45 day period. The County's statement in the rate order adopted on March 29, 1999, that  xLCentury failed to include FCC Forms in its rate filing does not satisfy the Commission's requirement that notice of a facially incomplete filing be made within 45 days.  S ( ` 6.` ` The Warrick County rate order also fails to satisfy the Commission requirement that the  xjfranchising authority issue a written decision affirmatively demonstrating why Century's proposed annual  S ( xfrate adjustment rate increase for the basic service rate is unreasonable.  `  {O( xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  76.936; Rate Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 57155716 para. 126, 573132 para. 149 (1993) (need for rational basis for decision).  The purpose of requiring a  xRwritten order is to protect the due process rights of the cable operator by explaining why the rate was  xdisapproved and providing a basis to refile the rate or appeal the decision to the Commission. As stated  SX( xHin Valley Cable TV, Inc., the Commission has previously rejected local rate orders that summarily or  S2( xvaguely rejected an operator's proposed rates.Z z2  {OC( xԍ 13 FCC Rcd 6378, 6379 para. 4 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998); See Multimedia Cablevision, 13 FCC Rcd 4112, 4115  xdpara. 6 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1997) (LFA's vague explanation expressing only a general concern with channel mix, signal  xquality, and level of programming was insufficient); Cablevision VII, Inc., 12 FCC Rcd 2989, 29912992 paras. 46  xj(Cab. Serv. Bur. 1997) (one page order stating only that the LFA had "duly considered all information" provided  xby the operator was insufficient); Falcon Telecable, 11 FCC Rcd 5415, 54155416 paras. 56 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995)  xx(one page order by LFA stating that rates were found unreasonable in accordance with the Commission's guidelines was insufficient). Z The County's denial of the proposed rate increase on the  xbasis of poor signal quality is not adequate, for the County's Resolution fails to explain why the operator's  S( x rates are unreasonable pursuant to the Commission's rules governing rates.J $ {O~$(ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  76.922.J In Paragon" 0*&&88"  S( x  Communications,a $ yOh(ԍ 13 FCC Rcd 19557, 19559 para. 6 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998).a we stated that the Commission's Rules allow periodic rate adjustments for inflation,  xchanges in external costs, and changes in the number of regulated channels using either the quarterly or  xannual adjustment method; the LFA's authority is to review the reasonableness of the cable operator's  xrates on the basis of regulations adopted by the Commission; and the rules do not provide any other basis  Sb( xfor rate decisions.bX$ {OZ(ԍ See Enstar Communication, 11 FCC Rcd 9874, 9877 para. 8 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1996)). In TCI Cablevision of Texas, Inc.,cb  yO(ԍ 13 FCC Rcd 6656, 6658 para. 8 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1998). c we stated that an LFA may not arbitrarily reduce  xRBST rates below permitted rate levels or deny a justified increase of the permitted rate in an effort to  S( xaddress quality of service issues, but must adhere to the Commission's Rules in reviewing rates.Bz$ {O. ( xԍ  See also TCI of Southeast Mississippi, 10 FCC Rcd 8728, 873031 para. 14 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1995) (LFA  x2was specifically prohibited from considering such things as a system's unsatisfactory signal quality in determining  xthe system's BST rate); Century Cable of Southern California, 11 FCC Rcd 501, 501502 paras. 45 (Cable Serv.  xBBur. 1995) (one page letter specifying LFA's general concern about poor quality programming and service was insufficient).. B The  S( xLFA may address other, nonrate concerns through our rules on technical standards,4Z, $ {O( xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  76.601630; see also Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the  xTelecommunications Act of 1996, Report and Order, CS Docket No. 9685, FCC 9957 at paras. 117143 (released March 29, 1999).4 our rules on  S( xcustomer service obligations,JN $ {O(ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  76.309.J the LFA's own cable regulations, and the franchise agreement. Because  xHthe County did not adhere to the Commission's rate regulations, we find that it acted unreasonably in  xdenying Century's requested rate increase. Consequently, we remand this matter to the County so that it can take further action consistent with this decision.  S ( III.ORDERING CLAUSES  S ( ` 7.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Century's Petition for Review of Local Rate Order  S ( xP IS GRANTED and this case IS REMANDED to the County for resolution in accordance with the terms of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. "40*&&88"  S( ` 8.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that the Petition for Stay of Enforcement Pending Review  S(in this same matter, filed with the Commission by Century on April 5, 1999, IS DISMISSED as moot.  S( ` j9.` ` This action is taken by the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission' Rules. 47 C.F.R.  0.321. ` `  ,hhhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,hhhWilliam H. Johnson ` `  ,hhhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau