*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 10921.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  237 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Media  General  Cable  of 
 Fairfax  County,  Inc. 


 Application  for  Review 
 (CUID  No.  VA0301) 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 DA  97-  2241 
 CSB-  A-  0211 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER  ON  REVIEW 
 Adopted:  August  14,  2001  Released:  August  17,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  Fairfax  County,  Virginia  (“  County”)  filed  a  Request  for  Reinstatement  of  Application  for 
 Review  in  the  above-  captioned  proceeding.  The  County  seeks  Commission  rescission  of  a  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order  issued  by  the  Chief,  Cable  Services  Bureau  (“  Bureau  Order”)  1  and  de  novo 
 Commission  review  of  the  petition  addressed  in  the  Bureau  Order.  2  The  Bureau  Order  granted,  in  part,  a 
 petition  filed  by  Media  General  Cable  of  Fairfax  County,  Inc.  (“  MGC”)  requesting  review  of  an  earlier 
 Bureau  action  3  and  provided  that  refund  liability  for  the  initial  regulated  rates  should  be  calculated  by 
 offsetting  equipment  overcharges  with  basic  service  tier  (“  BST”)  undercharges.  4  The  BST  rate  had  been 
 justified  using  a  cost-  of-  service  showing.  Alternatively,  the  County  asks  that  its  request  be  treated  as  an 
 application  for  review.  5  MGC  filed  an  opposition  to  the  County’s  Request,  and  the  County  filed  a  reply. 


 1  Media  General  Cable  of  Fairfax  County,  Inc.,  12  FCC  Rcd  17,424  (Chief,  Cab.  Serv.  Bur.  1997). 
 2  The  County  asserts  that  although  MGC’s  filing  was  miscaptioned  “Petition,”  it  was  filed  pursuant  to  Section 
 1.115  of  the  Commission’s  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.115,  governing  applications  for  review  by  the  full  Commission, 
 and  that  it  was  therefore  beyond  the  Bureau’s  authority  to  decide.  The  request  did  not  raise  any  additional  new 
 matters. 
 3  The  Bureau  Order  at  issue  here  reversed,  in  part,  an  earlier  consolidated  order  issued  by  the  Chief,  Cable 


 Services  Bureau,  regarding  five  similar  local  rate  orders  issued  by  the  Cities  of  Fairfax,  Falls  Church,  Herndon  and 
 Vienna  and  by  Fairfax  County.  Media  General  of  Fairfax  County,  Inc.,  10  FCC  Rcd  3129  (Cab.  Serv.  Bur.  1995). 


 4  12  FCC  Rcd  at  17431-  17434  para.  20-  25. 
 5  The  County  seeks  review  on  the  basis  of  prejudicial  procedural  error  pursuant  to  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.115(  b)(  2)(  v).  The 
 predjudice  alleged  is  further  delay  to  a  final  resolution  of  the  matter  that  would  be  caused  by  a  third  round  of  staff 
 (continued…) 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  237 
 2 
 II.  DISCUSSION 
 2.  We  are  treating  the  County’s  request  for  reinstatement  as  an  application  for  review  of  the 
 Bureau  Order  with  regard  to  refund  offsets.  6  We  need  not  reach  the  issue  of  whether  the  Bureau 
 improperly  acted  on  MGC’s  petition  because  Media  General’s  arguments  have  now  been  reviewed  by  the 
 Commission,  and  we  agree  with  the  Bureau’s  disposition  as  set  forth  in  the  Bureau  Order.  Therefore,  the 
 communities  have  suffered  no  prejudicial  error.  The  facts,  applicable  law,  arguments  of  the  parties,  and  a 
 detailed  analysis  of  those  matters  are  set  forth  in  the  Bureau  Order  and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  The 
 Order  correctly  determined  that  refund  liability  for  the  initial  regulated  rates  within  the  local  franchising 
 authority’s  jurisdiction  should  be  determined  from  aggregated  actual  and  permitted  rates  for  BST  and 
 equipment  and  installation,  regardless  of  whether  the  permitted  BST  rate  is  established  by  the  benchmark 
 or  cost-  of-  service  methodology.  7  We  affirm  the  Bureau  Order’s  grant  of  MGC’s  petition  regarding  the 
 issue  of  calculation  of  refund  liability. 


 III.  ORDERING  CLAUSE 
 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  Request  for  Reinstatement  of  Application  for 
 Review  filed  by  Fairfax  County,  Virginia  in  the  above-  captioned  matter  IS  GRANTED  in  that  it  is  treated 
 as  an  application  for  review  and  otherwise  IS  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 


 (…  continued  from  previous  page) 
 review  or  a  second  round  of  Commission  review. 
 6  The  Bureau  Order  also  affirmed  the  County’s  local  rate  order  regarding  the  treatment  of  income  tax  adjustments 


 for  interest  expenses  in  computing  equipment  rates.  Since  MGC  has  not  sought  further  review  of  that  action,  we 
 need  not  address  that  matter  here. 
 7  See  Section  76.942  of  the  Commission’s  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  76.942. 
2