WPCX 2PBV`@Z3|KA Roman (TT)8xCdX\Xx{2 PQXP"5@^dC2CCdECCCCCCCd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2 ZN  X  HP LaserJet 4/4MPostScript2HPLAS4.WRSSXj\  P6G;,, XPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)RomanTimes New Roman (Italic) (TT)a1DocumentgDocument Style\+*)7  VKB I. ׃  ~9- 2v p kkqa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 27vt) a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers :`S@ I.  X(# 2 i    _a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2vFa5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2(rTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala2paragraph/taba5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2ZUa2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2#I3Ua7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!94)0400000000000G2-2-2-2-2-744040404094949494-004240402-40220044002-2-2-2-442-7-7077-7-94944444$42++)7474444(4)0(N$2+00020000-00000000t0>77+0c<<&&209<!!&>>400000000009>9+@04242079$4+<744440-909020!!!4002-2--42O4020(($4+90-+!!9-002240000000>00-$000000+0000000222224744444049999224000000G-----0400000+04444-2"5@^*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777CE7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}277]]S77SS7]72t7[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7FSS$77Sq*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77qqqSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7.Sq7SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^2CTdd+CCd2C28ddddddddddCCdzzzzCYozzdozzooN8NTdCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2CC!CCPRCddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdYYo8oRdddzNzRdNdNNF2idNdddddd7>d<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2`L@`? @B @E@ I"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^(2<%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<77777777PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhP y.C8*XC\  P6QPxy.K8?X3qK\  P@QPxI-!&X3,-\  P@Q,P{,C8*X9,C*f9 xQX"5PC2X9EXP*f9 xQXX.y.G8*XG4  pQ)X 0(X9h0*f9 xQhX%2J=.X &J\  P6Q&P &0J=.X9&J*f9 xQ&X.'2N=.X7&N4  pQ&(P,%X)J,\  P6QJPQ,%X9̞J,*f9 xQJX  2X S-  +  X-x  #XP\  P6Q DXP#Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 971626 ă  yxdddy +#&J\  P6Q &P#Q3 Before the Federal Communications Commission & Washington, D.C. 20554  S`-  S-In re Complaint of hh@)hpp x` `  hh@)  S-Zell Miller, Johnny Isakson,hh@)  S-Lawton Chiles, and Bill Nelsonhh@) x` `  hh@)  SH -Against Station WCTV (TV),hh@)  S -Thomasville, Georgia hh@)  S -x` `  hh ORDER  S - xAdopted: August 1, 1997hh@hReleased: August 5, 199 #TZ 7 #TZ  By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:  " S- ` o"x1.` ` The Mass Media Bureau has before it a Complaint filed January 24, 1995, on behalf of  S- x.Zell Miller, Johnny Isakson, Lawton Chiles and Bill Nelson (collectively "Complainants")2 X -ԍ #C\  P6QP# Miller was a candidate for Governor of Georgia during the primary, primary runoff, and general elections in 1990. Miller was also a candidate for Governor during the 1994 primary and general elections. Isakson was a candidate for Governor during the 1990 primary and general elections. Chiles was a candidate for Governor of Florida during the 1994 primary and general elections. Nelson was a candidate for Insurance Commissioner of Florida during both the primary and general elections in 1994.  X)-#XP\  P6Q DXP#с against John  S- xH. Phipps, Inc., 2 X-ԍx#C\  P6QP# On September 27, 1996, an application was granted assigning WCTV from John H. Phipps, Inc. to Gray Communications Systems, Inc. ("Gray")(File No. BALCT960116IA) . An application for transfer of control of WCTV from the shareholders of Gray to J. Mack Robinson was granted July 28, 1997. (File No. BTCCT970324IG). Grant of that application was conditioned on the tranferee's agreement to comply with whatever actions are taken herein. licensee of Station WCTV (TV), Thomasville, Georgia ("WCTV").nS 2 {O-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#We note that a separate complaint against WCTV was addressed in an earlier Order. See Lawton Chiles,  {OM -Bob Martinez, Bill Nelson, and Jim Smith, 10 FCC Rcd 1 (1994) ("WCTV I").#K\  P@QqP#n The Bureau also  Sh-has before it an answer to the complaint filed by WCTV on March 3, 1995.  S- ` x 2.` ` Complainants allege that during the periods preceding the 1990 primary, primary runoff,  S- xand general elections and during the 1994 primary and general elections Station WCTV violated the  xL"lowest unit charge" ("LUC") requirements of  315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended" 0*%%ZZ"  S- x(the"Act").` 2 yOh-#X\  P6G;qP#э#C\  P6QP#xSection 315(b) provides as follows: (b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed x(1) during the fortyfive days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the xsixty days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the xlowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period; and (2) at xany other time, the charges made for comparable use of such station by other users thereof.  yO -47 U.S.C. Section 315(b).#K\  P@QqP#ѩ Specifically, Complainants contend that WCTV (1) overcharged Complainants during the  S- xrelevant LUC periods; and (2) failed to disclose to complainants certain requisite information about its  S- xMsales practices. Complainants also allege that, during the 1990 election periods, WCTV discriminated  xamong candidates contrary to the provisions of Section 73.1941(e) of the Rules. Finally, Complainants allege that WCTV violated the "reasonable access" requirements of Section 312(a)(7) of the Act.  S- ` Ax3.` ` This matter is properly before the Bureau pursuant to Lowest Unit Charge Requirements,  S- x6 FCC Rcd 7511 (1991) ("Declaratory Ruling"), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 4123 (1992) ("Reconsideration  S- xOrder"). The Declaratory Ruling sets forth specific procedural requirements governing  315(b)  xcomplaints. To invoke the Commission's enforcement procedures, complainants who allege a violation  Sv- xof  315(b) are required to make a prima facie showing of such violation. At a minimum, this showing  xmust consist of a "short, plain statement of the claim sufficient to show that the complainant is entitled  S( - xyto the relief requested." Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7513,  22. A complainant must describe the  xspecific factual basis for its belief that a station has committed a violation, rather than, for example,  S - x!merely making a general allegation that a station has overcharged candidates.  Lawton Chiles, Bob  S - xMartinez, Bill Nelson, and Jim Smith, 7 FCC Rcd 6661, n. 8 (MMB 1992), modified, 7 FCC Rcd 7199  S - x(MMB 1992), review granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 131, 132 (1992)("WTVT"). The licensee may submit an answer to the complaint within ten days.  S- ` x4.` ` If, upon review of the complaint and answer (if filed), the Bureau determines that the  S- xcomplainant has established a prima facie case, the Bureau will issue an order giving the parties the  xopportunity to select one of two dispute procedures for resolving the complaint: mediation or disposition  S- xMby the Bureau, subject to review by the Commission. Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7513,  22.  xUnder either procedure, the complainant is entitled to limited discovery, subject to specific conditions set  ST-forth in the Bureau's order. Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7513,  23.    S- ` x5.` ` Applying the guidelines set forth in the Declaratory Ruling, we find that Complainant  S- xMiller has established a prima facie case of a violation of the LUC requirements during both the 1990  S- xGeorgia primary, runoff and general elections. In addition, we find Complainant Isakson has established  S- x=a prima facie case of a violation for the 1990 general election election, but he has not established a prima  Sl- x[facie case with respect to the 1990 primary election. We also conclude that Complainants Miller, Chiles"l 0*%%ZZm"  S- x[and Nelson have failed to establish a prima facie case of an LUC violation during either the 1994 Georgia  S- xor Florida elections. We find that Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case with respect  xto disclosure, and therefore dismiss this aspect of the complaint. In addition, Complainants have failed  S- xto establish a prima facie case of discrimination among candidates, and we therefore dismiss these claims.  Sf- xFinally, we find Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the reasonable  S@- xaccess requirements, and therefore dismiss these claims. Following is a detailed discussion of the Bureau's  x.specific findings with respect to the issues raised, and the timetable and procedures for discovery, post S-discovery, and the procedure for electing the method to resolve this complaint.  Sx-  I. TIMELINESS OF COMPLAINANTS' FILING  S( - ` _x6.` ` WCTV argues that, with regard to the 1990 elections, the complaint is untimely. It points  S - xKout that the Complaint was filed more than four years after the elections 2 yOh -#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#WCTV does not argue that claims regarding the 1994 elections are untimely.#K\  P@QqP# and asserts that the Complainants  S - xhad the opportunity to file their complaint earlier. X2 yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Response at 7. #K\  P@QqP#ѵ In addition, WCTV states that the personnel most  xfamiliar with the circumstances surrounding the alleged activities are no longer employed at the station.  S8- ` x7. ` ` In WTVT, we stated that "[o]ur rules do not prescribe or limit the time during which an  S- x=LUC complaint must be filed." See WTVT, 7 FCC Rcd 6661 n. 4. We recognize that the passage of time  x\and the loss of station personnel with direct knowledge of the relevant time periods may render more  x.difficult the licensee's task of responding to LUC complaints. The passage of time may also impede the  xycomplainant's ability to establish a prima facie case. However, such difficulty does not alleviate the need  Sr- xto consider whatever evidence of violations is furnishe d. Accordingly, in these circumstances, we will not dismiss the claims relating to the 1990 elections as untimely.  S"-  S-   x` `  II. LOWEST UNIT CHARGE ALLEGATIONS  S-xA.` ` Comparison with Generally Available Statistical Data  S2- ` x 8.` ` Complainants allege that WCTV violated the LUC requirements by overcharging  S - xcandidates for air tim e because the candidate rates exceeded "SCOOP"based rates. SCOOP, a product  S- xof Media Market Guide, is a compilation of generally available statistical data on average rates charged  S- xby television stations. In support of their allegations, Complainants multiplied the average rate for a given  S- x[daypart by the actual, stationspecific ratings on WCTV, and based on those calculations, estimated that"0*%%ZZ"  S- xeach Complainant was overcharged by significant amounts.m yOh-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Complaint at 11. Complainants allege a substantial number of specific overcharges based on a comparison of SCOOPbased rates and the rates paid by Complainants. Complaint at Exhibit 2. The following is a representative sample of the specific overcharges and the total overcharges for each candidate. There is a range of overcharges for the 1990 elections depending upon which demographic is used.  yO-x  yOP-Candidate` ` Date Time PeriodhhPaid@SCOOP RateppTotal Overcharge Range  yO-Isakson 1990` ` 10/23 19302000hh$440@$242hpp19392479  yO-Miller 1990` ` 06/05 19302000hh$540@$350hpp42854816  yO-Chiles 1994` ` 10/31 22002300hh$500@$470hpp648  yOp -Miller 1994` ` 11/03 16001700hh$150@$130hpp607  yO8 -Nelson 1994` ` 10/18 16001700hh$150@$130hpp360  #K\  P@QqP#m Specifically, Complainants state that the 1990  xLSCOOP calculations are based on Arbitron daypart ratings which corresponded to spot times purchased  x<by Complainants. The 1994 SCOOP calculations are based on Nielsen daypart ratings which corresponded  S- x.to spot times purchased by Complainants. To arrive at the separate SCOOPbased rates for the second,  x<third, and fourth quarters of 1990, Complainants multiplied the SCOOP rates contained in the second, third  S8- x-and fourth quarter 1990 Media Market Guide by the ratings data listed in Arbitron's May 1990, July 1990,  S- xand November 1990 Television Market Reports. Complainants' calculations were based on three different  xdemographics: households, adults 2554, and persons 18 plus. For the 1994 elections, Complainants state  xthat they multiplied the SCOOP rates in the fourth quarter Media Market Guide by the pertinent Nielsen  x[ratings, which they identify as being compiled from the July 1994 Nielsen Book. The demographic used  xin all of Complainants' 1994 calculations was adults 2554. Complainants then compared the station SH -specific SCOOPbased rates with the rates actually charged to each Complainant.H (  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Complaint at Exhibit 2.#K\  P@QqP#  S - ` x9. ` ` WCTV responds by asserting that with respect to the 1990 elections, the SCOOP data is  S - x>unreliable because it does not reflect distinctions in class of time.  yO(-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Response at 10.#K\  P@QqP#ѵ As for the 1994 elections, WCTV  S - x explains that the disparity between the SCOOP rates and the political advertising charges is attributable  S - xto the fact that the Complainants purchased the more expensive "fixed" class of time, and as such, enjoyed  SX- xxthe corresponding protection from preemption., XH  yO@-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Response at 8. #K\  P@QqP#ѵ In this connection, WCTV contends that where candidate s  S0- xhave purchased only fixed spots, SCOOP data is not probative unless all or nearly all of the commercial  S-time also is fixed.  yO -#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Response at 9.#K\  P@QqP#Ѵ  S- ` x10.` ` A complainant may establish a prima facie case of an LUC violation by using generally xjavailable industry or statistical data on average rates to show that the rate paid by a candidate was higher  Sj- x=than the average rate charged by the station.  Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7521 n.47. To support  SD- x\a prima facie case, the Commission has recognized SCOOPbased rates as a valid source of statistical"Dh 0*%%ZZc"  S- xMinformation. See e.g., Diane Feinstein, John Seymour, Thomas Hayes, 9 FCC Rcd 1586, 1587 (1994)  S- x("KABC"). Moreover, in WTVT, 8 FCC Rcd at 132 n.13, the Commission determined that even if such  S- xgenerallyavailable information does not take specific classes of time into consideration, it remains "the  xbest resource available" of pertinent data for candidates unable to gain access to a station's commercial  Sd- xNsales records in order to determine whether they have been overcharged. Thus, we reject WCTV's  S<- x=arguments that SCOOPbased data is not reliable or not probative with respect to both the 1990 and the  S-1994 elections. x  S- ` x11.` ` We find that Complainants have established a prima facie case of a violation of the LUC  xkrequirements by demonstrating that the rates paid by Miller and Isakson for use of WCTV's facilities  xduring the 1990 general election periods appear to be higher than the average stationspecific SCOOP SN - xbased rates for the third and fourth quarters of 1990. We also find that Miller established a prima facie  S( - xcase of an LUC violation in regard to the 1990 primary and runoff elections. However, we find that  S - xIsakson has failed to establish a prima facie case of a LUC violation for the 1990 primary election period,  xas the complaint did not include data, rates or any other information specifically covering the primary  S - xelection period. We find also that Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of a violation  xof the LUC requirements during either the 1994 primary or general election periods for Miller, Chiles, and  xNelson. With respect to the primary elections, there are no SCOOP showings or calculations relating to  xthe primary election period for any candidate. With respect to the general elections, Complainants  xincorrectly multiplied the relevant fourth quarter SCOOP ratings with data from the July 1994 Nielsen  S- xRatings Book.  XT-ԍ #C\  P6QP#Complaint at exhibit 4.#XP\  P6Q DXP#ю In order to establish a prima facie case, Complainants were required to utilize the  S- x>corresponding Nielsen ratings from the November 1994 Book. Accordingly, the Commission cannot  x[assess the accuracy of Complainants' claims. In light of our disposition of the 1994 LUC allegations, we need not address WCTV's arguments regarding fixed rate spots.  SN-  S&-xB.` ` Disclosure  S- ` Px 12.` ` Complainants also allege that WCTV violated the Commission's LUC requirements during  xthe 1990 primary and general elections in connection with its use of a socalled "grid card" to sell time  xto political candidates. Specifically, they argue that the rate card fails to disclose any information about  xthe characteristics associated with each of the six classes listed on the card. In support, Complainants  xprovide a copy of a 1990 WCTV Georgia primary political rate card which contained six classes of time  S- x=on the grid. However, in upholding the Bureau's initial determination in WCTV I, (FCC 93183, released  S- xMJune 5, 1997), the Commission affirmed the validity of the same WCTV rate card and concluded that  xstations legitimately could offer time on such a basis and that a failure to disclose the same information  S- xalleged as absent here during the 1990 elections did not violate the statute.  The Commission indicated  Sp- x[that the obligation to disclose was formally implemented in the Codification Order, 7 FCC Rcd 678, 691  x(1991), which promulgated guidelines regarding broadcaster disclosure obligations, well after the elections  xin question. WCTV could not have been expected to have complied with a rule which had not yet been  S - xcodified. Accordingly, we will not find a prima facie case with respect to disclosure, and this aspect of the complaint is dismissed. "!y 0*%%ZZ7#"Ԍx  S- + III. RATE DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS ă  S- ` x13.` ` The Bureau also concludes that Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case  Sb- xof rate discrimination by WCTV. Under Section 73.1941(e), political sales are discriminatory when the  S:- x.station charges candidates different rates for comparable time periods, lengths of time, and class of time.  S- xComplainants have not provided any documentation regarding the classes of time purchased by the  S- xcandidates, as shown in their comparisons.  yOR-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#The Complainants merely proferred the following list of some comparisons, without any further  yO -information regarding classes of time.  yO -xMartinez 9/2817001730@90  yOr -xIsakson` `  9/2817001730@160  yO: -xMartinez 10/412001230@75h  yO -xMiller` `  10/412001230@120  yO -xMiller` `  10/709001030u@70  yO-xMartinez 10/709001030u@30 x  {O"-See Complaint at 1518 for additional comparisons.#K\  P@QqP#ѱ Moreover, WCTV's refutes the claim, by explaining that each  S- xexample of disparate rates cited by Complainants involved different classes of time.*  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Response at 12.#K\  P@QqP#ѵ Consequently, given  xthat complainants failed to indicate the classes of time purchased, and that WCTV refuted the allegation  Sr-of discrimination by establishing the basis for the difference in rates, we are hereby dismissing this claim.  S -w  IV. REASONABLE ACCESS ALLEGATIONS  S - ` Ax 14.` ` Complainants allege that WCTV effectively denied reasonable access to federal candidates  xduring the 1990 primary and general election periods, in contravention of Section 312(a)(7) of the Act.  xjIn support, they state that WCTV's published policy statement placed apparent limits on the number of  S2- xjspots and programs available for purchase by candidates during certain dayparts . For example, WCTV's  xKpolicy apparently limited federal candidates to one thirtyminute program per election, and two fiveminute  xprograms per week. In addition, WCTV imposed limitations of one spot per time period, per day, during  S- xthe last three weeks before an election. WCTV states that since in 1990 it was obligated to provide access  x>to candidates in both Florida and Georgia, it believed reasonable limitations on certain classes of time  Sj- xwould ensure, not thwart, access for all candidates. WCTV also notes that none of the complainants were  SB- x>federal candidates, and thus were not entitled to reasonable access . It is true that establishing preset  S- xlimitations on the amount of spots or program length time available to federal candidates would appear  xyto be inconsistent with the Commission's prohibition against flat bans or limitations in the sale of time to  S- xNfederal candidates. See Report and Order in the Matter of Commission Policy in Enforcing Section  S- x312(a)(7) of the Communications Act, 68 FCC 2d 1079 (1978). Complainants, however, provide no  xyevidence that any federal candidate was, in fact, denied reasonable access based on the limits listed on the"~ 0*%%ZZ"  S- xstation's political rate cards. Thus, we find that Complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case  S-of a violation of the reasonable access requirements and, therefore, we dismiss this claim. T  Sb-x` ` V. TIMETABLE AND PROCEDURES FOR DISCOVERYxx  S- ` x15.` ` In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined that, once a prima facie showing  xhas been made, the complainant will be entitled to limited discovery, subject to specific conditions  S- xestablished by the Bureau.  See Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 751314, 7521, n.49. See also, WTVT,  x7 FCC Rcd at 6665. Accordingly, we will allow Complainant Miller limited discovery on the issue of  x=overcharges during the 45 days preceding the July 17, 1990, primary, the 45 days prior to the August 7,  x1990 runoff election, and we will allow limited discovery for Complainants Miller and Isakson for the  xperiod 60 days before the November 6, 1990, general election. The documents set forth in Appendix A  S - x=to this Order, and answers to the written interrogatories set forth in Appendix B to this Order, must be  xserved upon counsel for the abovereferenced Complainants (not the Commission) by WCTV on or before  S - xthe first day of the discovery period, which will be 30 days after the release date of this Order. See Appendix C.  S:- ` $x16.` ` Any request for further discovery by Complainants must contain a showing that such  x?discovery is necessary to resolve the issue of overcharges. Any discovery request by WCTV for  xproduction of documents, answers to written interrogatories, or for the taking of depositions must  xdemonstrate that the information requested is necessary for WCTV to respond to arguments or claims that  x0could be made by Complainants in their amended complaint. We emphasize that any request for  xdepositions must also demonstrate that depositions are necessary to resolution of the issue of overcharges  SJ- xand include a list of the proposed deponents.J {O-  #X\  P6G;qP##Xj\  P6G; DXP##X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#See WTVT, 8 FCC Rcd 714, 717 (MMB 1993). The Bureau stated that: "In this regard, we require the party  yO|- xJseeking depositions to demonstrate with respect to each witness they seek to depose, that the individual's testimony  xis necessary to the resolution of the issues upon which discovery has been granted herein. This must include  yO - xX "specific" arguments demonstrating the necessity of the proposed testimony both in terms of the information sought  xand the use of depositions as the means of securing the necessary information and should be supported by  yO-documentary evidence." #K\  P@QqP# All discovery requests must be filed within the discovery period set forth in Appendix C. The Bureau will rule on all such requests as expeditiously as possible.  S- ` #x17.` ` Documents produced by WCTV that contain proprietary information may be redacted to  xdelete the identities of commercial advertisers, including the name of the commercial advertiser, its address  xand telephone number, the name(s) of any person employed by the advertiser, and the name of any media  xcompany or agency representing the commercial advertisers and any persons employed by such media  xcompany or agency. Where any such information is redacted, WCTV shall advise Complainants of the  xtype of information deleted. Further redactions will be allowed only if the information redacted is  xproprietary and not relevant to resolution of the complaint. Should Complainants serve documents upon  xWCTV they may redact proprietary information and so advise WCTV of the type of information deleted.  x.Any objections to redactions that are not resolved by the parties should be submitted to the Bureau in a  xwritten pleading for resolution, along with copies of the documents at issue with the disputed information"jB0*%%ZZ"  x<intact. As with all discovery matters, the parties should make good faith attempts to resolve any discovery disputes before presenting such a dispute to the Bureau.  S- ` x18.` ` Any documents, answers to written interrogatories, or deposition transcripts, if any,  xproduced during discovery, and the information revealed thereby, shall not be provided to any third party  xLother than the Commission. Copies of all documents, answers to written interrogatories, and deposition  xtranscripts produced shall be stamped with the statement: "This document is subject to a protective order  x-entered by the Federal Communications Commission." It shall be the responsibility of the party producing the documents, answers to written interrogatories, or deposition transcripts to affix the stamp.  Sp- ` x19.` ` The parties must take reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized access to the  xkdocuments, answers to written interrogatories, and deposition transcripts. Access must be limited to  xjComplainants, the management of WCTV, their attorneys and staffs, and expert witnesses. Either party  xymay require the other to disclose in writing the names of staff and experts who have access to documents  xyand written information. Each party must explain to all staff and experts that the documents, answers to  xwritten interrogatories, deposition transcripts, and their contents may not be disclosed to any entity other than the Commission.  S0- ` x20.` ` None of the materials produced, nor the contents thereof, may be used for any purpose  x>other than the prosecution of the instant complaint. Each individual who is provided access to these  S- xmaterials is hereby required to certify in writing that he or she has personally reviewed this Order and  S- xunderstands the limitations imposed on the signing party. No copies of materials protected by this Order  S- xmay be made except copies to be used by the persons identified in paragraph 26. Each party shall  xmaintain a log recording the number of copies made of all proprietary material and the persons to whom  x[the copies have been provided. Upon termination of this proceeding, including any appeals, petitions or  xsettlement, all originals and reproductions of any protected materials, along with the log recording persons  xwho received copies of such materials, shall be provided to the producing party. In addition, upon final  xtermination of the proceeding, any notes or other work product derived in whole or in part from the protected materials of an opposing party shall be destroyed.  ST- ` x21.` ` The parties may agree to additional reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of  xinformation as the circumstances may warrant. Such agreement should be confirmed in writing and a copy  S- xkprovided to the Bureau. As noted in the Declaratory Ruling, any failure to abide by the terms of this  xprotective order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the complaint or censure,  S-suspension, or disbarment of the attorneys involved. See 47 C.F.R.  1.24. x  Sh- ` nx22.` ` Extensions of the discovery period (Appendix C) will be granted only where extraordinary  xcircumstances exist and the parties agree to the extension, or both parties submit declarations that serious  xsettlement discussions are ongoing. Any deadlines within the discovery period may be changed by mutual  xyagreement, with notification to the Bureau, as long as all discovery is completed within the required time.  xService of documents, discovery requests, and any pleading which requires a ruling by the Bureau is to  xoccur by the dates set in Appendix C, unless modified by the Bureau or by mutual agreement of the parties. "P$0*%%ZZ%"Ԍ S- ` 4x23.` ` Within 30 days after completion of discovery, Complainants must file an amended  xcomplaint, alleging specific facts based on the information discovered, stating the nature of the  315(b)(1)  xviolation and the amounts said to be owed. After WCTV has filed its answer, the parties shall file with  xthe Bureau their election to have the complaint resolved either by the Bureau or by Alternative Dispute Resolution.  S- ` Px24.` ` Settlement of lowest unit charge claims is strongly encouraged. Although the Commission  xyretains its discretion to determine whether additional sanctions are warranted, the Commission is inclined  S- xto look with favor upon a settlement in making that determination. See Declaratory Ruling, 6 FCC Rcd at 7521, n.52.  SJ - ` x25.` ` ACCORDINGLY, we find that a prima facie case of a violation of the Commission's  xlowest unit charge requirement has been established by Complainant Miller regarding the 1990 primary,  xrunoff and general elections, and Complainant Isakson regarding the 1990 general election, in connection  xwith advertising aired on WCTV. The parties are hereby ORDERED to follow the procedures and  xMtimetable for discovery, postdiscovery, and election of a complaint resolution procedure established  S -herein.  yO-#X\  P6G;qP#эx#C\  P6QP#Complainants request that the Commission order the payment of interest and attorneys' fees. We note  {O-that the Commission lacks authority to require such payments. See Turner V. FCC, 514 F.2d 1354 (1975). #K\  P@QqP#э ` ` x  S4- ` x26.` ` We find that Complainants Chiles, Nelson, and Miller have failed to establish a prima  S- xfacie case of a violation of the Commission's lowest unit charge requirement with regard to the 1994  S- x[primary and general elections. Complainants also have failed to establish a prima facie case with respect  x\to allegations that WCTV engaged in rate discrimination or failed to disclose all information about the  xMcharacteristics associated with the station rate structure during the 1990 election period. Thus, these  xComplainants' claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. Finally, we find that Complainants have failed  SJ- x.to establish a prima facie case of a violation of  312(a)(7) during the 1990 or 1994 election periods, and thus these allegations are DISMISSED in their entirety.     S-x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhRoy J. Stewart x` `  hhChief, Mass Media Bureau"  "0*%%ZZ/"  S-x` `  hh APPENDIX A    DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED TO COMPLAINANTS  S`-  S8-  xjTo the extent not already produced to Bureau and Complainants, certain documents shall be produced to  S- x\Complainants Miller and Isakson as to the 1990 general election and Miller as to the 1990 runoff and  xprimary elections by delivering them to the offices of Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, 166  xAnderson Street, Suite 25, Marietta, Georgia 30060 in accordance with the procedures outlined in this Order. The documents to be produced are as follows:  x1) All advertising contracts executed by or on behalf of candidates for public office in connection with the 1990 primary, runoff and general elections.  xM2) All invoices, logs or other documents recording time, duration, or class of advertising time for each  xpolitical advertisement ordered and/or aired on behalf of candidates for public office in connection with the 1990 primary and general elections.  x3) Copies of invoices and contracts for, and program logs related to: all commercial time run on WCTV  xincluding the 45 days preceding the 1990 primary elections and 60 days preceding the 1990 general elections. This should include:  x>a) All invoices, logs or other documents recording time, duration, or class of advertising time for each  xycommercial spot aired, and, if not apparent from the preceding, documents reflecting all agency discounts provided by the station;  xb) All long term contracts that pertain to commercial spots, including make goods and bonus spots, that aired during this period;  xc) All addenda or memoranda relating to these invoices or contracts that alter or otherwise address the terms or provisions of any document subject to production pursuant to this document production order; d) All orders for commercial spots aired during this period, including confirmation orders or contracts;  xe) All orders for bonus spots, public service announcements, or any other type of free spots, for any of the commercial advertisers who purchased time that ran during this period; and  xf) All documents that describe the rate and other relevant terms (those that affect price or have a direct  xybearing on the characteristics, such as class of time, or any priorities against preemption, of each spot) of discount packages sold to commercial advertisers that included spots that aired during this period. "H$ 0*%%ZZ%"Ԍ x4. All documents used by WCTV to explain to its sales personnel or other employees or agents dealing  xwith political campaigns, or the agents of political campaigns, the application of the lowest unit charge  x{provisions of Section 315(b) of the Communications Act. This should include any written policy statement(s) used by WCTV in 1990 which directly or indirectly related to WCTV's pricing policies.  x5. All documents reflecting the existence, implementation, and results of any audit of rates charged to  xpolitical advertisers performed by or on behalf of WCTV with respect to the 1990 primary and general  x]elections, including any provision of rebates to such political advertisers, as well as all documents  xexplaining or detailing the methodology used by in performing any such audit or providing any such rebates. "p 0*%%ZZ"  S- ` `   APPENDIX B  S-    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO Ѓ  S`-v COMPLAINANTS MILLER, ISAKSON, CHILES, AND NELSON ă  xAnswers to the following interrogatories shall be provided to Complainants in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Order: 1) Describe how WCTV arrived at its LUC for the 1990 primary, runoff and general elections.  x2) Detail any actions taken by WCTV to ensure that political advertisers were, in fact, charged the lowest  xunit rate for the same class and amount of time during the same time periods which ran during the 45 days  x preceding the 1990 primary elections and 60 days preceding the 1990 general elections. This should  xinclude the identities of all individuals taking or participating in such action, identifying their position at  xWCTV, and should identify all documents which refer to or formed a part of WCTV's efforts to ensure that candidates received the LUC.  x3) Provide a statement that indicates the class and length of each commercial spot, if not apparent from the program logs, invoices or contracts, that aired during the relevant time period.  xy4) Provide a statement that explains any codes used by WCTV or its sales representatives to indicate the  x{rate, section or class of spot identified in confirmation contracts, program logs, affidavits of actual broadcast or other documents relating to advertising rates.  xl5) Provide a statement that explains to what extent, if any, WCTV accorded any priorities against  xpreemption to commercial advertisers who purchased time relevant to the 1990 primary and general  xperiods. To the extent that such priorities against preemption were given, explain whether this priority treatment was known to any commercial advertiser when the time was contracted for. "x 0*%%ZZ}"  S-+ APPENDIX C  S-i TIMETABLE FOR DISCOVERY AND POSTDISCOVERY ă First day of discovery period (30  S8-days after release of this Order):hh@hpp  Day 1 Documents in Appendix A and Answers to  S-Written Interrogatories in Appendix B due:@hpp  Day 1 Request by Complainants for further discovery (production of additional documents, answers to additional written interrogatories, and/or for the taking  S -of depositions) due: hh@hpp  Day 15 Opposition by WCTV to Complainants  SX-request for further discovery due:hh@hpp  Day 20 WCTV's request for discovery (production of documents, answers to written interrogatories,  S-and/or for the taking of depositions) due: @hpp  Day 20 Opposition by Complainants  S@-to WCTV's request for discovery due: hh@hpp  Day 27 Documents and answers to written interrogatories (if allowed by Bureau) pursuant to WCTV's  Sx-request for discovery due:hh@hpp  Day 45 Production of additional documents and/or answers to additional written interrogatories (if allowed by Bureau) pursuant to Complainants request for further discovery  S-due: ` `  hh@hpp  Day 60  S`-Final day of discovery period:hh@hpp  Day 60 Complainants  S -amended complaint due:hh@hpp  Day 90  S"-WCTV's answer to amended complaint due: @hpp  Day 105  SH$-Joint notice of election of complaint resolution procedure due:pp  Day 116