******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of: ) CSB-A-0270, ) CSB-A-0367, CSB-A-0370, FALCON CABLE SYSTEMS ) CSB-A-0403, ) CSB-A-0485, CSB-A-0486, Petition for Reconsideration and ) CSB-A-0487, CSB-A-0488, Appeals of Local Rate Orders of the ) CSB-A-0489, CSB-A-0490, Regional Cable Commission ) CSB-A-0491, CSB-A-0492, ) CSB-A-0493, CSB-A-0494, ) CSB-A-0495 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: December 9, 1999 Released: December 13, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: I. introduction 1. Falcon Cable Systems ("Falcon") has filed petitions for review of two local rate orders adopted November 20, 1996 by a Regional Cable Commission respecting Falcon's basic service tier ("BST") rates in Dunes City and Florence, Oregon; local rate orders adopted April 9, 1997 by the RCC respecting Falcon's BST rates in the Oregon communities listed below; and local rate orders adopted December 17, 1997 by the RCC respecting Falcon's BST rates and equipment rates in the Oregon communities listed below. The RCC filed responses to some but not all of these petitions as indicated below, and Falcon filed replies to those responses. 2. Falcon has also filed a petition for reconsideration of one issue addressed in Falcon Cable Systems (Florence, Oregon), 13 FCC Rcd 4425 (CSB 1998) ("Falcon Cable"), in which we reviewed Falcon's petition for review of the local rate order of the City of Florence, Oregon adopted August 5, 1995. The RCC filed an opposition to the petition accompanied by a motion for late filing. Falcon filed a motion to dismiss and a conditional reply to the opposition. We consolidate our consideration of these matters, which involve the similar parties and related issues, for administrative convenience. III. background 4. Under the Commission's rules, rate orders issued by local franchising authorities may be appealed to the Commission. In ruling on an appeal of a local rate order, the Commission will sustain the franchising authority's decision provided there is a reasonable basis for that decision, and will reverse a franchising authority's decision only if the franchising authority unreasonably applied the Commission's rules in its local rate order. If the Commission reverses a franchising authority's decision, it will not substitute its own decision but will remand the issue to the franchising authority with instructions to resolve the case consistent with the Commission decision on appeal. 5. An operator proposing an increase in basic service tier ("BST"), equipment or installation rates bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed increase conforms with our rules. In determining whether the operator's proposed increase conforms with our rules, a franchising authority may direct the operator to provide supporting information. After reviewing an operator's rate forms and any other additional information submitted, the franchising authority may approve the operator's requested rate increase or issue a written decision explaining why the operator's rate is not reasonable. If the franchising authority determines that the operator's proposed rate exceeds the maximum permitted rate as determined by the Commission's rules, it may prescribe a rate different from the proposed rate provided that it explains why the operator's rate is unreasonable and the prescribed rate is reasonable. VI. discussion and analysis A. The Petition for Reconsideration 2. The facts, applicable law, arguments of the parties, and a detailed analysis of the local rate order adopted August 5, 1995 by the City of Florence addressed in Falcon Cable are set forth in that order and need not be repeated in detail here. It is sufficient here to note that Falcon seeks reconsideration of our affirmance of the City's refusal to permit Falcon to use equivalent billing units ("EBUs) to calculate the number of multiple dwelling unit ("MDU") subscribers on the Florence cable system for the FCC Form 1220 reviewed in that rate order. In Falcon Cable, we found that Falcon failed to meet the threshold requirement for using the EBU methodology because it had an actual count of total subscribers including MDU subscribers. Falcon argues that use of EBUs to calculate MDU subscribers more closely aligns costs of providing service to an MDU with revenues derived from MDU subscribers, and thus avoids improper cross subsidies between MDU subscribers and other residential subscribers. The RCC argues in opposition that in prior cases cable operators have been permitted to use EBUs only where the cable operator does not have an actual subscriber count. The RCC also argues that the cost savings Falcon points to are accounted for in the determination of annual revenue requirements, that allowing a further reduction would disproportionately impact ordinary residential subscribers, and that EBUs are not sufficiently tied to revenues or costs to avoid such disproportionate impact. 3. In a Public Notice, the Commission announced that a cable operator who does not have an actual subscriber count for purposes of the Commission's benchmark and quarterly increase forms (FCC Forms 1200 and 1210, respectively) may use a subscriber count based on equivalent billing units ("EBUs") in lieu of actual subscriber numbers. However, the Public Notice on the use of EBUs in these forms was silent regarding the propriety of using EBU counts on FCC Form 1220, the cost of service form involved in this matter. On numerous occasions, we have stated that EBU counts are appropriate to use on Form 1220, that EBU counts more accurately account for the unique revenue and cost characteristics of special customer classes and that EBU counts correctly recognize the reduced costs of providing services on a per subscriber basis to special customer classes and ensure that related revenues are properly assigned. E.g., Intermedia Partners, 12 FCC Rcd 12592 (CSB 1996). In Falcon Cable at footnote 85, the reference to Intermedia Partners suggests that EBUs may be used in cost of service CPST cases "where the operator did not have actual subscriber count and where the discounted rate was properly supported by economic and cost showings." Although the quoted language may reflect the record in Intermedia Partners, that case and the line of cases it represents permitted use of EBUs in CPST cost of service rate cases without findings regarding the availibility of actual subscriber counts or economic and cost showings. In any event, our reversal of Falcon Cable on the matter of the use of EBUs provides consistency in the use of EBUs in CPST and BST cost of service cases. For these reasons, we set aside that portion of Falcon Cable which found that Falcon failed to meet the threshold requirement for using the EBU methodology because it had an actual count of total subscribers including MDU subscribers. Accordingly, we grant Falcon's reconsideration petition and remand this matter to the RCC for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. D. The November 20, 1996 Local Late Orders 5. Falcon contends that the RCC local rate orders dated November 20, 1996 addressing its BST rates for cable service in Dunes City and Florence, Oregon, should be remanded because those orders give no explanation why the increased equipment and basic service rates submitted on Forms 1205 and 1210 being reviewed are disallowed or why the rates prescribed by the RCC are more appropriate. The RCC's orders describe the history of the proceedings, identify the rate forms submitted by Falcon, summarize the procedural steps taken and information requests made in response to those filings, list the charges proposed by Falcon and the permitted charges, state that Falcon has failed to prove that its rates comply with Commission policy, and set forth conclusions and directives for implementation of the permitted charges. However, these orders provide no explanation why the proposed rates are unreasonable or why the permitted rates are reasonable, and are therefore inconsistent with our requirements that a local rate authority must provide a written decision affirmatively demonstrating why the cable operator's proposed rates are unreasonable and why permitted rates are reasonable. In the Rate Order, the Commission stated: "[w]e will thus require that a franchising authority issue a written decision to the public and give public notice of such decision whenever it disapproves, in whole or in part, either initial rates for the basic service tier and accompanying equipment, or a request for an increase in those rates, or approves a proposed rate over the objections of interested parties." In several subsequent decisions, the Bureau held that Commission rules require local franchising authorities to issue written decisions, and that those decisions must affirmatively demonstrate why an operator's proposed rates are unreasonable. Since it appears from the record below that the subject RCC rate orders do not comport with our rules in providing the required explanations of its rate determinations, these two orders are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order. 6. Falcon also faults the RCC for using the permitted rate ($11.20) developed in the August 9, 1995 rate order as the starting point for the Form 1210 reviewed in the November 20, 1996 rate order issued with respect to its Florence system. Falcon asserts that the submitted rate ($23.08) was legally in place, because the August 9 rate order was stayed pending review by this Commission. Falcon contends therefore that the RCC should have reviewed the Form 1210 and calculated a permitted rate on the basis of the data in the Form 1210 as filed. Falcon suggests that the appeal of the earlier order should be consolidated with the current order and concedes that the rate increase justified by the Form 1210 will vary depending on the rate entered in Module A of the Form 1210. Our grant above of Falcon's reconsideration petition closes the review of the August 9, 1995 rate order. Accordingly, the starting rate for the subject Forn 1210 depends upon the action taken by the local rate authority in compliance with our reconsideration and remand instructions issued in Falcon Cable. 7. Finally, Falcon claims the RCC lost an opportunity to issue a refund order with respect to the November 20, 1996 Dunes City rate order, because an acounting order was not issued in this case until July 2, 1996, six days after the termination of the 90 day tolling period adopted in the RCC's tolling order issued on March 27, 1996. The RCC argues that the refund order was timely, because it was issued in a cost of service rate proceeding in which the Commission's rules provide for a total of 180 days for issuing a refund order, and that the refund order was timely under this provision. Falcon correctly notes, however, that this rate order involves Forms 1210 and 1205 filings, which are not cost of service showings as was the case with its initial Form 1220 filing on September 23, 1994. Instead, the Form 1210 filing at issue is a periodic filing updating the system's rates initially set by the Form 1220. Furthermore, the record shows that the RCC's March 27, 1996 tolling orders with respect to both Dunes City and Florence adopted a 90 day tolling period. We have held that a franchise authority is bound by the tolling period it adopts despite the tolling periods provided in Section 76.933 of our rules. Because the RCC failed to issue its accounting orders within 90 days of its March 27, 1996 tolling orders, the RCC lost the authority to order refunds with respect to both the Dunes City and Florence systems, although it may still prescribe prospective rates. H. The Fourteen April 9, 1997 Rate Orders 1) The April 9, 1997 Cannon Beach and Veneta Rate Orders 2. The RCC issued fourteen orders on April 9, 1997 that are the subject of Falcon's rate appeal we address next. In the orders for the Cannon Beach and Veneta franchise areas, the RCC concluded that "Falcon Cable Systems may not make any changes in its rates for basic cable services and associated equipment," and that "no entity operating on behalf of Falcon Cable Systems is authorized to make any changes in basic cable services rates" for the Cannon Beach and Veneta areas. These orders direct the reinstatement of previously approved rates and order refund of all funds collected in excess of previously approved rates. In parallel language, the orders state that franchises to offer cable services have been granted to Falcon Cable Systems, that a different cable operator, Falcon Cable Systems II, filed Forms 1240 requesting increases in BST rate, that "Falcon Cable Systems II is not a franchised cable operator to operate within the [Cannon Beach/Veneta] franchise area. The franchised cable operator has not submitted the required FCC forms to justify any change in cable rates within the [Cannon Beach/Veneta] franchise area." 3. Falcon contends that the RCC's refusals to consider the FCC forms, which proposed changes in rates and charges scheduled to be implemented in December 1, 1996, were improperly based on alleged franchise violations stemming from an internal Falcon reorganization. Falcon states that the alleged franchise violations concern whether Falcon obtained, or was required to obtain, franchise authority for transfer of the respective franchises involved with that reorganization. Falcon states that the Veneta City Council deadlocked with a vote of two to two on its request for transfer of this franchise, a result that may be deemed granted under Section 617 of the Communications Act. With respect to Cannon Beach, Falcon and the RCC dispute whether any approval is required by the outstanding Cannon Beach franchise ordinace. The RCC states that it operates with delegated authority from these two franchising authorities. The RCC states further that the two jurisdictions for which it acts as an agent for cable rate review purposes directed it not to adopt any order inconsistent with the authority and best interest of those entities. With regard to the two orders at issue here, the RCC contends it acted on instruction of the respective jurisdictions and that the facts communicated to it concerning these disputes indicated that the orders requested by the two jurisdictions were appropriate. The RCC points to provisions of the respective franchise ordinances that it contends support the position taken in the two orders. Briefly stated, the RCC takes the position that the two franchises have not been properly transferred to the named entity that filed the FCC forms requesting BST rate increases, and that the franchise authorities had no obligation to accept FCC forms from an entity that holds no authority to provide cable services in the respective communities. The RCC contends the separation of the valid franchise question from the rate increase question implicit in Falcon's dismissal request is contrary to federal law, and argues that the existence of a franchise is not a trivial matter. The RCC asserts that a cable operator may not provide cable service without a franchise, and that the responsibility to regulate BST rates is reserved for franchising authorities. In reply, Falcon restates its position that the proper steps required under its franchises with respect to the company reorganization have been taken, and suggests that these disputed matters should be worked out between the parties or resolved in court, that this Commission is not the proper forum for resolution of those matters, and that the rate setting process should not become a weapon to wring concessions from Falcon. 4. As noted above, we have addressed the need for local franchising authorities to explain the bases of their decisions previously. In the Rate Order, the Commission stated: "[w]e will thus require that a franchising authority issue a written decision to the public and give public notice of such decision whenever it disapproves, in whole or in part, either initial rates for the basic service tier and accompanying equipment, or a request for an increase in those rates, or approves a proposed rate over the objections of interested parties." In several subsequent decisions, the Bureau held that Commission rules require local franchising authorities to issue written decisions, and that those decisions must affirmatively demonstrate why an operator's proposed rates are unreasonable. Local franchise authority decisions about rates must be based on the rate regulations of this Commission and the instructons to the Commission's rate forms. The RCC's explanations, which are grounded in the disputes over franchise transfer issues under local or state laws or the franchise agreements, have no relevance to the validity of BST rates subject to this Commission's cable system rate regulations. As such, those explanations do not comport with the requirements for a local rate order of a local franchising authority. Therefore, we remand these two rate orders for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 5) The Other Twelve April 9, 1997 Local Rate Orders 6. Turning to the other twelve RCC local rate orders dated April 9, 1997, Falcon states that these orders reviewed Forms 1240 and 1205 supporting proposed rate changes scheduled to be implemented December 1, 1996. Falcon contends the RCC made an improper downward adjustment in the inflation factor claimed on the Forms 1240 by disallowing unclaimed inflation for the July 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995 period claimed for the true-up period commencing January 1, 1996. Falcon states that the last Forms 1210 filed before the Forms 1240 at issue claimed inflation only for January 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995, and that therefore it properly claimed that unclaimed inflation of the Forms 1240, as allowed by and in accordance with the Form 1240 instructions. The RCC interpreted those instruction differently from Falcon, contending in opposition that the Forms 1210, which established rates based on the published inflation factor for the January 1, to June 1995 period, utilized allowed inflation through to December 31, 1995, and therefore no additional inflation may be claimed beyond that for the true-up period that began January 1, 1996 addressed in the Forms 1240. 7. As RCC suggests, this issue involves interpretation and application of the instructions to Form 1240 set forth in the margin. Our inspection of the Forms 1210 and 1240 Falcon filed clearly show that Falcon properly complied with the Instructions for FCC Form 1240 in claiming unclaimed inflation for the period July 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995. The inflation factor on Line J5 of the Form 1210 is 1.0296, the published factor for the period January 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995. The inflation factor on Line C1 of the Form 1240 is 1.0232, which is the product of 2.22%, the published inflation factor for the last half of 1995, and 2.39%, the published factor for the January 1 June 30, 1996 true-up period, plus 1. The RCC's interpretation of these instructions as not permitting Falcon to claim the disallowed inflation is inconsistent with the wording of those instructions and therefore unreasonable. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the RCC for further consideration consistent with this ruling. 8. Falcon also contends the RCC improperly reduced the rates for Dunes City and Florence by using as a starting rate the rate permitted in the August 9, 1995 rate order discussed above, instead of the rate Falcon was actually charging. Again, Falcon suggests that the appeal of the earlier order should be consolidated with the current order. Falcon has conceded, as noted above, that the rate increase justified by the Form 1210 will vary depending on the rate entered in Module A of the Form 1210. Our grant above of Falcon's reconsideration petition closes the review of the August 9, 1995 rate order. Also as noted above, the starting rate for the Forms 1210 depends upon the action taken by the local rate authority in compliance with our remand instructions issued in Falcon Cable. In turn, the starting point for the Forms 1240 in issue here depends upon the action taken by the local rate authority in compliance with our reconsideration and remand instructions issued in Falcon Cable and our remand instructions issued herein with respect to the November 20, 1996 rate order. 9. Falcon raises one additional objection addressed only to the April 9, 1997 rate order concerning the rates for the Dunes City system. Falcon contends the RCC refused to use the actual rate being charged ($22.57) during the January to July 1996 true-up period, but instead improperly substituted the maximum rate from Falcon's April 1966 Form 1210 ($26.13). Falcon contends that the implementation of the $26.13 rate was delayed by the RCC until July 1966 and therefore it properly used the actual $22.57 rate for the January 1 to July 1996 portion of the true-up period covered by this Form 1240. Falcon argues that use of the higher rate would have overstated revenue collected during the true-up period. The RCC responds by asserting that the Form 1210 Falcon filed on February 27, 1996, the only Form 1210 received from Falcon in 1996 relating to Dunes City, indicated a charge of $23.08 as of February 1996, not $22.57 as asserted in Falcon's petition. Falcon replies that Worksheet 8 of Form 1240 calls for use of the actual rate being charged during the true-up period, that $22.57 was the rate actually charged, and therefore $22.57 was properly used in the true-up calculations on the Form 1240. Falcon is correct that Worksheet 8 calls for the "the rate which was in effect for each month" of the true-up period. Therefore, we grant Falcon's petition with respect to this issue and remand the matter for consideration consistent with this order. J. The Twelve December 17, 1997 Rate Orders 11. The RCC issued twelve rate orders on December 17, 1997 in which it reviewed Forms 1205 and 1240 filed by Falcon proposing increased equipment and BST rates scheduled for December 1, 1997, for its cable systems serving the communities listed below. 12. Falcon's petition for review of the RCC's December 17, 1997 rate order relating to Veneta, Oregon, raises essentially the same unresolved matter that resulted in our remanding the April 9, 1997 Veneta rate order. The matters of Falcon's internal reorganization have not been resolved. Again, we find that the RCC's explanations for rejecting Falcon's proposed rate adjustments, which are grounded in the dispute over franchise transfer issues, have no relevance to the validity of BST rates subject to this Commission's cable system rate regulations. As such, those explanations do not comport with the requirements for a local rate order of a local franchising authority. Therefore, we remand this rate order for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 13. Falcon seeks review of the other eleven of these rate orders on two grounds. First, Falcon contends that these orders should be remanded because no explanation is given why the increased equipment and BST rates submitted on Forms 1205 and 1240 being reviewed are disallowed or why the rates prescribed by the RCC are more appropriate. The RCC's orders describe the history of the proceedings, list the filings submitted by Falcon, summarize the procedural steps taken and information requests made in response to those filings, list the charges proposed by Falcon and the permitted charges, and set forth conclusions and directives for implementation of the permitted charges and refunds of excessive collected funds. 14. As the RCC points out, these orders also provide an explanation of the actions taken. regarding BST rates. Unlike the earlier orders remanded for lack of explanation, these orders explain that Falcon failed to comply with the Instruction for FCC Form 1240 regarding the input of the current maximum permitted rate, which the RCC found in an earlier order directing rate modifications. The RCC explained further that since its prior order had not been modified by this Commission at the time of these orders, the rates mandated by those prior RCC orders were the correct starting rates for calculating the rates at issue before the RCC. Finally, the RCC explained that due to this discrepancy in the starting rates used on the Form 1240, the RCC's and Falcon's figures differed throughout other sections of the form, that as a result of these disparities Falcon's existing BST rates exceed the maximum permitted rates and that the proposed BST rates should not exceed the rates permitted in these orders. Based on these findings, we hold that the RCC's explanations comport with our requirements discussed earlier for a written explanation of why the proposed BST rates are unreasonable or the permitted rates are reasonable. 15. Although these rate order provide an explanation, as described above, of the reasonableness of the perscribed BST rates, no such explanation for the $0.00 equipment rates prescribed is provided in the rate orders for Astoria, Bay City, Coburg, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Drain, Garibaldi, and Westfir, Oregon. These orders state in this respect only that the proposed equipment rates are denied and "orders that this monthly charge be set" at $0.00. These rate orders contain no discussion of the Forms 1205 filed by Falcon in support of the proposed equipment rates, other than mere acknowledgment that the forms were filed. Therefore, we find that these rate orders fail to comport with the requirements discussed above for written explanations of why the proposed rates are unreasonable and the prescribed rates are reasonable, and remand them for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 16. Turning to the merits of these orders, Falcon further objects to the RCC's use of the permitted rates established in the prior orders and the establishment of a new permitted rates lower than its proposed rates. Falcon notes again that there are pending appeals of prior RCC orders. These appeals include its appeals of the August 9, 1995 rate order relating to its Florence system, the November 20, 1996 rate orders, the April 9, 1997 rate order, and the December 17, 1997 rate orders, as well as its petition for reconsideration of Falcon Cable. Falcon claims that the rates filed as start rates were legally in place when the Forms 1240 were filed even though the pending appeals of the prior orders had been filed, and claims that the RCC did not have the authority to lower the proposed rates by substituting the prior approved rate on the Forms 1240. Once again, Falcon suggests that the appeals of the earlier orders should be consolidated with the current orders, and concedes that the rate increases justified by the Forms 1240 will vary depending on the rates ultimately entered as start rates on prior Forms 1210 and Forms 1240 as a result of actions on the various pending appeals. 17. Our grant above of Falcon's reconsideration petition closes the review of the August 9, 1995 rate order. Our actions above have also resolved Falcon's various appeals of the RCC's rate orders issued prior to the instant rate orders. Consequently, the starting points for the Forms 1240 in issue here depend upon the action taken by the RCC in compliance with our reconsideration and remand instructions issued in Falcon Cable and our remand instructions issued herein with respect to the each of the other RCC rate orders appealed by Falcon. XVIII. falcon's emergency petition 19. On October 28, 1999, Falcon filed an "Emergency Petition for Reinstatement and Extension of Stay of Enforcement of Local Rate Orders," ("Emergency Petition") requesting reinstatement of enforcement "previously granted by the Cable Services Bureau with respect to the Form 1220 rate order adopted by the RCC on August 9, 1995" and an extension of that stay "to bar the RCC from enforcing any subsequent rate orders which reflect rates calculated in reliance on the August 9, 1995 rate order." After references to other previous RCC rate orders, its pending appeals to this Commission for review of those rate orders, and its petition for reconsideration of Falcon Cable which reviewed and remanded the August 9, 1995 rate order to the RCC for further consideration, as grounds for the emergency relief it seeks, Falcon also points to two July 21, 1999 rate orders of the RCC as providing additional grounds for relief. However, as the RCC notes in an opposition to this petition, Falcon has filed no appeal of either of those orders with this Commission, and the time for filing such appeals has lapsed. Therefore, those July 21, 1999 rate orders are not before us and provide no basis for granting the relief Falcon's Emergency Petition seeks. Moreover, Falcon's pending appeals of RCC rate orders properly before this Commission as well as its petition for reconsideration are addressed and resolved in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. For these reasons, Falcon's Emergency Petition is dismissed as moot. XX. ordering clauses 21. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of Falcon Cable Systems (Florence, Oregon), 13 FCC Rcd 4425 (CSB 1998), filed by Falcon Cable Systems IS GRANTED, and paragraph 27 of Falcon Cable IS VACATED. 22. IT IS FURTHER IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the captioned Petitions for Review of the local rate orders of the Regional Cable Commission described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order and filed by Falcon Cable Systems ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as indicated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 23. IT IS FURTHER IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 20, 1996 rate orders of the Regional Cable Commission ARE REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, provided however the the RCC may not order refunds with respect to the Dunes City and Florence cable systems based on these orders or on its actions on remand of these orders. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 9, 1997 rate orders orders of the Regional Cable Commission relating to the Cannon Beach and Veneta, Oregon cable systems ARE REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the twelve April 9, 1997 rate orders of the Regional Cable Commission relating to communities other than Cannon Beach and Veneta, Oregon ARE REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 17, 1997 rate orders order of the Regional Cable Commission relating to the Veneta, Oregon cable system IS REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the eleven December 17, 1997 rate orders of the Regional Cable Commission relating to communities other than Veneta, Oregon ARE REMANDED for further consideration consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending petitions for stay of enforcement of the rate orders of the Regional Cable Commission discussed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order ARE HEREBY DISMISSED as moot, and that pending motions for extensions of time and to accept late filing of pleading relating to any of the rate orders discussed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order ARE HEREBY GRANTED. 29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither the Regional Cable Commission nor any of the entities it represents in issuing the rate orders described herein shall enforce matters remanded for further consideration herein pending further action by the Regional Cable Commission or by those entities on these matters. 30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Emergency Petition for Reinstatement and Extension of Stay of Enforcement of Local Rate Orders filed by Falcon Cable Systems on October 28, 1999 IS DISMISSED as moot. 31. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSSION William H. Johnson Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau ADDENDUM FALCON CABLE SYSTEMS Petition for Reconsideration and Appeals of Local Rate Orders of the Regional Cable Commission CUID NUMBERS Astoria CUID OR0011 Bay City CUID OR0086 Brownsville CUID OR0214 Cannon Beach CUID OR0042 Coburg CUID OR0176 Cottage Grove CUID OR0284 Creswell CUID OR0321 Drain CUID OR0052 Dunes City CUID OR0198 Florence CUID OR0058 CUID OR0198 Garibaldi CUID OR0087 Lowell CUID OR0206 Oakridge CUID OR0079 Veneta CUID OR0209 Westfir CUID OR0248