Sec.  76.1003   Program access proceedings.

   (a) Complaints. Any multichannel video programming distributor aggrieved by
   conduct that it believes constitute a violation of the regulations set forth
   in this subpart may commence an adjudicatory proceeding at the Commission to
   obtain enforcement of the rules through the filing of a complaint. The
   complaint shall be filed and responded to in accordance with the procedures
   specified in  Sec. 76.7 of this part with the following additions or changes:

   (b) Prefiling notice required. Any aggrieved multichannel video programming
   distributor intending to file a complaint under this section must first
   notify the potential defendant cable operator, and/or the potential
   defendant satellite cable programming vendor or satellite broadcast
   programming vendor, that it intends to file a complaint with the Commission
   based on actions alleged to violate one or more of the provisions contained
   in  Sec.  Sec. 76.1001 or 76.1002 of this part. The notice must be sufficiently
   detailed so that its recipient(s) can determine the specific nature of the
   potential complaint. The potential complainant must allow a minimum of ten
   (10) days for the potential defendant(s) to respond before filing a
   complaint with the Commission.

   (c) Contents of complaint. In addition to the requirements of  Sec. 76.7 of this
   part, a program access complaint shall contain:

   (1) The type of multichannel video programming distributor that describes
   complainant, the address and telephone number of the complainant, whether
   the defendant is a cable operator, satellite broadcast programming vendor or
   satellite cable programming vendor (describing each defendant), and the
   address and telephone number of each defendant;

   (2) Evidence that supports complainant's belief that the defendant, where
   necessary, meets the attribution standards for application of the program
   access requirements;

   (3) Evidence that the complainant competes with the defendant cable
   operator, or with a multichannel video programming distributor that is a
   customer of the defendant satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast
   programming vendor;

   (4) In complaints alleging discrimination, documentary evidence such as a
   rate card or a programming contract that demonstrates a differential in
   price, terms or conditions between complainant and a competing multichannel
   video programming distributor or, if no programming contract or rate card is
   submitted with the complaint, an affidavit signed by an officer of
   complainant alleging that a differential in price, terms or conditions
   exits, a description of the nature and extent (if known or reasonably
   estimated by the complainant) of the differential, together with a statement
   that defendant refused to provide any further specific comparative
   information;

   (5) If a programming contract or a rate card is submitted with the complaint
   in support of the alleged violation, specific references to the relevant
   provisions therein;

   (6) In complaints alleging exclusivity violations:

   (i) The identity of both the programmer and cable operator who are parties
   to the alleged prohibited agreement,

   (ii) Evidence that complainant can or does serve the area specified in the
   complaint, and

   (iii) Evidence that the complainant has requested to purchase the relevant
   programming and has been refused or unanswered;

   (7) In complaints alleging a violation of  Sec. 76.1001 of this part, evidence
   demonstrating that the behavior complained of has harmed complainant.

   (8) The complaint must be accompanied by appropriate evidence demonstrating
   that the required notification pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section has
   been made.

   (d) Damages requests. (1) In a case where recovery of damages is sought, the
   complaint shall contain a clear and unequivocal request for damages and
   appropriate allegations in support of such claim in accordance with the
   requirements of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

   (2) Damages will not be awarded upon a complaint unless specifically
   requested. Damages may be awarded if the complaint complies fully with the
   requirement of paragraph (d)(3) of this section where the defendant knew, or
   should have known that it was engaging in conduct violative of section 628.

   (3) In all cases in which recovery of damages is sought, the complainant
   shall include within, or as an attachment to, the complaint, either:

   (i) A computation of each and every category of damages for which recovery
   is sought, along with an identification of all relevant documents and
   materials or such other evidence to be used by the complainant to determine
   the amount of such damages; or

   (ii) An explanation of:

   (A) The information not in the possession of the complaining party that is
   necessary to develop a detailed computation of damages;

   (B) The reason such information is unavailable to the complaining party;

   (C) The factual basis the complainant has for believing that such evidence
   of damages exists; and

   (D) A detailed outline of the methodology that would be used to create a
   computation of damages when such evidence is available.

   (e) Answer. (1) Any cable operator, satellite cable programming vendor or
   satellite broadcast programming vendor upon which a program access complaint
   is served under this section shall answer within twenty (20) days of service
   of the complaint, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.

   (2) An answer to an exclusivity complaint shall provide the defendant's
   reasons for refusing to sell the subject programming to the complainant. In
   addition, the defendant may submit its programming contracts covering the
   area specified in the complaint with its answer to refute allegations
   concerning the existence of an impermissible exclusive contract. If there
   are no contracts governing the specified area, the defendant shall so
   certify in its answer. Any contracts submitted pursuant to this provision
   may be protected as proprietary pursuant to  Sec. 76.9 of this part.

   (3) An answer to a discrimination complaint shall state the reasons for any
   differential in prices, terms or conditions between the complainant and its
   competitor, and shall specify the particular justification set forth in
    Sec. 76.1002(b) of this part relied upon in support of the differential.

   (i) When responding to allegations concerning price discrimination, except
   in cases in which the alleged price differential is de minimis (less than or
   equal to five cents per subscriber or five percent, whichever is greater),
   the defendant shall provide documentary evidence to support any argument
   that the magnitude of the differential is not discriminatory.

   (ii) In cases involving a price differential of less than or equal to five
   cents per subscriber or five percent, whichever is greater, the answer shall
   identify the differential as de minimis and state that the defendant is
   therefore not required to justify the magnitude of the differential.

   (iii) If the defendant believes that the complainant and its competitor are
   not sufficiently similar, the answer shall set forth the reasons supporting
   this conclusion, and the defendant may submit an alternative contract for
   comparison with a similarly situated multichannel video programming
   distributor that uses the same distribution technology as the competitor
   selected for comparison by the complainant. The answer shall state the
   defendant's reasons for any differential between the prices, terms and
   conditions between the complainant and such similarly situated distributor,
   and shall specify the particular justifications in  Sec. 76.1002(b) of this part
   relied upon in support of the differential. The defendant shall also provide
   with its answer written documentary evidence to support its justification of
   the magnitude of any price differential between the complainant and such
   similarly situated distributor that is not de minimis.

   (4) An answer to a complaint alleging an unreasonable refusal to sell
   programming shall state the defendant's reasons for refusing to sell to the
   complainant, or for refusing to sell to the complainant on the same terms
   and conditions as complainant's competitor, and shall specify why the
   defendant's actions are not discriminatory.

   (f) Reply. Within fifteen (15) days after service of an answer, unless
   otherwise directed by the Commission, the complainant may file and serve a
   reply which shall be responsive to matters contained in the answer and shall
   not contain new matters.

   (g) Time limit on filing of complaints. Any complaint filed pursuant to this
   subsection must be filed within one year of the date on which one of the
   following events occurs:

   (1) The satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming
   vendor enters into a contract with the complainant that the complainant
   alleges to violate one or more of the rules contained in this subpart; or

   (2) The satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming
   vendor offers to sell programming to the complainant pursuant to terms that
   the complainant alleges to violate one or more of the rules contained in
   this subpart, and such offer to sell programming is unrelated to any
   existing contract between the complainant and the satellite cable
   programming or satellite broadcast programming vendor; or

   (3) The complainant has notified a cable operator, or a satellite cable
   programming vendor or a satellite broadcast programming vendor that it
   intends to file a complaint with the Commission based on a request to
   purchase or negotiate to purchase satellite cable programming or satellite
   broadcast programming, or has made a request to amend an existing contract
   pertaining to such programming pursuant to  Sec. 76.1002(f) of this part that has
   been denied or unacknowledged, allegedly in violation of one or more of the
   rules contained in this subpart.

   (h) Remedies for violations—(1) Remedies authorized. Upon completion of such
   adjudicatory proceeding, the Commission shall order appropriate remedies,
   including, if necessary, the imposition of damages, and/or the establishment
   of prices, terms, and conditions for the sale of programming to the
   aggrieved multichannel video programming distributor. Such order shall set
   forth a timetable for compliance, and shall become effective upon release.

   (2) Additional sanctions. The remedies provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this
   section are in addition to and not in lieu of the sanctions available under
   title V or any other provision of the Communications Act.

   (3) Imposition of damages. (i) Bifurcation. In all cases in which damages
   are requested, the Commission may bifurcate the program access violation
   determination from any damage adjudication.

   (ii) Burden of proof. The burden of proof regarding damages rests with the
   complainant, who must demonstrate with specificity the damages arising from
   the program access violation. Requests for damages that grossly overstate
   the amount of damages may result in a Commission determination that the
   complainant failed to satisfy its burden of proof to demonstrate with
   specificity the damages arising from the program access violation.

   (iii) Damages adjudication. (A) The Commission may, in its discretion, end
   adjudication of damages with a written order determining the sufficiency of
   the damages computation submitted in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of
   this section or the damages computation methodology submitted in accordance
   with paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, modifying such computation or
   methodology, or requiring the complainant to resubmit such computation or
   methodology.

   (1) Where the Commission issues a written order approving or modifying a
   damages computation submitted in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this
   section, the defendant shall recompense the complainant as directed therein.

   (2) Where the Commission issues a written order approving or modifying a
   damages computation methodology submitted in accordance with paragraph
   (d)(3)(ii)(D) of this section, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to
   reach an agreement on the exact amount of damages pursuant to the
   Commission-mandated methodology.

   (B) Within thirty days of the issuance of a paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(D) of this
   section damages methodology order, the parties shall submit jointly to the
   Commission either:

   (1) A statement detailing the parties' agreement as to the amount of
   damages;

   (2) A statement that the parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith
   and a request that the parties be given an extension of time to continue
   negotiations; or

   (3) A statement detailing the bases for the continuing dispute and the
   reasons why no agreement can be reached.

   (C)(1) In cases in which the parties cannot resolve the amount of damages
   within a reasonable time period, the Commission retains the right to
   determine the actual amount of damages on its own, or through the procedures
   described in paragraph (h)(3)(iii)(C)(2) of this section.

   (2) Issues concerning the amount of damages may be designated by the Chief,
   Media Bureau for hearing before, or, if the parties agree, submitted for
   mediation to, a Commission Administrative Law Judge.

   (D) Interest on the amount of damages awarded will accrue from either the
   date indicated in the Commission's written order issued pursuant to
   paragraph (h)(3)(iii)(A)(1) of this section or the date agreed upon by the
   parties as a result of their negotiations pursuant to paragraph
   (h)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section. Interest shall be computed at applicable
   rates published by the Internal Revenue Service for tax refunds.

   [ 64 FR 6572 , Feb. 10, 1999, as amended at  67 FR 13235 , Mar. 21, 2002]