**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of ) File No. EB-02-TC-097

)

Triax Midwest Associates, LP ) CUID No. IL0159 (Clinton)

)

Petition for Reconsideration )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: September 30, 2002 Released: October 1, 2002**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:[^1]

1\. In this Order, we consider a petition for reconsideration
(\"Petition\") of Cable Services Bureau Order, DA 97-2068 (\"Prior
Order\"),[^2] filed with the Federal Communications Commission
(\"Commission\") by the above-referenced operator (\"Operator\").[^3]
The Prior Order resolved a complaint filed against Operator's cable
programming services tier (\"CPST\") rates in the community referenced
above. In this Order we grant Operator's Petition in part and modify the
Prior Order.

2\. Under the provisions of the Communications Act[^4] that were in
effect at the time the complaints were filed, the Commission is
authorized to review the CPST rates of cable systems not subject to
effective competition to ensure that rates charged are not unreasonable.
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
(\"1992 Cable Act\")[^5] and the Commission\'s rules required the
Commission to review CPST rates upon the filing of a valid complaint by
a subscriber or local franchising authority (\"LFA\"). The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (\"1996 Act\"),[^6] and the Commission\'s
rules implementing the legislation (\"Interim Rules\"),[^7] required
that a complaint against the CPST rate be filed with the Commission by
an LFA that has received more than one subscriber complaint. The filing
of a valid complaint triggers an obligation upon the cable operator to
file a justification of its CPST rates.[^8] If the Commission finds the
rate to be unreasonable, it shall determine the correct rate and any
refund liability.[^9]

3\. In its petition, Operator argues that the Prior Order contained
clerical errors. Specifically, Operator argues that the actual CPST
rates identified in the Prior Order included franchise fees. Operator
asserts that, when the actual CPST rates are calculated without
franchise fees, Operator's total overcharges for the period under review
are *de minimis*. Upon review of the Prior Order and the record herein,
we agree with Operator that the total overcharges are *de minimis* and
it would not be in the public interest to order refunds. Therefore, we
modify the Prior Order to exclude any refund liability. Because our
resolution of this issue disposes of Operator's refund liability, we
decline to address any other issues raised by Operator in its Petition.

4\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the
Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the petition for
reconsideration filed by Operator is GRANTED IN PART TO THE EXTENT
INDICATED HEREIN.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111 and 0.311, that *In The Matter of
Triax Midwest Associates, LP*, DA 97-2068, 13 FCC Rcd 6017 (CSB 1998) IS
MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

David H. Solomon

Chief, Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: Effective March 25, 2002, the Commission transferred
    responsibility for resolving cable programming services tier rate
    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]: S*ee In The Matter of Triax Midwest Associates, LP*, DA 97-2068,
    13 FCC Rcd 6017 (CSB 1998).

[^3]: The term \"Operator\" includes Operator's successors and
    predecessors in interest.

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §543(c) (1996).

[^5]: Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992).

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

[^7]: *See Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996*, 11 FCC Rcd 5937 1996).

[^8]: *See* Section 76.956 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.956.

[^9]: *See* Section 76.957 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §76.957.