[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63492-63497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29807]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 95-174; FCC 95-472]


Cable Television Act of 1992

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on proposed 
methods for cable operators' setting of uniform rates for uniform 
services offered in multiple franchising areas. The Commission is 
exploring this issue to solicit comment on possibly permitting 
operators to establish uniform rates. The item will help the Commission 
create a record on this issue, which will assist the Commission in 
designing new or amending current regulations to allow operators to 
establish uniform rates.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 12, 1996 and reply 
comments are due on or before February 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Walke, (202) 416-0847.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554, 
and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20037.

[CS Docket No. 95-174]

    In the matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992--Rate 
Regulation Uniform Rate-Setting Methodology.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Adopted: November 28, 1995.
Released: November 29, 1995.
    By the Commission:

Comment Date: January 12, 1996.
Reply Comment Date: February 12, 1996.

I. Introduction

    1. Under the Commission's cable service rate regulations, a cable 
operator serving multiple franchise areas must establish maximum 
permitted service rates in each franchise area. These rates often vary 
from franchise area to franchise area, even if each area receives the 
identical package of program services. This outcome may cause needless 
confusion for subscribers, as well as unnecessary administrative 
burdens for cable companies. In addition, a cable operator's ability to 
market its product on a regional basis may be hindered. Therefore, in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we explore the design 
and implementation of an optional rate-setting methodology under which 
a cable operator could establish uniform rates for uniform cable 
service tiers offered in multiple franchise area.

II. Background

    2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition 
Act of 1992 (the ``1992 Cable Act''), the rates charged by a cable 
system are 

[[Page 63493]]
subject to regulation unless the system faces effective competition. In 
particular, the 1992 Cable Act directed the Commission to establish 
regulations designed to protect subscribers from unreasonable rates for 
certain types of cable services offered by such systems. Rate-regulated 
services consist of the basic service tier (``BST'') and the cable 
programming services tier (``CPST'').
    3. Every cable operator subject to rate regulation must offer a BST 
that includes all local broadcast stations that the operator carries on 
its system, plus all public, educational, and governmental (``PEG'') 
access channels required by the operator's franchise agreement with its 
local franchising authority. If it so chooses, a cable operator may 
offer additional programming on its BST beyond these minimum 
requirements. Subscribers to a rate-regulated cable system must 
purchase the BST in order to have access to any other tier of service. 
CPSTs include all non-BST programming offered over the cable system, 
other than programming offered to subscribers on a per channel or per 
program basis. There is no general requirement that an operator offer a 
CPST, and some operators offer no CPST. Per channel and per program 
offerings are generally exempt from rate regulation.
    4. Congress identified several specific factors that the Commission 
must consider in establishing regulations governing BST and CPST rates. 
The Commission may take other factors into account as well. In 
addition, the 1992 Cable Act required that the Commission ``seek to 
reduce administrative burdens on subscribers, cable operators, 
franchising authorities and the Commission'' in establishing its 
regulations.
    5. Under the primary method of rate regulation adopted by the 
Commission, a regulated cable system determines the maximum permitted 
initial rates for cable services pursuant to a benchmark formula. In 
selecting a primary regulatory model, the Commission employed a 
benchmark formula instead of the cost-of-service methodology that is 
traditionally applied to public utilities because of the often 
significant administrative costs and burdens on regulators and 
regulated companies associated with cost-of-service regulation. 
However, operators subject to regulation do have the option of setting 
rates in accordance with a cost-of-service methodology that the 
Commission has developed.
    6. To set or justify its initial rates in accordance with the 
benchmark formula, a cable operator first must use FCC Form 1200. This 
form generates a maximum permitted rate as of May 15, 1994 for a 
particular franchise area, based upon various characteristics specific 
to the cable system within that franchise area. These variables include 
channels per tier, number of regulated non-broadcast channels per tier, 
number of subscribers in the local franchise area, number of tier 
changes, the census income level for the franchise area, number of 
additional outlets and remote control units in the franchise area, 
system-wide subscribership, whether the system is part of a multiple 
system operation (``MSO''), and the number of systems in the MSO. A 
benchmark operator may, and sometimes must, adjust the rates permitted 
by Form 1200 to take account of changes in inflation and other costs 
since May 15, 1994. Currently, the operator must use FCC Form 1210 to 
calculate these adjustments. As of the effective date of the Form 1240 
promulgated pursuant to the recently adopted Thirteenth Order on 
Reconsideration, 60 FR 52106 (October 6, 1995), operators may make rate 
adjustments as provided by FCC Form 1240 in lieu of Form 1210. Whereas 
an operator can file Form 1210 as often as once per calendar quarter to 
adjust rates to take account of costs already incurred by the operator, 
Form 1240 will be filed no more than annually but will permit the 
operator to adjust rates based on costs to be incurred within the 
coming year. In addition, operators may increase rates to reflect the 
addition of new programming services to regulated tiers. Our rules 
provide two methods for adjusting rates for the addition of programming 
services. First, an operator can add channels to CPSTs using our 
original ``going-forward'' rules, which allow the operator to charge 
subscribers the cost of the additional programming plus up to an 
additional 7.5% markup on that cost. Second, an operator may add 
programming services under the Commission's more recently adopted 
going-forward option, which allows an operator to charge subscribers up 
to $0.20 per channel for additional channels and up to a further $0.30 
in associated licensing fees. The latter going-forward rules similarly 
require specific decreases in subscriber rates when an operator deletes 
channels from its lineup, depending on when the channel in question was 
added.
    7. Enforcement of the Commission rate regulations is divided 
between qualified local franchising authorities and the Commission. A 
local franchising authority may enforce regulation of the cable 
operator's BST once the Commission has received and approved the local 
franchising authority's certification that it has the legal and 
practical ability to do so. Upon receiving notification that the 
franchising authority has been certified by the Commission to regulate 
rates, a cable operator opting for benchmark regulation must justify 
its existing BST rates pursuant to the benchmark formula. Once 
regulated, the operator also must seek local approval for future BST 
rate increases. The operator seeks such approvals by filing the forms 
described above. The operator also must justify its rates for equipment 
and installations associated with the BST. The franchising authority 
must then review the forms, may request additional information if 
reasonably necessary to complete its review, and ultimately issue an 
order approving or disapproving the rates proposed by the operator.
    8. The participation by local franchising authorities in the 
regulation of cable service is critical. Generally, the Commission 
establishes federal standards and procedures concerning various aspects 
of cable service which local franchising authorities implement. These 
rules include but are not limited to subscriber rates, cable service 
technical standards, and customer service. Local franchising 
authorities are the first line of enforcement of these numerous 
regulations. While the Commission may be on hand, either by statute or 
informally, to help resolve any disputes that may arise between a cable 
provider and a local franchising authority, the responsibility to 
oversee cable service regulations falls primarily on the franchise 
authorities. Generally, the Commission gives significant deference to 
decisions by local franchising authorities. For example, where a cable 
operator appeals a franchising authority's rate decision, the 
Commission will not conduct de novo review of the decision; rather, the 
Commission will defer to the local authority's decision provided there 
is a rational basis for the decision. This process is just one example 
of the Commission's significant reliance upon local franchising 
authorities in the regulation of basic cable service. Moreover, in all 
but the most rare situations, local authorities administer cable 
service regulation without federal assistance.
    9. An operator's CPST is subject to regulation directly by the 
Commission. Commission enforcement of CPST rate regulation is triggered 
by the filing of a complaint by a subscriber or franchising authority 
or other relevant state or local regulatory authority. Upon the filing 
of 

[[Page 63494]]
such a complaint, the operator must file the necessary forms with the 
Commission, which then follows a review process analogous to that used 
by local franchising authorities regulating BST rates.
    10. The benchmark approach described above requires operators to 
establish a separate rate structure in each franchise area served, 
since many of the variable used to generate the maximum rate are 
franchise specific. For example, while the data on whether the system 
is part of an MSO will be identical throughout all of the franchise 
areas served, the census income and subscribership variables are 
measured on a franchise area basis and necessarily will vary among 
franchise areas. Similarly, costs associated with PEG channels and 
other franchise-related costs may vary among franchise areas. A 
disparity in rates among franchise areas will occur even if the 
operator provides service to multiple franchise areas through a single, 
integrated cable system, since even in that case rates are set 
separately for each franchise area on the basis of variables specific 
to the franchise area.
    11. Relatedly, we note that the acquisition and clustering of 
neighboring cable systems by MSOs has become fairly common. An operator 
seeking to establish uniform rates and services for clustered systems 
likely will need to add channels to the programming lineups of certain 
system and delete channels from the lineups of other systems. While the 
Commission's ``going-forward'' rate regulations typically provide 
operators with the flexibility to establish a uniform package of 
programming services, the operator's efforts to equalize prices will be 
severely constrained because the rules quite specifically dictate 
permitted changes in rates that must accompany changes in level of 
service and do not permit regional averaging of the data used to 
complete rates.

III. Discussion

    12. We tentatively conclude that permitting operators serving 
multiple franchise areas to establish uniform services at uniform rates 
in all such areas would be beneficial for subscribers, franchising 
authorities, and operators. For example, facilitating an operator's 
ability to advertise a single rate for cable service over a broad 
geographic region may lower marketing costs and enhance the operator's 
efficiency in responding to competition from alternative service 
providers that typically may establish and market uniform services and 
rates without regard to franchise area boundaries. The increased 
ability of operators to compete resulting from this approach may 
increase penetration in a particular franchise area. Such an approach 
could reduce consumer confusion because a subscriber moving from one 
part of the operator's service area to another would not experience any 
difference in price or service offerings. We explore below two 
alternatives for permitting an operator to establish uniform rates for 
uniform services across multiple franchise areas, while fully 
protecting subscribers from unreasonable rates, and solicit comment on 
these and any other possible approaches. Before discussing these two 
methodologies, we will identify several issues that will arise 
regardless of which methodology we ultimately adopt.
    13. Cable operators currently serve multiple franchise areas using 
a variety of system structure; some operators serve multiple areas with 
a single, integrated cable system while others use multiple, distinct 
systems. An operator's rates are not dependent on whether single or 
multiple systems are used to deliver service. We propose that under a 
uniform rate0-setting option, a cable operator be allowed to establish 
uniform rates for uniform service offerings in multiple franchise areas 
regardless of whether the operator serves the multiple franchise areas 
with on integrated cable system (i.e., one ``headend'') or with 
multiple separate cable systems, and seek comment on this proposal.
    14. We believe that cable operators primarily will seek to 
establish uniform rates for systems serving multiple franchise areas 
that are located within some measure of proximity to each other, 
perhaps for purposes of regional adverting. Moreover, it is likely that 
the service costs and characteristics, such as the number of channels, 
density of subscribers, and median income level, associated with 
various franchise areas typically will vary as the geographic distances 
increase between the multiple franchise areas. This circumstance can 
increase the complexity of uniform rate-setting across multiple 
franchise areas. We note that a cable operator's obligation under the 
``must-carry'' rules to carry local over-the-air broadcast stations, as 
well as the operator's copyright fee responsibilities, are determined 
based on the Area of Dominant Influence (``ADI'') in which the system 
is located. Section 4 of the 1992 Cable Act specifies that a commercial 
broadcasting station's market shall be determined in the manner 
provided in Sec. 73.3555(d)(3)(i) of the Commission's Rules, as in 
effect on May 1, 1991. This section of the rules, now redesignated 
Sec. 73.3555(e)(3)(i), refers to Arbitron's ADI for purposes of the 
broadcast multiple ownership rules. Section 76.55(e) of the 
Commission's Rules provides that the ADIs to be used for purposes of 
the initial implementation of the mandatory carriage rules are those 
published in Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television Market Guide. This 
Arbitron Guide is available at the Federal Communications Commission, 
2033 M Street, N.W., Room 200, Washington, D.C. We note that Arbitron, 
the company that establishes the boundaries for ADIs, has ceased 
updating its ADI market list. Commission staff is currently exploring 
the designation of a replacement measure. Accordingly, we seek comment 
on whether the ADI, or some other region, would be appropriate for the 
setting of uniform rates. We seek comment on additional benefits of 
limiting uniform rate-setting to franchise areas located within the 
same ADI or similar region, as well as any difficulties resulting from 
this limitation. We further seek comment on the benefits or detriments 
of limiting rates to franchise areas located within the same county or 
state. Finally, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of permitting 
cable operators to select the region in which to set uniform rates 
under a uniform rate-setting method.
    15. Below we describe two possible approaches for permitting cable 
operators to establish uniform rates for uniform packages of services 
offered to multiple franchise areas. We invite comment from interested 
parties as to these approaches and we seek suggestions as to any other 
alternatives that would further the goals discussed above.
    16. The first approach would work generally as follows. A cable 
operator first would determine or identify BST and CPST rates 
established in each local franchise area pursuant to our existing rate 
regulations, as adjusted to reflect permitted or required rate changes 
resulting from the addition or deletion of channels necessary to 
structure uniform tiers throughout the franchise areas served. We seek 
comment on whether an operator would similarly follow our existing 
regulations concerning rates for equipment. BST rates then would be 
equalized by reducing all BST rates charged in the relevant region to 
the lowest regulated BST rate charged in any one franchise area located 
in the region. The new uniform BST rate would now constitute the 
operator's maximum permitted rate for basic cable service in all the 
relevant franchise areas. The operator then would add the total amount 
of ``lost'' revenue resulting from the various BST rate reductions to 
the total CPST 

[[Page 63495]]
revenues to which the operator is otherwise entitled, under our 
existing rules, for all franchise areas in the relevant region. The 
operator then would determine a uniform CPST rate by dividing the total 
of the displaced BST revenues and existing CPST revenues by all CPST 
subscribers in the region. Thereafter, the operator would apply our 
going-forward policies and annual rate adjustment regulations on a 
regional basis. A numerical example of this option can be found below.
    17. In some instances, cable systems may be regulated in certain 
franchise areas within the region and unregulated in others. We 
proposed that operators be free to establish uniform rates under the 
uniform rate-setting approach in unregulated as well as regulated 
franchise areas for purposes of uniformity. We believe that in such 
situations, an operator may elect to base uniform rates in part on data 
from unregulated areas only if such uniform rates also are charged in 
the unregulated areas. We believe that this optional approach further 
enhances operators' flexibility in establishing uniform rates. 
Moreover, uniform rates calculated pursuant to the method ultimately 
adopted in this proceeding, and charged in unregulated areas, should 
increase an operator's regulatory certainty with respect to whether the 
subscriber rates charged in the unregulated areas are reasonable under 
our rules should the operator later become subject to rate regulation 
in one of those areas. An operator later becoming subject to regulation 
would follow our existing procedures for establishing regulated rates, 
including determining an initial rate pursuant to our benchmark formula 
or cost-of-service rules, and seeking the approval of rates from the 
local franchising authority. We seek comment on this approach. We also 
seek comment on how an operator's regulated rates for equipment may 
affect the setting of uniform rates.
    18. An operator's rates would remain subject to the dual 
jurisdictions of the affected local franchising authorities and the 
Commission. Upon the initial application of this approach, BST rates 
would be unchanged in at least one franchise area and would be reduced 
in each franchise area with higher rates. Thus, this proposal may 
benefit many subscribers who receive only basic cable service, and 
should be cost-neutral to the remaining basic-only subscribers in the 
franchise area(s) with the lowest current BST rates. Certified local 
franchising authorities would retain jurisdiction to ensure that the 
operator's BST rates are in compliance with our rules. The operator 
would recoup the costs of reduced BST rates through the averaged CPST 
rates over which the Commission would retain jurisdiction. We seek 
comment on this proposed approach, including comment on: (1) the costs 
and benefits of requiring operators to reduce BST rates to the lowest 
common rate under this option, (2) the impact of an operator's 
redistribution of BST rate reductions among CPST rates charged in 
neighboring franchise areas, and (3) the application of our going-
forward policies and annual rate adjustment on a regional basis. We 
note that our rules allow franchising authorities to review and approve 
operators' proposed BST rates and increases to those rates. Under this 
option, however, pre-approval of uniform BST rates by franchising 
authorities generally will be unnecessary given that subscriber rates 
typically will decrease or remain unchanged. We seek comment on the 
benefits and costs of this approach for local franchising authorities, 
and whether this approach will protect subscribers from unreasonable 
rates.
    19. Under the second possible approach for establishing uniform 
rates for uniform services, a cable operator would determine or 
identify BST and CPST rates charged in each of the relevant franchise 
areas pursuant to our existing rate regulations, as adjusted for rate 
changes resulting from the addition or deletion of channels necessary 
to structure uniform service tiers. We seek comment on whether an 
operator similarly would follow our existing regulations concerning 
rates for equipment. After aggregating the BST rates and revenues for 
all the franchise areas in the region, and then the CPST rates and 
revenues for all franchise areas, the operator would determine a single 
``blended'' rate for BSTs, and a single blended rate for CPSTs, to be 
charged in all franchise areas in the region pursuant to a formula 
designed by the Commission. The blended rates for BSTs and CPSTs would 
be determined by averaging the operator's total BST and CPST rates, 
respectively, on a per subscriber basis for all subscribers in the 
region, in order to ensure that the establishment of uniform rates is 
revenue-neutral to the cable operator. A numerical example of this 
option can be found below. The operator would be required to justify 
its blended rates to each local franchising authority certified to 
regulate rates. The operator would be free, of course, to establish 
this rate in uncertified areas, for purposes of uniformity across a 
wide region. As noted for the other proposed approach, we propose that 
an operator may elect a base uniform rates in part on data from 
unregulated areas only if such uniform rates also are charged in the 
unregulated areas, and believe that similar benefits for operators and 
subscribers will result from this requirement under both possible 
approaches. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, as well as 
comment on other benefits and detriments of the cable operator basing 
the blended rate in part on data from such unregulated areas. We also 
seek comment on how an operator's establishment of uniform rates in 
uncertified areas may impact on the operator's ability to later 
implement required refunds or prospective rate reductions in certified 
areas.
    20. After setting initial uniform rates, the operator would apply 
our going-forward policies and the recently adopted annual adjustment 
method on a regional basis to adjust future rates. Again, the dual 
jurisdictional boundaries of franchising authorities and the Commission 
would remain intact. We seek comment on this approach generally, 
including comment on: (1) any associated burdens for regulated cable 
companies and regulators, (2) whether this approach would protect cable 
subscribers from unreasonable rates in accordance with the 1992 Cable 
Act, (3) the proposed calculation of the blended rate, and (4) the 
application of our going-forward policies and annual adjustment method 
on a regional basis. We note that under this approach subscribers' BST 
rates may increase in certain jurisdictions (and decrease in others) as 
BST rates are adjusted to establish uniformity. We seek comment on the 
benefits and costs of adopting this formula given that certain BST 
subscribers may experience rate increases.
    21. Both proposed uniform rate setting methodologies will result in 
increases in CPST rates for some subscribers. In light of the cost 
savings to cable operators likely to be created by implementation of 
uniform rates, we seek comment on whether it is appropriate to either 
limit the amount of increase a CPST subscriber must pay in a given year 
as a result of this institution of uniform rates or to phase-in 
significant increases over a two-year period. Comments should also 
address what administrative burdens such a limitation or phased-in 
increase would create for operators.
    22. Several potential timing circumstances may affect the 
implementation of a uniform rate-setting approach. For example, where 
an operator has submitted justifications, the operator may be subject 
to multiple 

[[Page 63496]]
local tolling orders of varying durations which can complicate 
implementation of uniform BST rates. After the initial 30 day notice 
period that must precede any rate adjustment, franchising authorities 
can toll the effective date of a proposed rate for an additional 90 
days in benchmark cases or 150 days in cost of service cases. We seek 
suggestions of procedures that would permit a cable operator in this 
situation to establish uniform rates as expeditiously as possible. We 
solicit comment on allowing proposed uniform rates to take effect 
automatically after some period of time, subject to ultimate resolution 
in a later ``truing-up'' process, in which rate discrepancies could be 
reflected in rates for the following year.
    23. In proposing to give cable operators flexibility to charge 
uniform rates for uniform services, we in no way seek to circumscribe 
the authority of local franchising authorities to negotiate franchise-
specific terms in their agreements with cable operators. For example, 
we note that local franchising authorities typically establish 
requirements in a franchise agreement with respect to the designation 
or use of the franchised cable operator's channel capacity of PEG 
services. This could result in a cable system having a non-uniform 
channel line-up within franchise areas where it seeks to establish 
uniform rates. We seek comment on whether our uniform rate proposals 
require any modification or adjustment to accommodate such non-uniform 
offerings.
    24. A further problem may arise because PEG requirements and other 
franchise obligations will vary between franchise areas, such that the 
operator's ``franchise related costs,'' one of the variables used to 
establish and adjust rates, also will vary among franchise areas. We 
seek to provide cable operators with uniform rate alternatives while 
allowing franchising authorities flexibility to negotiate franchise 
terms and conditions that respond to particular community needs. We 
also seek to ensure that the uniform rate proposal does not allow 
franchise-specific costs to be shifted from one community to another. 
One alternative for resolving this issue would be to permit the cable 
operator simply to itemize and charge for franchise-related costs 
outside the uniform rate-setting formula. We seek comment on this 
approach. We also seek suggestions of other methods that could 
compensate operators for legitimately incurred expenses while 
protecting subscribers from unreasonable rates. Finally, we seek 
comment on additional potential obstacles to the establishment of 
uniform rates and service offerings, and possible resolutions to such 
obstacles.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    25. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies 
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on 
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same 
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must 
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to 
the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause a copy 
of the NPRM, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to 
be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (1981).
    26. Reason for Action. The Commission has perceived that our cable 
service rate regulations may impede a cable operator's ability to 
establish uniform rates for uniform services offered in multiple 
clustered franchise areas. We believe that allowing operators to set 
such uniform rates may facilitate operators' regional marketing of 
services, reduce administrative burdens on both regulators and cable 
companies, and reduce consumer confusion resulting from disparate 
rates. The NPRM proposes two possible alternatives for setting uniform 
rates, and solicits comments on further approaches.
    27. Objectives. To explore a method under which a cable operator 
could establish uniform rates for uniform services offered in multiple 
franchise areas.
    28. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is 
contained in Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. Sec. 543.
    29. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities 
Affected. The proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    30. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. 
None.
    31. Federal Rules which Overlap, duplicate or Conflict with these 
Rules. None.
    32. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small 
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    33. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information 
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections 
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due to the 
same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days 
from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments 
should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

VI. Procedural Provisions

    34. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-
restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission's rules. See 
generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
    35. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original 
plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting 
comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of 
your comments and reply comments, you must file an original plus nine 
copies. Comments are due by January 12, 1996, and reply comments are 
due by February 12, 1996. You should send comments and reply comments 
to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be 
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 
M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554.
    36. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of 
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be 
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal 

[[Page 63497]]
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, 
DC 20554, or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c282f23223b2d350c2a2f2f622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="573334383920362e1731343479303821">[email protected]</span></a>, and to Timothy Fain, 
OMB Desk Officer, 10236, NEBO, 725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 
20503 or via the Internet to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee8efe7e0d1faceefe2a0ebe1fea0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="016760686f5e7541606d2f646e712f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.
    37. For additional information concerning the information 
collections contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-
0217, or via the Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee8a8d8180998f97ae888d8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca8afa3a2bbadb58caaafafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

VII. Ordering Clauses

    38. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 623 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 543 notice is hereby 
given of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with the 
proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this NPRM, and that 
COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such proposals, discussion, and statement 
of issues.
    39. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of 
this NPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

    [Cable television.]

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

Examples of Proposed Methods

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Current rates                             Franchise A     Franchise B     Franchise C 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST.............................................................             $10             $11             $11
CPST............................................................              21              21              20
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................              31              32             31 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Each franchise area has 11,000 BST subscribers and 10,000 CPST subscribers.                                   

First Proposed Method:

    Step 1: BST rates reduced to lowest in region: BST rates in 
franchise areas ``B'' and ``C'' reduced to $10.
    Step 2: ``Lost'' BST revenues is totaled; $1/subscriber in 
franchise areas ``B'' and ``C''=($1 x 11,000)+($1 x 11,000)=$22,000.
    Step 3: Current CPST revenue is totaled: 
($21 x 10,000)+($21 x 10,000)+($20 x 10,000)=$620,000.
    Step 4: Current CPST revenue is added to Lost BST revenue to create 
new CPST revenue requirement: $620,000+$22,000=$642,000.
    Step 5: New CPST revenue requirement is divided evenly by all CPST 
subcribers in the region to calculate new uniform CPST rate: $642,000/
30,000=$21.40.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Current rates                             Franchise A     Franchise B     Franchise C 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST.............................................................          $10.00          $10.00          $10.00
CPST............................................................           21.40           21.40           21.40
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................           31.40           31.40           31.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Franchise A: no change in BST rates; increase in CPST and overall 
rates.
    Franchise B: decrease in BST rates; increase in CPST rates; 
decrease in overall rates.
    Franchise C: decrease in BST rates; increase in overall rates.

Second Proposed Method:

    Step 1: Average current BST rates on a per BST subscriber basis to 
calculate average, uniform BST rate:

$10(11,000)+$11(11,000)+$11(11,000)=$10.67/BST subscriber.

    Step 2: Average current CPST rates on a per CPST subscriber basis 
to calculate average, uniform CPST rate:

$21(10,000)+$21(10,000)+$20(10,000)=$20.67/CPST subscriber.

    Total: $31.34/subscriber.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            New rates                               Franchise A     Franchise B     Franchise C 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BST.............................................................          $10.67          $10.67          $10.67
CPST............................................................           20.67           20.67           20.67
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................           31.34           31.34           31.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Franchise A: increase in BST rates; decrease in CPST; increase in 
overall rates.
    Franchise B: decrease in BST rates; decrease in CPST rates; 
decrease in overall rates.
    Franchise C: decrease in BST rates; increase in CPST rates; 
increase in overall rates.
    The results under each proposed method will vary widely depending 
on the current rates and the numbers of subscribers in each franchise 
area. In addition, these examples do not account for the impact of 
channel changes that may be necessary to achieve uniform packages of 
services.

[FR Doc. 95-29807 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>