*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 28797*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  03-  2066 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  matter  of 
 Precis  Communications,  LLC 
 Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order  of  Moab,  Utah  (UT0003  and  UT  0020) 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 CSB  No.  0680 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  June  23,  2003  Released:  June  24,  2003 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Policy  Division,  Media  Bureau: 
 1.  On  October  4,  2002,  Precis  Communications,  LLC  (“  Precis”),  filed  with  the  Commission  an  Appeal  of  Local  Rate  Order  (“  Appeal”),  directed  at  a  decision  by  the  City  of  Moab,  Utah  (“  the  City”), 
 made  on  September  24,  2002. 
 2.  The  City  filed  an  Answer  to  the  Appeal,  which  the  Commission  received  on  October  22,  2002.  At  paragraph  5  of  the  Answer,  the  City  states  that  Precis  has  decided  not  to  pursue  the  rate  increase 


 that  was  the  subject  of  the  City’s  September  24  decision.  1 
 3.  Precis  has  not  made  any  subsequent  filing  herein,  and  we  take  its  silence  to  admit  the  truthfulness  of  the  allegation  in  paragraph  5  of  the  City’s  Answer. 


 4.  It  therefore  appears  that  the  dispute  in  this  appeal  is  now  moot. 
 5.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Appeal  filed  on  October  4,  2002,  IS  DISMISSED. 


 6.  This  action  is  taken  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  Section  0.283  of  the  Commission's  rules.  47  C.  F.  R.  §  0.283. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 John  B.  Norton  Deputy  Chief,  Policy  Division,  Media  Bureau 


 1  The  City  notes  that  the  franchise  agreement  between  it  and  Precis’s  predecessor  dates  from  before  July  1,  1990. 
 Answer,  ¶  9.  Therefore,  the  City  claims,  the  Commission’s  regulations  concerning  cable  rate  regulation  and  certification  do  not  apply.  47  C.  F.  R.  §  76.982.  Because  we  are  dismissing  the  Appeal  on  other  grounds,  we  need 


 not  address  this  claim. 
1