Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14373

to grant Texas final approval. Further

background on the tentative decision to

grant approval appears at 60 FR 4586,

January 24, 1995.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment. EPA also provided notice that

a public hearing would be provided

only if significant public interest was

shown. No requests to present testimony

at the public hearing were submitted

and no written comments on the

application were submitted.

D. Decision

I conclude that the State of Texas’

application for final approval meets all

of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by Subtitle I of

RCRA. Accordingly, Texas is granted

final approval to operate its UST

program in lieu of the Federal program.

Texas now has the responsibility for

managing UST facilities within its

borders and carrying out all aspects of

the UST program except with regard to

Indian lands, where EPA will retain and

otherwise exercise regulatory authority.

Texas also has primary enforcement

authority, although EPA retains the right

to conduct inspections under Section

9005 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d, and to

take enforcement actions under Section

9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991e.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The approval

effectively suspends the applicability of

certain Federal regulations in favor of

Texas’ program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for owners

and operators of USTs in the State. It

does not impose any new burdens on

small entities. This rule, therefore, does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Administrative Practice and

Procedure, Hazardous Materials, State

Program Approval, Underground

Storage Tanks.

Authority: This Notice is issued under the

authority of section 2002(a), 7004(b), and

90044 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6974(b), and

6991(c).

Dated: March 7, 1995.

William B. Hathaway,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6674 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MM Docket Nos. 92–266 and 93–125, FCC

95–42]

Cable Television Act of 1992

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

an Eighth Order on Reconsideration to

revise certain cable regulations affecting

small systems and certified local

franchising authorities. Certified local

franchising authorities, independent

small systems, and small systems

owned by small multiple system

operators (‘‘small MSOs’’) will be

permitted to enter into alternative rate

regulation agreements that comply with

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 1995, except

for 47 CFR section 76.934(f)(2) which

will become effective upon OMB

approval. The Commission will issue

written confirmation of OMB approval

at a later date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Cosentino, (202) 416–0800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Eighth Order on

Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 92–

266 and MM Docket No. 93–215, FCC

95–42, adopted February 3, 1995 and

released February 6, 1995.

The complete text of this Eighth Order

on Reconsideration is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service at (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Synopsis of the Eighth Order on

Reconsideration

The 1992 Cable Act requires the

Commission to reduce regulatory

burdens and the cost of compliance for

small systems. Small systems are

defined in the statute as systems serving

1,000 or fewer subscribers. Pursuant to

that mandate, the Commission has

created different regulatory approaches

that are available to small systems.

The Cable Telecommunications

Association (‘‘CATA’’) and other groups

generally believe that our efforts have

not produced the intended result of

reducing administrative burdens and

costs for smaller systems. Preliminarily,

industry associations and individual

operators assert that small systems face

higher costs than other cable operators.

In our Fifth Order on Reconsideration

and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘Fifth Reconsideration

Order’’), MM Docket No. 92–266 and

MM Docket No. 93–215, FCC 94–234, 59

FR 51869 (October 13, 1994), we sought

comment on definitions of small

businesses that could be used to define

eligibility for any special rate or

administrative treatment. In response, a

number of commenters point out that

smaller systems do not qualify for the

volume discounts offered by equipment

and program suppliers to larger systems.

In addition, commenters observe that a

smaller system serving a large rural area

faces increased construction costs due

to the increased amount of cable that

must be installed to reach the entire area

and increased operating costs given the

greater amount of facilities that must be

maintained. Moreover, commenters note

that the total costs for which a small

system is responsible must be recovered

from a small subscriber base. Although

our current rules take into account the

number of subscribers a system has, the

commenters are unanimous that the

rules do not do so adequately. CATA

further asserts that complexities in our

rules, and the cost of enforcing them,

have discouraged local franchising

authorities in smaller communities from

seeking certification. While CATA

highlights the fact that, even in these

circumstances, the mere potential of rate

regulation hinders small systems in

their attempts to obtain financing and

capital, thus increasing their cost of

doing business, we are equally

concerned that there are local

franchising authorities which desire to

regulate basic rates but which lack the

resources to do so in accordance with

our existing rules.

Based on these factors, these groups

have urged the Commission to adopt

different and less stringent rules for

small cable companies. In comments

and in a letter to Chairman Reed E.

Hundt, CATA proposes an alternative

rate regulation scheme that differs

significantly from the present method of

rate regulation which CATA, and other

commenters, claim is too complicated

and burdensome. CATA’s proposal is as
14374 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

follows: The Commission should permit

local franchising authorities and small

systems to create their own alternative

rate regulation plan, not based on the

Commission’s benchmark/cost-ofservice rules, but still adhering to the

regulatory factors of the 1992 Cable Act.

CATA states that alternative regulation

should be available to all small systems

of 1,000 or fewer subscribers regardless

of whether they are currently subject to

regulation and without regard to system

ownership or affiliation with an MSO of

any size. CATA envisions that the

parties could agree to regulate rates for

the basic service and cable programming

service (‘‘CPS’’) tiers, as well as going

forward, inflation, and external cost

issues. Rate increases also could be

agreed to in advance. If a small system

and a local franchising authority entered

into an alternative regulation plan

affecting the CPS tier, subscribers could

still file a rate complaint with the

Commission. Under CATA’s proposal,

both the small system and the local

franchising authority would have to

consent to the alternative regulatory

framework. If the parties could not agree

on an alternative approach, the local

franchising authority would regulate

rates, if at all, using Commission rules.

Based on comments received in

response to the Fifth Reconsideration

Order, and in light of other pending

petitions for reconsideration, we

reconsider on our own motion the

Second Order on Reconsideration,

Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MM

Docket No. 92–266, FCC 94–38, 59 FR

18064 (April 15, 1994) as it relates to

rate regulation of small systems. We

believe that, subject to modifications

discussed below, the alternative rate

regulation framework proposed by

CATA is consistent with the spirit and

the letter of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended (‘‘Communications

Act’’). Accordingly, we will establish an

alternative form of rate regulation for

independent small systems and small

systems owned by small MSO’s based

upon CATA’s suggestions. We limit

availability of this alternative process to

independent small systems and small

systems owned by small MSOs because

we believe that larger systems have the

financial and administrative resources

necessary to comply with our

benchmark and cost-of-service rate

regulations. A small MSO is an MSO

serving 250,000 or fewer total

subscribers that owns only systems with

less than 10,000 subscribers each and

has an average system size of 1,000 or

fewer subscribers. However, in the

future, we may modify our eligibility

standards in response to action we take

in our proceeding on system size

definitions.

Congress acknowledged the special

circumstances faced by small systems

by specifically directing the

Commission to reduce the

administrative burdens and cost of

compliance for them. We believe that

this goal can best be achieved by giving

certified local franchising authorities

and eligible systems discretion to agree

to an alternative form of rate regulation

that will involve a traditional bargaining

process guided by the specific criteria

set forth in the Communications Act as

being relevant to the establishment of

rates for basic services and cable

programming services. This framework

will free both the cable operator and the

local franchising authority from the

burdens and costs of analyzing and

applying our benchmark and cost-ofservice rules.

While minimizing regulatory burdens,

the alternative rate regulation

agreements that the parties may create

also will further the goal of ensuring

reasonable rates by requiring local

franchising authorities to take into

account specific factors, identified by

Congress, when imposing rate

regulations for both the basic service tier

and cable programming service tiers.

With respect to basic service, those

criteria are:

[1] The rates for cable systems, if any,

that are subject to effective competition;

[2] The direct costs (if any) of

obtaining, transmitting, and otherwise

providing signals carried on the basic

service tier, including signals and

services carried on the basic service tier

pursuant to paragraph (7)(B)

[Communications Act § 623 (b)(7)(B), 47

U.S.C. 543(b)(7)(B)], and changes in

such costs;

[3] Only such portion of the joint and

common costs (if any) of obtaining,

transmitting, and otherwise providing

such signals as is determined, in

accordance with regulations prescribed

by the Commission, to be reasonably

and properly allocable to the basic

service tier, and changes in such costs;

[4] The revenues (if any) received by

a cable operator from advertising from

programming that is carried as part of

the basic service tier or from other

consideration obtained in connection

with the basic service tier;

[5] The reasonably and properly

allocable portion of any amount

assessed as a franchise fee, tax, or

charge of any kind imposed by any State

or local authority on the transactions

between cable operators and cable

subscribers or any other fee, tax, or

assessment of general applicability

imposed by a governmental entity

applied against cable operators or cable

subscribers;

[6] Any amount required, in

accordance with paragraph (4), to satisfy

franchise requirements to support

public, educational, or governmental

channels or the use of such channels or

any other services required under the

franchise; and

[7] A reasonable profit, as defined by

the Commission consistent with the

Commission’s obligations to subscribers

under paragraph (1) [Communications

Act § 623 (b)(1), 47 U.S.C. 543(b)(1)].

Among other factors, the criteria to be

used in establishing the rates to be

charged for cable programming services

are:

[1] The rates for similarly situated

cable systems offering comparable cable

programming services, taking into

account similarities in facilities,

regulatory and governmental costs, the

number of subscribers, and other

relevant factors;

[2] The rates for cable systems, if any,

that are subject to effective competition;

[3] The history of the rates for cable

programming services of the system,

including the relationship of such rates

to changes in general consumer prices;

[4] The rates, as a whole, for all the

cable programming, cable equipment,

and cable services provided by the

system, other than programming

provided on a per channel or per

program basis;

[5] Capital and operating costs of the

cable system, including the quality and

costs of the customer service provided

by the cable system; and

[6] The revenues (if any) received by

a cable operator from advertising from

programming that is carried as part of

the service for which a rate is being

established, and changes in such

revenues, or from other consideration

obtained in connection with the cable

programming services concerned.

We believe the rules we adopt here

properly take into account these

statutory factors. As a preliminary

matter, we note that alternative rate

regulation agreements will present an

option for local franchising authorities

and small systems. Both parties remain

free to insist on analysis under our

existing rules, which we have already

determined take into account the

statutory factors. In addition, we believe

that small systems and local franchising

authorities in markets where small

systems provide service are likely to be

familiar with the facts and

circumstances underlying the factors for

their particular markets. Moreover, the

statutory factors must be taken into
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14375

account in negotiating alternative rate

regulation agreements.

Given its knowledge of local

conditions and its experience with the

cable operator, the local franchising

authority often will be in the best

position to assess the relative

importance of these criteria and to

gather the relevant facts accordingly.

Moreover, since a small system is likely

to be located in an area with a relatively

small population, we expect that the

local franchising authority will be

particularly responsive to the needs and

desires of cable subscribers. This

circumstance should give the local

franchising authority substantial

encouragement and leverage to guard

against any attempt by the cable

operator to view the alternative

framework as an avenue to achieve

unreasonable rates. Indeed, unless and

until an alternative rate agreement is

reached, the local franchising authority

will always be able to rely upon the

general benchmark/cost-of-service rules,

further ensuring the reasonableness of

the rates permitted under an alternative

rate regulation agreement. Thus, we

conclude that rates subject to alternative

rate regulation agreements by small

systems will be reasonable.

Further, we believe that alternative

rate regulation agreements will assist

the Commission in ensuring that rates

for cable programming services are not

unreasonable. As part of the alternative

process, certified local franchising

authorities are required to take into

account relevant statutory factors to

ensure that rates for CPS tiers are not

unreasonable before entering into the

negotiated agreement. The Commission,

however, shall retain jurisdiction over

cable programming service rates.

As discussed below, the local

franchising authority must be certified

in accordance with our standard

procedures. Before entering into an

alternative rate regulation agreement,

the local franchising authority must take

into account the relevant criteria

discussed above and must provide for

public notice and comment. Finally, all

alternative rate regulation agreements

will be subject to Commission review,

as mandated by the Communications

Act. For data collection purposes, and to

assist the Commission in evaluating

complaints, eligible cable operators

must file with the Commission a copy

of the operative alternative rate

regulation agreement within 30 days

after its effective date.

As with any local franchising

authority seeking to enforce rate

regulations, a local franchising authority

that elects to regulate pursuant to an

alternative rate agreement must file the

certification required by Section

623(a)(3) of the Communications Act

and our rules. The certification process

shall be governed by our existing rules

applicable to local franchising

authorities who wish to regulate cable

operators according to the benchmark

and cost-of-service rules. No alternative

rate regulation agreement will be

effective until the effective date of the

certification. However, this does not

preclude a local franchising authority

that has yet to be certified from entering

into an alternative rate agreement that is

conditioned upon the effectiveness of

the local franchising authority’s

certification. Alternatively, the parties

may wait until after the franchising

authority is certified to begin their

negotiations. A local franchising

authority that already is certified by the

Commission may enter into an

alternative rate agreement with the cable

operator at any time. We note that the

cable operator will be subject to the

standard benchmark/cost-of-service

rules upon the expiration of an

alternative rate agreement. Thus, the

local franchising authority shall accept

as reasonable the basic service rate in

effect at the time the agreement expires

and may apply benchmark/cost-ofservice rules on a going-forward basis to

determine the reasonableness of

proposed changes to basic service rates

stemming from external costs, inflation,

and the addition, deletion, or

substitution of channels.

The alternative approach may be

pursued only by agreement of both the

cable operator and the local franchising

authority. To ensure maximum freedom

from regulatory constraints, we will not

establish any requirements to control

the negotiation process. We note,

however, that the scope of alternative

agreements is limited exclusively to the

regulation of rates charged for basic

service and CPS tiers and the equipment

used to receive these tiers. Thus,

certified local franchising authorities

may not enforce state/local negative

option billing laws that conflict with

federal negative option billing rules. See

47 CFR 76.981. See also Memorandum

Opinion & Order, LOI–93–14, DA 95–60

(Cab. Serv. Bur. Jan. 20, 1995);

Memorandum Opinion & Order, LOI–

93–2, DA 95–61 (Cab. Serv. Bur. Jan. 20,

1995); Consolidated Memorandum

Opinion & Order, LOI–93–1, et al., DA

95–106 (Cab. Serv. Bur. Jan. 25, 1995).

There are numerous provisions of

federal law which may not be waived,

even by agreement of the local

franchising authority and the small

system, unless waivers are provided for

in the Commission’s rules. These

provisions include, but are not limited

to, geographically uniform rates

structures, tier buy-through

prohibitions, technical standards, mustcarry obligations, and retransmission

consent. See 47 CFR 76.984, 76.921,

76.605, 76.56, 76.64. Moreover, the

intention of the alternative framework is

not only to ease the cost of compliance

with our rules but to ensure that eligible

small systems are not required to reduce

rates more than required by those rules.

Therefore, an alternative rate agreement

shall be unenforceable if it requires the

cable operator to charge rates lower than

would be permitted under the

benchmark or cost-of-service rules.

Section 623(a)(3)(C) of the

Communications Act requires a local

franchising authority to ‘‘provide a

reasonable opportunity for

consideration of the views of interested

parties’’ in the course of rate regulation

proceedings. Although this provision is

applicable to rate proceedings regardless

of whether the alternative procedure is

followed, we expect this provision to be

particularly significant in the context of

alternative rate regulation agreements.

Active involvement by interested parties

at an early stage of the proceedings, i.e.,

prior to final adoption of an agreement,

should reduce the occurrence of

complaints after the alternative

agreement is implemented. Thus, the

local franchising authority shall provide

a reasonable opportunity for comment

by interested parties, including

subscribers, and, based upon its

consideration of such comments,

modify the agreement to the extent it

deems appropriate before submitting the

proposal to the cable operator. The local

franchising authority need solicit public

comment only once and thus is not

precluded from entering into an

alternative agreement that differs from a

proposal that is presented for public

comment.

Once a cable operator is subject to rate

regulations, the Communications Act

and our rules provide various

mechanisms for resolving disputes

regarding rates and the enforcement of

regulations by local franchising

authorities. Subscribers and other

interested parties may appeal to the

Commission a rate decision made by a

certified local franchising authority

concerning the basic service tier. Our

rules also provide for Commission

resolution of complaints regarding rates

for CPS tiers. The Commission also may

review disputes between cable operators

and certified local franchising

authorities relating to the administration

of regulations governing basic service

tier rates.
14376 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

An appeal of a local franchising

authority decision approving an

alternative rate regulation agreement as

it applies to basic service tier rates may

be filed with the Commission under our

regular procedures. Since we have

determined that the agreed upon rate is

by definition a reasonable rate, the issue

before the Commission will be whether

the small system is charging the agreed

upon rate and whether the agreement

was entered into consistent with our

requirements. We also believe it would

be useful for potential complainants

regarding CPS rates to attempt to resolve

their complaints with the local

franchising authority when CPS rates

are subject to an alternative rate

regulation agreement. Given the local

franchising authority’s role as a party to

the agreement, we believe that many

CPS rate disputes can be resolved at that

level. Thus, we will require as a

prerequisite to a CPS complaint to the

Commission involving an alternative

rate regulation agreement that the

complainant provide evidence that he or

she was denied the requested relief from

the local franchising authority. As with

basic service rates, in an FCC complaint

the Commission will determine whether

the rates are consistent with the

agreement and our requirements.

The Commission will resolve all CPS

rate complaints pending at the time an

alternative rate regulation agreement

becomes effective under rules in effect

at the time the rates were charged.

Parties to an alternative rate regulation

agreement must abide by the

Commission’s decision regarding

appropriate remedies for unreasonable

rates charged prior to the effective date

of an alternative rate regulation

agreement. However, the parties remain

at liberty to determine reasonable CPS

rates to be charged upon the effective

date of an alternative rate regulation

agreement. We do not believe this will

hinder the negotiation process or

implementation of an alternative rate

regulation agreement because both local

franchising authorities and cable

operators are served with copies of FCC

Form 329 complaints filed with the

Commission by a subscriber and will

know the status of any complaints at the

time negotiations commence. In

addition, since entering into an

alternative agreement is voluntary, the

terms of the agreement shall be binding

as between the cable operator and the

local franchising authority such that

neither party shall be permitted to seek

from the Commission relief that is

inconsistent with the agreement. Thus,

a local franchising authority may not

challenge a rate permitted under the

terms of the agreement and a cable

operator may not seek to increase its

rates above what the agreement permits.

We have previously interpreted

Section 623(j) of the Communications

Act to preclude grandfathering rate

agreements entered into after July 1,

1990, in part because we concluded that

grandfathering such agreements would

conflict with the 1992 Cable Act’s intent

to abrogate rate agreements entered into

after July 1, 1990. The rules we adopt

today, permitting certified local

franchising authorities to enter into

agreements with qualifying cable

operators with respect to rates, will be

applied in the context of our existing

cable rate regulation rules. These rules

will provide a framework consistent

with the statute, under which any such

agreements will be negotiated. In

addition, our rules will require local

franchising authorities to take into

account specific factors identified by

Congress when determining rates for

both basic and CPS tiers. In light of this

requirement, we find such alternative

rate agreements, developed in

accordance with the statutory factors

Congress identified for establishing

rules to ensure that basic rates were

reasonable and that CPS rates were not

unreasonable, consistent with the

Communications Act. As such, these

agreements do not pose the kinds of

conflicts with the 1992 Cable Act that

we previously identified when we

interpreted Section 623(j) as obviating

rate agreements entered into after July 1,

1990.

Administrative Matters

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, the

Commission’s final analysis with

respect to the Eighth Order on

Reconsideration is as follows:

Need and Purpose of this Action. The

Commission, in compliance with

section 3 of the Cable Television

Consumer Protection and Competition

Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. 543 (1992),

pertaining to rate regulation, adopts

revised rules and procedures intended

to ensure that cable services are offered

to reasonable rates with minimum

regulatory and administrative burdens

on cable entities.

Summary of Issues Raised by the

Public in Response to the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. There

are no comments submitted in response

to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. The Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the United States Small

Business Administration (SBA) filed

comments in the original rulemaking

order. The Commission addressed the

concerns raised by SBA in the First

Report and Order, MM Docket No. 92–

266, FCC 93–177, 58 FR 29736 (May 21,

1993).

Significant Alternatives Considered

and Rejected. In the course of this

proceeding, petitioners representing

cable interests and franchising

authorities submitted several

alternatives aimed at minimizing

administrative burdens. The

Commission has attempted to

accommodate the concerns expressed by

these parties. In this Order, the

Commission is providing relief to small

systems and certified local franchising

authorities by permitting them to enter

into alternative rate regulation

agreements that do not require

completion of any forms.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The requirements adopted herein

have been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and

found to impose new or modified

information collection requirements on

the public. Implementation of any new

or modified requirement will be subject

to approval by the Office of

Management and Budget as prescribed

by the Act.

Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, it is ordered That,

pursuant to Section 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 612,

and 623 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),

154(j), 303(r), 532, and 543 the rules,

requirements and policies discussed in

this Eighth Order on Reconsideration,

are adopted and Sections 76.934 and

76.950 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR Section 76.934 and are amended as

set forth in below.

It is further order That, the

requirements and regulations

established in this decision shall

become effective April 14, 1995, with

the exception of new reporting

requirements which will become

effective on that date or as soon

thereafter as they may be approved by

the Office of Management and Budget.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Part 76 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14377

PART 76—CABLE TELEVISION

SERVICE

1. The authority citation for Part 76

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307,

308, 309, 48 Stat., as amended, 1064,

1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084,

1085, 1101; 47 U.S.C. Secs. 152, 153,

154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 532, 533,

535, 542, 543, 552, as amended, 106

Stat. 1460.

2. Section 76.934 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 76.934 Small systems and small

operators.

* * * * *

(f) Alternative rate regulation

agreements.

(1) Local franchising authorities,

certified pursuant to § 76.910,

independent small systems, and small

systems owned by small multiple

system operators as defined by

§§ 76.901 and 76.922(b)(5)(A) may enter

into alternative rate regulation

agreements affecting the basic service

tier and the cable programming service

tier.

(2) Small systems must file with the

Commission a copy of the operative

alternative rate regulation agreement

within 30 days after its effective date.

(3) Alternative rate regulation

agreements affecting the basic service

tier shall take into account the

following:

(i) The rates for cable systems that are

subject to effective competition;

(ii) The direct costs of obtaining,

transmitting, and otherwise providing

signals carried on the basic service tier,

including signals and services carried

on the basic service tier pursuant to

§§ 76.56 and 76.64, and changes in such

costs;

(iii) Only such portion of the joint and

common costs of obtaining,

transmitting, and otherwise providing

such signals as is determined to be

reasonably and properly allocable to the

basic service tier, and changes in such

costs;

(iv) The revenues received by a cable

operator from advertising from

programming that is carried as part of

the basic service tier or from other

consideration obtained in connection

with the basic service tier;

(v) The reasonably and properly

allocable portion of any amount

assessed as a franchise fee, tax, or

charge of any kind imposed by any State

or local authority on the transactions

between cable operators and cable

subscribers or any other fee, tax, or

assessment of general applicability

imposed by a governmental entity

applied against cable operators or cable

subscribers;

(vi) Any amount required to satisfy

franchise requirements to support

public, educational, or governmental

channels or the use of such channels or

any other services required under the

franchise; and

(vii) A reasonable profit. The rate

agreed to in such an alternative rate

regulation agreement shall be deemed to

be a reasonable rate.

(4) Alternative rate regulation

agreements affecting the cable

programming service tier shall take into

account, among other factors, the

following:

(i) The rates for similarly situated

cable systems offering comparable cable

programming services, taking into

account similarities in facilities,

regulatory and governmental costs, the

number of subscribers, and other

relevant factors;

(ii) The rates for cable systems, if any,

that are subject to effective competition;

(iii) The history of the rates for cable

programming services of the system,

including the relationship of such rates

to changes in general consumer prices;

(iv) The rates, as a whole, for all the

cable programming, cable equipment,

and cable services provided by the

system, other than programming

provided on a per channel or per

program basis;

(v) Capital and operating costs of the

cable system, including the quality and

costs of the customer service provided

by the cable system; and

(vi) The revenues received by a cable

operator from advertising from

programming that is carried as part of

the service for which a rate is being

established, and changes in such

revenues, or from other consideration

obtained in connection with the cable

programming services concerned. The

rate agreed to in such an alternative rate

regulation agreement shall be deemed to

be a reasonable rate.

(5) Certified local franchising

authorities shall provide a reasonable

opportunity for consideration of the

views of interested parties prior to

finally entering into an alternative rate

regulation agreement.

(6) A basis service rate decision by a

certified local franchising authority

made pursuant to an alternative rate

regulation agreement may be appealed

by an interested party to the

Commission pursuant to § 76.944 as if

the decision were made according to

§§ 76.922 and 76.923.

[FR Doc. 95–6555 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 22 and 52

[Federal Acquisition Circular 90–23

Correction]

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Technical Correction

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Technical correction.

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency

Acquisition Council and the Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council are

issuing a correction to Federal

Acquisition Circular 90–23 published

on December 28, 1994, at 59 FR 67010.

Miscellaneous typographical, editorial,

and technical errors appeared in the

following areas: FAR Case 91–13—

Acquisition of Utility Services, FAR

Case 93–27—Cost Accounting Standards

Applicability and Thresholds, and in

FAR Case 90–62—Construction

Contracting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Beverly Fayson at (202) 501–4755,

General Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.

Corrections

41.501 [Corrected]

1. In the Federal Register issue of

December 28, 1994, under FAR Case 91–

13, on page 67022, under 41.501, in the

third column, in paragraph (d)(3), in the

second line from the bottom of the

paragraph following the word

‘‘paragraphs’’, ‘‘(f)’’ and ‘‘(i)’’ should

read ‘‘(d)(6)’’ and ‘‘(d)(4)’’, respectively.

FAR Case 93–27 [Corrected]

2. In the same issue under FAR Case

93–27, on page 67042, in the second

column, under EFFECTIVE DATE, in the

first line at the top, ‘‘February 27, 1994’’

should read ‘‘February 27, 1995’’.

52.236–27 [Corrected]

3. In the same issue under FAR Case

90–62, on page 67050, in the second

column, under paragraph (a), second

line from the top, ‘‘Investigations’’

should read ‘‘Investigation’’.