*Pages 1--8 from  Microsoft Word - 34677*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc., 
 Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling 
 Petition  for  Revocation  of  Certification 
 Request  for  Expedited  Consideration 

 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 

 CSR-  6165-  R 
 CUID  No.  PA0357 

 DECLARATORY  RULING 
 Adopted:  December  29,  2003  Released:  January  6,  2004 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Policy  Division,  Media  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  April  25,  2003,  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.  (  Comcast),  filed  a  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  and  Petition  for  Revocation  of  Certification  (the  Petition),  directed  at 

 Middletown  Township,  Pennsylvania  (the  Township).  Simultaneously,  Comcast  filed  a  Request  for  Expedited  Consideration  of  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  and  Petition  for  Revocation  of  Certification. 
 On  June  4,  2003,  the  Township  filed  Comments  of  Middletown  Township  (the  Comments),  to  which  Comcast  filed  a  Reply  to  Comments  of  Middletown  Township  (the  Reply)  on  June  18.  On  July  2, 
 2003,  Comcast  filed  a  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  (the  Supplement).  1 
 2.  By  issuing  this  Declaratory  Ruling  promptly  after  the  close  of  the  pleading  cycle,  we  grant  Comcasts  Request  for  Expedited  Consideration.  For  the  reasons  stated  below,  we  grant  the  Petition 

 for  Declaratory  Ruling  and  we  deny  the  Petition  for  Revocation  of  Certification.  Also,  we  deny  the  Townships  First  and  Second  Motions  to  Strike. 

 1  On  October  28,  2003,  the  Township  filed  a  Motion  to  Strike  directed  at  Comcasts  Supplement.  On  November  13, 
 2003,  Comcast  filed  an  Opposition  to  Motion  to  Strike,  to  which  the  Township  filed  a  Reply  to  Opposition  and  a  second  Motion  to  Strike  on  November  19,  2003.  The  latter  filing  drew  an  Opposition,  filed  by  Comcast  on 

 December  3,  2003. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 2 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 3.  Strictly  speaking,  this  case  is  a  request  for  a  declaratory  ruling  and  not  an  appeal  of  a  rate  order  by  a  franchising  authority.  Nevertheless,  it  concerns  two  such  orders,  and  therefore  a  statement  of 

 general  principles  is  in  order.  The  Communications  Act  provides  that,  where  effective  competition  is  absent,  rates  for  basic  cable  service  and  associated  equipment  are  subject  to  regulation  by  franchising 
 authorities.  2  Rates  for  service  and  equipment  should  not  exceed  rates  that  would  be  charged  by  systems  facing  effective  competition,  as  determined  in  accordance  with  Commission  regulations  for  setting  rates.  3 
 If  the  cable  operator  fails  to  meet  its  burden  of  proof,  has  improperly  calculated  its  rates,  or  is  unresponsive  to  requests  for  relevant  information,  the  franchising  authority  may  use  the  best  information 
 available  to  review  the  operators  proposed  rates  and,  if  appropriate,  adjust  them  and  order  refunds.  4 
 4.  Rate  orders  issued  by  franchising  authorities  may  be  appealed  to  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Commission  rules.  5  In  ruling  on  appeals  of  local  rate  orders,  the  Commission  will  not 

 conduct  a  de  novo  review,  but  instead  will  sustain  the  franchising  authority's  decision  as  long  as  a  reasonable  basis  for  that  decision  exists.  6  The  Commission  will  reverse  a  franchising  authority's  rate 
 decision  only  if  it  determines  that  the  franchising  authority  acted  unreasonably  in  applying  the  Commission's  rules.  If  the  Commission  reverses  a  franchising  authority's  decision,  it  will  not  substitute 
 its  own  decision  but  instead  will  remand  the  issue  to  the  franchising  authority  with  instructions  to  resolve  the  case  consistent  with  the  Commission's  decision  on  appeal. 

 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Facts 
 5.  The  present  dispute  concerns  two  rate  orders  that  the  Township  adopted,  in  2002  and  2003,  regarding  the  rates  for  the  Basic  Service  Tier  (  BST)  of  Comcasts  cable  service  in  Middletown. 

 Before  the  first  of  those  decisions,  the  rate  that  Comcast  and  its  predecessor  had  actually  charged  its  BST  subscribers  (the  actual  rate)  had  not  changed  since  January  2000.  7  That  actual  rate  was  $11.66.  8 

 6.  On  March  1,  2002,  Comcast  filed  a  Form  1240  (the  2002  Form  1240)  to  establish  BST  rates  for  the  12-  month  period  beginning  June  1,  2002.  9  The  2002  Form  1240  stated  a  Maximum 

 2  47  U.  S.  C.    543(  a)(  2). 
 3  47  U.  S.  C.    543(  b)(  1);  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  922. 
 4  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  937(  d);  Falcon  Classic  Cable,  15  FCC  Rcd  5717,  5720  (2000)    10;  Western  Reserve  Cablevision, 
 Inc.,  14  FCC  Rcd  13391,  13398  (1999)    12.  5 
 47  U.  S.  C.    543(  b)(  5)(  B);  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  944.  6 
 Harron  Commun.  Corp.,  15  FCC  Rcd  7901  (2000)    2;  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  &  Competition  Act,  8  FCC  Rcd  5631  (1993),  9  FCC  Rcd  4316,  4346  (1994)    81. 

 7  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike,  Exh.  2  (2002  Form  1240  Cover  Letter);  Reply  at  3  n.  3. 
 8  Petition  at  2,  n.  1  &  text  accompanying  n.  3. 
 9  Appeal  of  Comcast  Cable  Commun.,  Inc.,  From  a  Rate  Order  of  the  Township  of  Middletown,  Pennsylvania  Board 
 of  Supervisors,  CUID  PA0357,  Exh.  2  (filed  June  13,  2002),  decided,  Comcast  Cable  Commun.,  Inc.,  18  FCC  Rcd  4540  (2003). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 3 
 Permitted  Rate  (  MPR)  of  $13.10,  but  left  blank  Line  I10  on  the  Form,  which  was  for  Operator  Selected  Rate  [  OSR]  For  Projected  Period.  10  Comcasts  cover  letter  to  its  2002  Form  1240  stated: 
 Currently,  Comcast  does  not  plan  to  implement  any  changes  in  its  regulated  basic  .  .  .  rates  when  these  filings  become  effective  on  June  1,  2002.  Although  these  may  not  be 
 our  actual  rate  change  plans,  we  want  to  preserve  our  rights  for  the  coming  year  under  the  current  rules.  11 

 7.  On  May  14,  2002,  the  Township  adopted  an  Opinion  and  Order  concerning  the  2002  Form  1240  (the  May  2002  Order).  12  The  Townships  May  2002  Order  disapproved  of  Comcasts 
 treatment  of  inflation  and  lowered  the  MPR  to  $12.77.  13  We  later  overturned  the  Townships  May  2002  Order  in  this  respect,  14  and  Comcasts  MPR  was  re-  established  at  $13.10.  15  More  important  to  the  present 
 dispute,  however,  the  Townships  May  2002  Order  addressed  the  BST  rate  that  Comcast  could  charge  in  the  future.  The  May  2002  Order  stated  that  Comcast  has  indicated  to  the  Township  that  it  will  continue 
 to  charge  subscribers  $11.70  for  Basic  service,  perhaps  overlooking  that  Comcasts  actual  rate  was  $11.66.  16  The  Township  ordered  .  .  .  that  an  operator  selected  [rate]  of  $11.70  is  approved  for  the 
 projected  period  from  June  1,  2002  through  May  31,  2003.  17 
 8.  On  or  about  January  27,  2003,  Comcast  notified  the  Township  and  its  subscribers  that  it  would  increase  its  actual  rate  to  $12.65  on  March  1  of  that  year.  18  Comcast  effected  that  increase.  Also 

 on  or  about  March  1,  2003,  Comcast  filed  a  Form  1240  (the  2003  Form  1240)  to  establish  BST  rates  for  the  12-  month  period  beginning  June  1,  2003.  19  The  2003  Form  1240  stated  an  MPR  of  $13.95.  20 
 Comcasts  cover  letter  to  its  2003  Form  1240  contained  almost  the  same  tentative  and  cautionary  words  as  the  previous  years,  21  and  again  Comcasts  Form  1240  left  blank  the  line  for  the  OSR.  22 

 9.  On  March  6,  2003,  the  Township  advised  Comcast  that  it  could  not  lawfully  raise  its  actual  rate  until  after  June  1,  2003    the  end  of  the  90-  day  review  period  for  its  2003  Form  1240.  23  Over 

 10  Id.  at  4. 
 11  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike,  Exh.  2  (2002  Form  1240  Cover  Letter). 
 12  Comments,  Exh.  1. 
 13  Id.,    7  at  2. 
 14  Comcast  Cable  Commun.,  Inc.,  18  FCC  Rcd  4540  (2003). 
 15  Supplement,  Exhibit  1  (June  2003  Order)  at    3,  9. 
 16  May  2002  Order,  supra  note  12,  at    3. 
 17  Id.  at    7  (capitalization  omitted). 
 18  Comments  at  4  &  Exh.  2. 
 19  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike,  Exh.  3  (Comcasts  March  2003  Form  1240  and  cover  letter). 
 20  Id.,  2003  Form  1240  at  4. 
 21  Id.,  Cover  Letter  at  1. 
 22  Id.,  2003  Form  1240  at  4. 
 23  Petition,  Exh.  2  at  1. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 4 
 the  next  several  weeks,  Comcast  and  the  Township  corresponded.  24  Comcast  proposed  that  they  consult  with  the  Commissions  Media  Bureau  for  an  informal  resolution  of  their  disagreement.  25  The  Township 
 demanded  refunds  and  mentioned  the  possibility  of  fines  and  imprisonment  if  Comcast  persisted  with  the  $12.65  actual  rate  for  Basic  Service.  26  Later,  on  or  about  April  11,  2003,  the  Township  served 
 information  requests  on  Comcast,  one  of  which  stated:  The  Operators  Selected  Rate  for  the  Projected  Period  was  not  set  forth  in  line  item  I10.  Please  provide  this  Rate.  27  Comcast  responded  on  May  1, 
 2003,  that 
 The  information  requested  is  not  relevant  to  the  FCC  Form  1240  preparation  or  the  information  contained  in  the  form  used  to  determine  the  Maximum  Permitted  Rate 

 because  currently  Comcast  does  not  plan  to  implement  changes  in  its  regulated  basic  rates  when  this  filing  becomes  effective  on  June  1,  2003. 

 .  .  .  . 
 Thus  the  FCC  Form  1240  submitted  on  March  1,  2003  was  not  intended  to  serve  as  notice  for  any  price  adjustments  for  the  basic  service  tier.  28 

 10.  On  June  3,  2003,  the  Township  adopted  an  Opinion  and  Order  (the  June  2003  Order)  regarding  Comcasts  2003  Form  1240.  The  June  2003  Order  approved  Comcasts  MPR  of  $13.95.  29  The 
 June  2003  Order  also  noted  that  Comcast 
 has  not  indicated  in  its  Application  to  the  Township  what  rate  it  will  charge  subscribers  for  Basic  service. 

 .  .  .  . 
 The  Operator  failed  to  include  an  Operator  Selected  Rate  in  its  FCC  Form  1240.  The  best  available  information  concerning  the  actual  rate  which  the  Operator  intends  to 

 charge  for  Basic  Service  is  the  rate  of  $12.65  as  described  in  a  special  notice  sent  by  the  operator  to  its  subscribers  in  January,  2003.  30 

 Accordingly,  the  June  2003  Order  set  Comcasts  OSR  at  $12.65  for  the  period  from  June  1,  2003,  through  May  31,  2004.  31  This  would  keep  Comcasts  actual  rate  at  $12.65  until  15  months  after  Comcast  first 
 began  charging  it. 

 24  Petition,  Exhs.  3-  5.  The  Township  may  have  believed  that  the  increase  in  Comcasts  actual  rate  was  related  to  the 
 2003  Form  1240.  25 
 Petition,  Exhibit  5.  26 
 Petition,  Exh.  4  at  2-  3.  27 
 Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike,  Exh.  5  at  1.  28 
 Id.  at  1  (quotations  from  and  citations  to  Commission  decisions  omitted).  29 
 June  2003  Order,  supra  note15,  at    6,  9.  30 
 Id.  at    4,  7.  31 
 Id.  at    9. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 5 
 B.  Analysis 
 11.  Appropriateness  of  a  Declaratory  Ruling.  The  Bureau  may  issue  a  declaratory  ruling  at  any  time  to  terminate  a  controversy  or  remove  uncertainty.  32  The  Bureau  has  wide  discretion  to 

 determine  whether  a  declaratory  ruling  is  appropriate.  33  Here,  we  find  that  it  is.  Comcast  and  the  Township  have  a  dispute  that  is  real,  well  defined,  and  ripe  for  resolution.  The  dispute  concerns  a  course 
 of  conduct  --  cable  operators  not  specifying  OSRs  on  their  Forms  1240  and  franchising  authorities  reacting  differently  --  that  is  occurring  elsewhere  in  the  industry.  34  By  issuing  this  ruling  to  resolve  this 
 dispute  between  Comcast  and  the  Township,  we  may  give  useful  guidance  to  other  cable  operators  and  franchising  authorities  about  how  to  jointly  set  BST  rates  with  a  minimum  of  time,  cost,  and 
 misunderstanding. 
 12.  The  Township  argues  that  this  proceeding,  although  styled  by  Comcast  as  a  request  for  a  declaratory  ruling,  is  really  an  untimely  appeal  of  the  Townships  May  2002  Order.  35  The  Township 

 notes  that  Comcast  previously  brought  the  May  2002  Order  before  us  in  an  earlier  appeal  36  without  challenging  the  Townships  specification  of  an  OSR  that  was  plain  on  the  face  of  the  May  2002  Order.  37 
 The  present  dispute  between  Comcast  and  the  Township,  however,  did  not  arise  until  Comcast  first  announced  that  it  intended  to  raise  its  actual  rate  above  the  OSR  that  the  Township  had  set  in  its  May 
 2002  Order.  Comcast  made  that  announcement  on  January  27,  2003,  by  which  time  the  pleading  cycle  on  its  appeal  had  been  over  for  months.  38  Comcast  might  have  attempted  to  re-  open  the  record  in  its  appeal 
 and  add  the  present  dispute  to  it,  but  it  was  not  unreasonable  for  Comcast  to  have  begun  this  separate,  later  proceeding.  Therefore,  the  Petition  is  not  an  untimely  rate  appeal  and  we  find  that  the  Petition  is 
 procedurally  proper. 
 13.  Nor  do  we  find  it  a  fatal  flaw  that  Comcast,  by  its  Supplement,  added  its  2003  Form  1240  to  a  case  that  originally  concerned  only  its  2002  Form  1240.  Although  two  Form  1240s  and  the 

 Townships  reaction  to  each  are  somewhat  different,  they  have  enough  in  common  to  make  evaluating  them  in  one  proceeding  efficient  and  prudent.  Accordingly,  the  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  is 
 denied. 
 14.  The  Merits.  The  recent  case  of  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners  39  concerned  cable  operators  who,  like  Comcast  here,  left  blank  Line  I10  for  their  OSRs  on  their  Form  1240s,  justified  MPRs 

 higher  than  their  actual  rates,  and  later  sought  to  raise  their  actual  rates  up  to  their  MPRs.  40  We  ruled  that  each  Form  1240  in  Frontiervision,  lacking  all  the  information  required  on  it,  could  be  treated  as  facially 

 32  47  C.  F.  R.    1.2,  76.  7;  5  U.  S.  C.    554(  e).  See  also  47  USC    154(  i),  (j). 
 33  Yale  Broadcasting  Co.  v.  FCC,  478  F.  2d  594,  602  (D.  C.  Cir.),  cert  denied,  414  U.  S.  914  (1973). 
 34  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  Order  DA  03-  3127,  rel.  Oct.  10,  2003,  available  at  2003  WL  22318718. 
 35  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  at  3-  4,  6. 
 36  See  supra  note  34. 
 37  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  at  4. 
 38  See  supra  note  9. 
 39  See  supra  note  34. 
 40  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    6-  9. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 6 
 incomplete  41  and  that  each  franchising  authority  was  entitled  to  demand  that  the  cable  operator  fill  in  Line  I10  and  declare  an  OSR.  Under  our  Rules,  incomplete  rate  forms  toll  the  review  process  if  the 
 franchising  authority  is  unable  to  proceed  with  its  review.  42  Neither  authority  involved  in  Frontiervision,  however,  declared  the  filed  Form  1240  facially  incomplete,  directed  that  the  cable  operator  complete  it  by 
 filling  in  Line  I10,  or  tolled  review  of  the  Form  pending  its  completion.  Nor  did  either  authority  in  Frontiervision  take  any  formal  action  on  the  Form  1240  that  had  been  filed  with  it.  43  We  ruled  that,  on 
 the  facts  of  that  case,  the  cable  operator  was  permitted  to  raise  its  actual  BST  rate  after  the  end  of  the  standard  90-  day  review  period,  so  long  as  that  rate  did  not  exceed  the  MPR  and  was  the  first  change  in 
 that  actual  rate  in  a  year  or  longer. 
 15.  In  this  case,  the  franchising  authority  (the  Township)  did  more  than  the  authorities  in  Frontiervision.  It  took  formal  action  on  both  Forms  1240  filed  with  it  and  prescribed  an  OSR  in  each 

 one.  When  the  facially  incomplete  2003  Form  1240  was  filed  with  it,  the  Township  formally  inquired  of  Comcast  what  its  OSR  would  be.  The  Township  did  not,  however,  declare  either  of  Comcasts  Forms 
 1240  facially  incomplete,  direct  Comcast  to  complete  them  by  filling  in  Line  I10  and  declaring  an  OSR,  or  toll  review  of  the  Form  pending  its  completion.  When  it  instead  served  information  requests  on 
 Comcast,  the  Township  permitted  Comcast  to  merely  repeat  the  kind  of  tentative  and  cautionary  words  it  had  given  the  Township  earlier.  The  Townships  conduct,  while  undoubtedly  in  good  faith,  failed  to 
 extract  any  commitment  to  an  OSR  from  Comcast.  The  Township  erred  by  then  prescribing  an  actual  rate  when  it  could  have,  by  requiring  that  Line  I10  be  filled  in,  forced  Comcast  to  commit  to  an  OSR  and 
 prescribed  that  rate.  (It  is  contradictory  for  the  Township  to  label  a  rate  that  it  selected  an  Operator  Selected  rate.) 

 16.  The  analysis  in  Frontiervision  addresses  and  answers  the  claims  made  by  the  Township  about  our  Rules.  44  In  that  case,  the  franchising  authorities  argued  that  several  of  our  Rules  allow  actual 
 rates  to  change  only  at  the  end  of  the  90-  day  review  period  --  with  a  few  exceptions,  none  of  which  applied  to  the  facts  of  that  case.  45  We  disagreed,  stating  that  [  n]  one  of  those  rules  states  explicitly  what 
 the  [franchising  authorities]  read  into  them,  that  actual  rate  changes  may  occur  only  at  the  end  of  the  90-  day  review  period.  None  of  them  explicitly  forbids  actual  rate  changes  at  other  times.  46  Additionally,  in 
 this  case,  the  Township  cites  another  exception,  to  the  same  alleged  effect  as  the  franchising  authority  in  Frontiervision  argued.  47  We  find  our  Frontiervision  analysis  applicable  here,  too,  and  find  nothing  in  the 
 Townships  arguments  to  change  that  analysis. 
 17.  Here,  as  in  Frontiervision,  the  equities  favor  the  cable  operator.  The  Township  cannot,  any  more  than  the  franchise  authorities  in  Frontiervision,  claim  that  its  cable  operator  violated  the 

 legitimate  expectations  of  BST  subscribers  for  stable  and  reasonable  rates.  Comcasts  present  actual  rate  is  below  its  present  MPR,  and  even  below  the  MPR  that  it  justified  in  2002.  Our  rules  generally  protect 

 41  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    15,  citing  TCI  Cablevision  of  Dallas,  Inc.,  15  FCC  Rcd 
 7379,  7381  (2000)    8  and  Implementation  of  Sections  of  the  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  &  Competition  Act  of  1992:  Rate  Regulation,  11  FCC  Rcd  388,  427  (1995)    95. 

 42  47  C.  F.  R.    76.933(  g). 
 43  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    14-  15. 
 44  Compare  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    10-  13,  with  Comments  at  7-  10. 
 45  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  922(  e)(  1),  (2)(  i),  (ii)(  A),  (iii)(  A-  C),  o. 
 46  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    11. 
 47  Comments  at  7-  8,  citing  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  933(  g)(  5). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 7 
 subscribers  from  rate  increases  more  than  once  a  year,  48  and  Comcasts  rate  increase  of  March  1,  2003,  was  its  first  in  more  than  three  years.  And,  to  paraphrase  Frontiervision,  for  us  to  uphold  the  Townships 
 May  2002  and  2003  Orders  would  allow  franchising  authorities,  when  a  cable  operator  does  not  specify  an  OSR,  to  freeze  BST  rates  for  a  year.  Cable  operators,  if  they  faced  that  risk,  might  specify  an  OSR 
 higher  than  they  would  otherwise  charge.  We  do  not  wish  to  encourage  such  increases.  Rather,  we  want  to  give  free  rein  to  any  operators  inclination  to  restrain  a  rate  increase  that  our  rules  allow.  49 

 18.  The  Township  attempts  to  distinguish  our  decision  in  Frontiervision  on  grounds  already  noted  --  that  it,  unlike  the  franchising  authorities  in  Frontiervision,  issued  timely  rate  orders  and  set  an 
 OSR  in  each  one.  50  These  differences,  however,  are  not  significant  to  the  analysis  set  forth  above  and  do  not  overcome  the  Townships  failure  to  find  the  2002  and  2003  Forms  1240  facially  incomplete,  to 
 demand  that  Comcast  fill  in  Line  I10  and  declare  an  OSR,  and  to  toll  its  review  process  until  Comcast  did  so.  Generally,  we  favor  the  expeditious  and  simple  setting  of  BST  rates,  51  which  can  best  be 
 accomplished  by  both  cable  operators  and  franchising  authorities  adhering  to  the  Form  1240  requirements. 

 19.  Accordingly,  we  grant  the  Petition  to  the  extent  of  ruling  that,  under  the  Communications  Act  and  the  Commissions  Rules,  (1)  the  Townships  May  2002  Order  and  its  June  2003  Order  were 
 erroneous  to  the  extent  that  they  prescribed  OSRs  for  Comcast,  (2)  Comcasts  increase  of  its  actual  rate  for  the  BST  to  $12.65,  effected  March  1,  2003,  was  lawful,  and  (3)  no  contrary  or  punitive  action  by  the 
 Township,  including  fines  and  imprisonment,  would  be  lawful. 
 20.  Continued  Certification  of  the  Township.  Comcast  characterizes  the  Townships  conduct  as  totally  unsupported  by  even  the  most  generous  interpretation  of  its  position  52  and  requests  that  we 

 revoke  the  Townships  certification  to  set  its  BST  rates.  53  Section  76.914(  a)(  1)  of  our  Rules  provides  for  such  relief,  [  a]  fter  the  franchising  authority  has  been  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  comment  and 
 cure  any  minor  nonconformance,  it  is  determined  that  state  and  local  laws  and  regulations  are  in  substantial  and  material  conflict  with  the  Commission's  regulations  governing  cable  rates.  54  The 
 Townships  actions  do  not  begin  to  rise  to  the  level  of  substantial  and  material  conflict  with  our  applicable  rules.  It  is  Comcast  that  filed  the  incomplete  Forms  1240.  The  Township  merely  attempted  to 
 address  Comcasts  omissions.  We  have  upheld  Comcasts  claims  against  the  Townships  May  2002  and  June  2003  Orders,  and  we  expect  the  Township  to  correct  the  Orders  on  which  Comcast  bases  its 

 48  See  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    11-  12.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  922(  e). 
 49  Frontiervision  Operating  Partners,  supra  note  34,  at    16. 
 50  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  at  6  n.  2;  Reply  to  the  Opposition  to  the  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  at  4. 
 51  47  U.  S.  C.    543(  b)(  2)(  A)  (In  prescribing  regulations  for  BST  rate-  setting,  the  Commission  shall  seek  to  reduce 
 the  administrative  burdens  on  subscribers,  cable  operators,  franchising  authorities,  and  the  Commission),  (5)(  B)  (such  regulations  shall  include  procedures  for  the  expeditious  resolution  of  disputes  between  cable  operators  and 

 franchising  authorities  concerning  the  administration  of  such  regulations);  Adelphia  Commun.  Corp.,  18  FCC  Rcd  14622,  14625  (2003)  14  (  We  favor  expeditious  resolution  of  disputes  about  rates);  C-  Tec  Cable  Systems,  14  FCC 
 Rcd  5437,  5443  (1999)  17  (  the  Resolution  effectively  achieves  the  objectives  of  the  1992  Cable  Act  by  ensuring  the  expeditious  resolution  of  all  pending  rate  complaints). 
 52  Petition  at  13. 
 53  Id.  at  12-  14. 
 54  47  C.  F.  R.    76.914(  a)(  1). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  4108 
 8 
 revocation  claims  in  this  proceeding.  55  Accordingly,  we  deny  Comcasts  Petition  insofar  as  it  asks  that  we  revoke  the  Townships  certification  to  regulate  rates. 
 21.  Procedural  Matters.  The  Township  points  to  several  alleged  procedural  missteps  by  Comcast.  Specifically,  it  claims  that  Comcasts  Supplement  contained  new  matters  and  did  not  explicitly 
 show  extraordinary  circumstances,  56  and  that  Comcasts  Opposition  to  the  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  was  filed  late.  57  Comcast  disputes  the  Townships  claims  and  alleges  procedural  missteps  (lateness 
 and  lack  of  verification)  in  the  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike.  58  We  find  that,  whatever  the  possible  procedural  flaws  in  these  filings,  they  have  added  substance  to  the  record  in  this  case  and  enable  us  to 
 make  a  more  informed  declaratory  ruling  that  will  better  guide  cable  operators  and  franchising  authorities  in  preparing  and  reviewing  Forms  1240.  Accordingly,  based  on  the  particular  circumstances  of  this  case, 
 we  deny  Comcasts  Motions  to  Strike. 

 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 22.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Request  for  Expedited  Consideration  filed  by  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  in  CSR-  6165R,  IS  GRANTED. 

 23.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Request  for  Declaratory  Ruling  filed  by  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  in  CSR-  6165R,  IS  GRANTED. 
 24.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Petition  for  Revocation  of  Certification  filed  by  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.,  in  CSR-  6165R,  IS  DENIED. 
 25.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Motion  to  Strike  filed  by  Middletown  Township,  Pennsylvania  and  directed  at  the  Supplement  to  Petition  for  Declaratory  Ruling  filed  by  Comcast  Cable 
 Communications,  Inc.,  IS  DENIED. 
 26.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Motion  to  Strike  Comcast  Opposition  filed  by  Middletown  Township,  Pennsylvania  and  directed  at  the  Opposition  filed  by  Comcast  Cable 

 Communications,  Inc.,  on  November  13,  2003,  IS  DENIED. 
 27.  This  action  is  taken  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  Section  0.283  of  the  Commission's  rules.  47  C.  F.  R.    0.283. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 John  B.  Norton  Deputy  Chief,  Policy  Division,  Media  Bureau 
 55  47  C.  F.  R.    76.914(  a)(  2).  See  generally  Joppa  Associates,  L.  P.,  10  FCC  Rcd  13103  (1995). 
 56  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  at  2-  3,  citing  47  C.  F.  R.    76.  7(  c)(  1),  (d). 
 57  Townships  second  Motion  to  Strike  passim. 
 58  Opposition  to  the  Townships  first  Motion  to  Strike  passim. 
8