[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13783]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of the Secretary



_______________________________________________________________________




Proprietary Information Submitted by the Federal National Mortgage 
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Secretary
[Docket No. N-94-3786; FR-3734-N-01]

 
Proprietary Information Submitted by the Federal National 
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development.

ACTION: Notice of temporary order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice sets forth the Order of the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development that certain information submitted by the Federal 
National Mortgage Association (``Fannie Mae'', ``Government-Sponsored 
Enterprise'', or ``GSE'') and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation (``Freddie Mac'', ``Government-Sponsored Enterprise'', or 
``GSE'') to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD'') 
is proprietary and shall not be disclosed to the public at this time.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER: May 31, 1994.

COMMENTS: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this Notice of Temporary Order to the Rules Docket Clerk, room 10276, 
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. 
Comments will be considered in developing any subsequent order and 
regulations implementing the Secretary's regulatory authority 
respecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be proposed this summer. While 
no deadline has been set for comments to be considered in developing 
the regulations, comments must be received prior to the deadline date 
established in the proposed regulations.
    Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. 
Facsimilie (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each 
communication submitted will be available for public inspection and 
copying during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern 
Time) at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harold L. Bunce, Acting Director, Financial Institutions Regulation 
Staff, telephone (202) 708-1464 or Kenneth A. Markison, Assistant 
General Counsel for Government-Sponsored Enterprises/RESPA, telephone 
(202) 708-3137; Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410. A telecommunications device 
(TDD) for hearing- or speech-impaired persons (TDD) is available at 
(202) 708-0770. (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Temporary Order

    By the authority vested in me as Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, under sections 1323 and 1326 of the Federal Housing 
Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act, 12 U.S.C. 4543 and 4546, 
I have determined that certain information, identified in the attached 
Exhibit A, contained in the loan-level data files which were submitted 
by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan 
Mortgage Corporation to the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, as required under the Interim Housing Goals, should be 
deemed proprietary information. Accordingly, under the authority of 
section 1326 of the Act, I hereby order that this information be 
withheld from public disclosure at this time. The basis and terms of 
this Temporary Order are set forth fully below.

Background

    The Federal Housing Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act 
of 1992, enacted as Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development 
Act of 1992, (Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), codified 
generally at 12 U.S.C. 4501-4561 (``the Act''),\1\ requires the 
Secretary to establish and monitor the performance of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac in meeting annual goals for mortgage purchases on housing 
for low- and moderate-income families, housing located in central 
cities, and special affordable housing, i.e., housing meeting the needs 
of and affordable to low-income families in low-income areas and very 
low-income families. On October 13, 1993, the Secretary published the 
housing goals and requirements for the GSEs' mortgage purchases for the 
1993-94 transition period in Notices of Interim Housing Goals (``the 
Notices''). 58 FR 53047-53096.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Unless otherwise specified, all section cites herein are 
cites to the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and 
Soundness Act of 1992. Sections 1331-1336 of that Act are codified 
at 12 U.S.C. 4561-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Notices, the Secretary required the GSEs to submit 
certain data on their mortgage purchases by March 1, 1994. This 
information is to assist the Secretary in monitoring the GSEs' 
performance under the goals and to satisfy the requirements of 
subsections 309(m)-(n) of the Federal National Mortgage Association 
Charter Act, 12 U.S.C. 1723a(m)-(n), and subsections 307(e)-(f) of the 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act, 12 U.S.C. 1456(e)-(f). 
Sections 309(m) and 307(e) under these Acts mandate that the GSEs 
collect, maintain and provide to the Secretary data relating to their 
mortgages on single family and multifamily housing and sections 309(n) 
and 307(f) require that the GSEs report aggregate information on their 
mortgages to Congress.
    Under the Notices, the Secretary required each GSE to provide 
information in two forms--loan-level data files that provide detailed 
information on each mortgage loan purchased by the GSE, and data 
reports that aggregate data on mortgage loans in various ways. In 
addition, the Secretary required each GSE to provide a written report 
discussing its performance under the housing goals. The information 
required in the loan-level data files includes detailed information on 
individual loans purchased by the GSEs including: The borrower(s') 
annual income, race, and gender; census tract; other geographic 
identifiers; loan-to-value ratio; number of units; owner-occupancy 
status; and other details on the mortgage, the property, and the 
borrower(s). The information required for the data reports includes 
aggregate data concerning: The amount of mortgage purchases that 
qualify towards each housing goal, classified by number of units and 
dollar volume; mortgagors' income; race; location of property; and 
various other categories.

Legal Requirements Regarding Proprietary Information

    Section 1323 of the Act, 12 U.S.C. 4543, provides that the 
Secretary shall make available to the public the data submitted by the 
GSEs in the reports required under section 309(m) of the Federal 
National Mortgage Association Charter Act and section 307(e) of the 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act except the data that the 
Secretary determines by regulation or order pursuant to section 1326, 
12 U.S.C. 4546, is proprietary. Section 1323(b)(2) of the Act, 12 
U.S.C. 4543(b)(2), specifically provides that the Secretary may not 
restrict access to data consisting of income, census tract location, 
race, and gender of mortgagors of single family properties. Section 
1326 provides that the Secretary may by regulation or order provide 
that certain information shall be treated as proprietary and, pending 
the issuance of a final decision on the matter, the material may not be 
disclosed.
    The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under Exemption 4, 5 U.S.C. 
552(b)(4), allows confidential business information to be protected 
from disclosure, and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905, forbids 
Government officers and employees from releasing trade secret and other 
confidential business information. Executive Order No. 12,600, 3 CFR at 
235 (1988), requires that agencies notify submitters of confidential 
business information of requests under FOIA for such information and 
that agencies afford submitters an opportunity to comment on release of 
the requested information. If an agency determines to release 
notwithstanding a submitted objection, the Executive Order requires 
that the agency notify the submitter reasonably prior to release. The 
President of the United States, by memorandum, dated October 4, 1993, 
to Heads of Departments and Agencies, emphasized the importance of 
public disclosures under FOIA and an implementing memorandum from the 
Attorney General, attached to the President's memorandum, instructed 
agencies to disclose information unless disclosure would harm an 
interest protected by a FOIA exemption. The President's and the 
Attorney General's memoranda do not alter Executive Order No. 12,600.
    In addition to the legal requirements respecting proprietary 
information, the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and FOIA Exemption 
6, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), pertain to the disclosure of information on 
individuals. Accordingly, even if information is not withheld as 
proprietary, it still may be withheld pursuant to the Privacy Act or 
Exemption 6.

Information Regarded as Proprietary by the GSEs

    Prior to March 1, 1994, Departmental staff met separately with 
staff of each GSE to discuss the subject of proprietary information in 
view of the impending deadline for receipt of materials by HUD in 
accordance with the Notices. Fannie Mae staff advised that, 
notwithstanding that it considered most of the information submitted 
under the Notice to be proprietary, Fannie Mae sought for HUD to 
withhold only certain data from the loan-level data files because, if 
released, such data would cause substantial competitive harm to Fannie 
Mae.
    Both GSEs pointed out that, because the Act requires the Secretary 
to release information on census tract location of properties, 
releasing other details on specific loans such as unpaid principal 
balance (UPB), date of mortgage note, loan type, loan-to-value ratio 
(LTV), and similar terms would cause competitive harm by permitting the 
other GSE or other market competitors to gain competitive advantage 
from the information. For example the GSEs argue that: Releasing loan-
level information on each properties' UPB and census tract location 
will reveal what size loans a GSE is willing to buy in a particular 
area, at what prices and on what terms, and that such information will 
assist competitors in the same market and other markets. Likewise, 
customers will use the information to obtain insight into each GSEs' 
pricing and marketing strategies.
    Correspondence from the GSEs details the GSEs' objections to 
release of items in the loan-level data files. This correspondence, 
attached to and incorporated in this Notice of Temporary Order, 
includes: Exhibit B--a letter from Anthony F. Marra, Senior Vice 
President and Deputy General Counsel of Fannie Mae, to Kenneth A. 
Markison, Assistant General Counsel for Administrative Law, dated March 
11, 1994; and Exhibit C--a letter from Allan G. Ratner, Vice President 
and Deputy General Counsel of Freddie Mac, to Mr. Markison, dated May 
9, 1994. This correspondence lists the particular data items that each 
GSE requested be withheld.
    Freddie Mac requested the withholding of more items than Fannie 
Mae. Both GSEs requested that the Secretary treat the GSEs' information 
the same so that any information deemed proprietary for one GSE is 
deemed proprietary for the other GSE. Accordingly, where only one GSE 
requested proprietary treatment for a particular category of 
information, this Temporary Order provides that such information is 
treated as proprietary for both GSEs. Exhibit A identifies the items 
requested to be withheld as proprietary: Solely by Freddie Mac (marked 
with an ``*''); solely by Fannie Mae (marked with ``**''); and by both 
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (unmarked).

Conclusion

    The Department will comply fully with the requirements of the Act 
and will make available to the public data submitted to HUD by the 
GSEs, consisting of income, census tract location, race, and gender of 
mortgagors of single family properties. However, having considered the 
views of the GSEs concerning the disclosure of the remainder of the 
data and the statutory requirements concerning withholding proprietary 
information, it is concluded that a Temporary Order is necessary to 
protect other information submitted by the GSEs, not in the foregoing 
categories, which the GSEs regard as proprietary.
    The legislative history of the Act characterizes the lack of 
information on the GSEs' performance as ``an information vacuum.'' S. 
Rep. No. 102-282, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1992). The legislative 
history notes that ``public access and disclosure of information is a 
key tool for permitting appropriate public scrutiny and oversight of 
the activities of the [GSEs] and in evaluating possible improvements in 
housing finance markets.'' ID. at 44. On the other hand, the Act also 
protects proprietary information from release. Based on the submissions 
of both GSEs, the information in the attached Exhibit A shall be deemed 
proprietary. The Secretary further concludes, however, that: This Order 
should be temporary; the public should be accorded full opportunity to 
comment during the regulatory process; and this Temporary Order should 
expire no later than the date regulations fully addressing this subject 
are effective.
    This Temporary Order does not extend to aggregated data information 
in the data reports and the written reports submitted by Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. Such data are not regarded as causing substantial 
competitive harm by the GSEs and, at such time as this information is 
requested by the public, it will be released. Even though loan-level 
information is not deemed proprietary under this Temporary Order, other 
statutes, including the Privacy Act of 1974 and Exemption 6 of FOIA, 
may pertain and result in withholding of information.

Expiration and Modification of This Temporary Order

    This Temporary Order shall be effective until such time as it is 
determined necessary and/or appropriate to withdraw or modify it. Final 
GSE regulations will fully address the disclosure and withholding of 
information under the Act and this Temporary Order will, in any event, 
expire when the final regulations are published. Pending final 
regulations, the Department will work with the GSEs to narrow the list 
of items withheld and develop ways that information deemed proprietary 
under this Temporary Order may be released without disclosing 
proprietary information. This Temporary Order may be modified if it is 
determined that additional information should be made available to the 
public. Any such determination will be conducted in accordance with the 
Act. In any event, in responding to FOIA requests, the Department will 
follow the procedures in Executive Order 12,600, as applicable.

Release in Response to Requests on Behalf of Congressional Committee or 
Subcommittee, the Comptroller General, a Subpoena or Other Legal 
Process

    If the Department receives a request on behalf of a Congressional 
Committee or Subcommittee, the Comptroller General, a subpoena from a 
court of competent jurisdiction, or is otherwise compelled by law to 
release information determined to be proprietary under this Temporary 
Order, the Department will provide the information in accordance with 
the request without regard to the provisions of this Temporary Order. 
In releasing requested information under this paragraph, the Department 
will include a statement with the information to the effect that the 
Secretary has determined that the information is subject to this 
Temporary Order, the GSEs' regard the information as proprietary, and 
public disclosure of the information may cause competitive harm to the 
GSEs. To the extent practical, the Department will provide notice to 
the GSEs after a request under this paragraph is received and before 
the information is provided in response to the request.

    Dated: May 31, 1994.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.

Exhibit A

   List of Proprietary Information Contained in Loan Level Data Files   
                 Submitted by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Field description                      Field position   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Family:                                                          
  Acquisition UPB*................................  80-85               
  Loan-to-Value Ratio at Origination..............  86-88               
  Date of Mortgage Note*..........................  89-94               
  Date of Acquisition*............................  95-100              
  Purpose of Loan**...............................  101                 
  Cooperative Unit Mortgage.......................  102                 
  Refinancing Loan From Own Portfolio.............  103                 
  Special Affordable, Seasoned Loan Proceeds        104                 
   Recycled*.                                                           
  Product Type....................................  105-106             
  RTC/FDIC........................................  108                 
  Term of Mortgage at Origination*................  109-111             
  Amortization Term*..............................  112-114             
  Seller Institution..............................  115                 
  Mortgage Purchased Under GSE's Community Lending  118                 
   Program.                                                             
  Acquisition Type................................  119                 
  GSE Real Estate Owned*..........................  120                 
  Public Subsidy Program..........................  121                 
  Occupancy Code..................................  132                 
  Number of Units.................................  133                 
  Unit 1 Number of Bedrooms (if property has 2-4    134                 
   units)*.                                                             
  Unit 1 Owner-Occupied (if property has 2-4        135                 
   units)*.                                                             
  Unit 1 Affordability Category (if property has 2- 136                 
   4 units)*.                                                           
  Unit 1 Reported Rent Level (if property has 2-4   137-141             
   units)*.                                                             
  Unit 1 Reported Rent Plus Utilities (if property  142-146             
   has 2-4 units)*.                                                     
  Unit 2 Number of Bedrooms*......................  147                 
  Unit 2 Owner-Occupied*..........................  148                 
  Unit 2 Affordability Category*..................  149                 
  Unit 2 Reported Rent Level*.....................  150-154             
  Unit 2 Reported Rent Plus Utilities*............  155-159             
  Unit 3 Number of Bedrooms*......................  160                 
  Unit 3 Owner-Occupied*..........................  161                 
  Unit 3 Affordability Category*..................  162                 
  Unit 3 Reported Rent Level*.....................  163-167             
  Unit 3 Reported Rent Plus Utilities*............  168-172             
  Unit 4 Number of Bedrooms*......................  173                 
  Unit 4 Owner-Occupied*..........................  174                 
  Unit 4 Affordability Category*..................  175                 
  Unit 4 Reported Rent Level*.....................  176-180             
  Unit 4 Reported Rent Plus Utilities*............  181-185             
Multifamily:                                                            
  U.S. Postal Zip Code............................  13-17               
  Affordability Category*.........................  70                  
  Acquisition UPB.................................  71-76               
  Participation Percent*..........................  77-80               
  Date of Mortgage Note...........................  81-86               
  Date of Acquisition*............................  87-92               
  Purpose of Loan**...............................  93                  
  Cooperative Project Loan........................  94                  
  Refinancing Loan From Own Portfolio*............  95                  
  Special Affordable, Seasoned Loans: Are Proceeds  96                  
   Recycled?*.                                                          
  Mortgagor Type*.................................  97                  
  Term of Mortgage at Origination.................  98-100              
  Loan Type.......................................  101                 
  Amortization Term*..............................  102-104             
  Seller Institution*.............................  105                 
  Acquisition Type................................  107                 
  GSE Real Estate Owned*..........................  108                 
  Public Subsidy Program*.........................  109                 
  Total Number of Units...........................  110-114             
  Special Affordable--45 percent*.................  115-123             
  Special Affordable--55 percent*.................  124-132             
  Unit Type XX--Number of Bedroom(s)*.............  133                 
  Unit Type XX--Number of Units*..................  ###                 
  Unit Type XX--Average Reported Rent Level.......  ###-###             
  Unit Type XX--Average Reported Rent Plus          ###-###             
   Utilities.                                                           
  Unit Type XX--Affordability Level*..............  ###-###             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Only Freddie Mac asserted that this data was proprietary.              
**Only Fannie Mae asserted that this data was proprietary.              

Exhibit B

March 11, 1994.
Mr. Kenneth A. Markison, Assistant General Counsel for 
Administrative Law, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Room 10252, 451 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20410.

Re: Supplemental Information Regarding Confidentiality of Certain 
Data Submitted March 1, 1994 by Fannie Mae.

    Dear Mr. Markison: This letter summarizes Fannie Mae's views on 
the issue of proprietary information contained in its March 1 
submission to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, which 
contained tapes of loan level detail relating to our purchase of 
single-family and multifamily mortgages.
    We believe that all the information contained in the tapes 
submitted on March 1 is entitled to receive confidential treatment, 
because it is the product of a substantial investment by Fannie Mae. 
Such information is not available publicly and is treated as 
extremely confidential information and closely held within the 
corporation.
    However, in the spirit of providing HUD our fullest cooperation 
as it administers the new public disclosure provisions of 12 U.S.C. 
4543, Fannie Mae is requesting ``proprietary'' and ``confidential'' 
designations for only the elements in the database that would 
advantage competitors or customers at our expense. These elements 
(only 23 of the 108 we are providing) would, if disclosed, 
compromise our efficiency and competitive position in the market 
where we compete day-to-day throughout the country with both Freddie 
Mac and highly innovative Wall Street firms. Disclosure of such 
information would also hurt our bargaining position with companies 
with whom we conduct business. The specific elements for which 
confidentiality is requested are listed and discussed in detail 
below.
    We also request that HUD extend proprietary treatment 
reciprocally both to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that any element 
specifically deemed proprietary or confidential for one corporation 
would be deemed proprietary or confidential also for the other, 
regardless of whether both firms specifically requested such 
treatment.
    Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4546(c), governing disclosure of 
proprietary information, we believe that HUD is required to issue a 
final written decision regarding classification of our data 
submission as ``proprietary'' prior to releasing any such 
information. This decision requirement is an express predicate for 
data disclosure under 12 U.S.C. 4543. We believe that it also should 
govern any release under the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), 
5 U.S.C. 552, by virtue of the enactment of 12 U.S.C. 4546 after 
FOIA, its greater specificity, and Congress' decision not to 
establish any exception regarding FOIA requests.
    Further, it is our understanding that independent of its 
obligations under 12 U.S.C. 4546, HUD will observe the provisions of 
Executive Order No. 12,600 (52 FR 23,781 (1987)) for all data that 
Fannie Mae classifies as proprietary and confidential commercial or 
financial information. That Order recognizes the procedural rights 
of submitters of confidential commercial data to the government, and 
mandates that a recipient agency provide notice and a reasonable 
response time whenever the agency determines that it may be required 
to disclose the requested data. The Order further mandates that if 
an agency overrules a submitter's objection, it must notify the 
submitter in writing and provide an explanation of its decision. The 
agency must provide such an explanation a reasonable number of days 
prior to a specified disclosure date, to afford the submitter an 
opportunity to seek judicial relief if necessary.
    Adherence to the procedures set forth in Executive Order No. 
12,600 accords with existing arrangements between HUD and Fannie Mae 
for treatment of confidential business information submitted by 
Fannie Mae as required by HUD regulations (see letter dated February 
15, 1979 from Irving Margulies, Acting HUD Deputy General Counsel, 
to Bernard Carl, Fannie Mae's outside counsel). These arrangements 
have been in place for over 15 years and have provided a reasonable 
framework for us to submit very sensitive business information to 
HUD. Last year, in response to a FOIA request, HUD had the 
opportunity to implement the agreed-upon procedures for 
notification, and we were able to provide HUD with the reasons that 
certain of the business information previously provided to HUD 
should continue to remain confidential.
    Finally, we request that HUD observe certain additional 
safeguards for requests from Congress regarding data identified by 
Fannie Mae to be proprietary or confidential commercial information. 
In such cases, we request that HUD also provide Fannie Mae with 
notice upon receipt of a congressional request for proprietary or 
confidential data, as well as notice prior to HUD's delivery of 
requested data to Congress, to give us the opportunity to explain to 
Congress the need to protect such data. We also request that HUD 
provide requested confidential data only when accompanied by a 
legend stating that HUD has determined that the material is 
proprietary and exempt from public disclosure under both 5 U.S.C. 
552 and 12 U.S.C. 4546, and that public disclosure would result in 
substantial competitive harm.

Basis for Non-Disclosure to Public

    We have listed below specific data elements contained in the 
Fannie Mae Multifamily Acquisitions, Multifamily Units, and Single-
Family Acquisitions Files that have been submitted to HUD. We are 
requesting HUD's designation of these data elements as both 
``proprietary'' within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 4543, 4546,\1\ and 
confidential commercial or financial information pursuant to 
Exemption 4 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Specifically, the following 
data elements are entitled to such designation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Sections 1323 and 1326 of Pub. L. 102-550 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multifamily Acquisitions

1. Zip code (Ref. 3)
2. Acquisition UPB (Ref. 17)
3. Date of mortgage note (Ref. 19)
4. Coop flag (Ref. 22)
5. Term at origination (Ref. 26)
6. Loan type (more properly amortization) (Ref. 27)
7. Acquisition type (Ref. 31)
8. Total number of units (Ref. 34)
9. Purpose of loan (Ref. 21)

Multifamily Units

1. Average reported rent per bedroom type (Ref. 4)
2. Average reported rent plus utilities per bedroom type (Ref. 5)

Single-Family Acquisitions

1. Loan-to-value LTV ratio at origination (Ref. 19)
2. Product Type (Ref. 26)
3. Seller Institutions (Ref. 31)
4. Purpose of Loan (Ref. 22)
5. Occupancy Code (Ref. 44)
6. Number of Units (Ref. 45)
7. Cooperative Unit Mortgage (Ref. 23)
8. RTC/FDIC (Ref. 28)
9. Public Subsidy Program (Ref. 37)
10. Refinancing from Own Portfolio (Ref. 24)
11. Acquisition Type (Ref. 35)
12. Community Lending Mortgage (Ref. 34)

    The basis for our request derives from the major precedents 
interpreting the FOIA's Exemption 4. The leading case in determining 
whether information provided to the government is ``privileged and 
confidential'' and therefore entitled to be withheld under Exemption 
4 is National Parks & Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F. 2d 
765 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In National Parks, the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals held that the test for confidentiality is an objective one 
that could be determined by a two prong test:

To summarize, commercial or financial matter is ``confidential'' for 
purposes of the exemption if disclosure of the information is likely 
to have either of the following effects: (1) To impair the 
Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; 
or (2) to cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the 
person from whom the information was obtained. Id. at 770.

    The second prong of National Parks is applicable to each of the 
referenced items because, when combined with each other and with 
information on unpaid principal balance (``UPB''), income, and 
precise geographic markers, disclosure would cause us substantial 
competitive harm.

Single-Family Data Elements

    Public disclosure of the entire Single-Family Acquisitions 
database would provide customers and competitors with the elements 
described above at loan level detail, in combination with loan 
amount, race, income, gender, zip code, and census tract. Precise 
details on such factors as loan-to-value ratios, when combined with 
other basic loan level detail, would likely cause substantial 
competitive injury to Fannie Mae by providing competitors and 
customers with valuable insights about our business plans, risk 
assessments and marketing strategies. These insights could lead to 
changes in pricing or negotiating tactics detrimental to the 
company.

Multifamily Data Elements

    The multifamily elements (contained in the Multifamily 
Acquisitions and Multifamily Units Files) that Fannie Mae is 
classifying as proprietary and confidential are: Acquisition UPB; 
date of mortgage note; coop status; term at origination; loan type 
(more properly, amortization); acquisition type; total number of 
units; average reported rent per bedroom type; average reported rent 
plus utilities per bedroom type; purpose of loan, and zip code. 
Public disclosure of this data would reveal key factors in our 
business strategies and successes to our competitors and companies 
with whom we do business. This would subsidize such firms at our 
expense by providing them information they otherwise could acquire 
only at great expense.

Conclusion

    Disclosing the referenced data for both single-family and 
multifamily elements would harm us by subsidizing the competitors' 
acquisition of valuable market information, increasing their 
efficiency at Fannie Mae's expense. Such consequences are precisely 
the type that courts have held justify non-disclosure of information 
under Exemption 4. See, e.g., Gulf & Western Indus. v. United 
States, 615 F.2d 527, 530 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Braintree Electric Light 
Dept. v. Department of Energy, 494 F. Supp. 287, 289 (D.D.C. 1980); 
National Parks & Conservation Association v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 
684 (DC Cir. 1976); and Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger 392 
F. Supp. 1246, 1249 (E.D. Va. 1974).
    Specifically, case law establishes that Exemption 4 is designed 
to protect a ``mosaic'' of data, to shield information that might 
not cause competitive harm on a stand-alone basis, but would be 
harmful in combination with other information available to the 
requester. See e.g., Timken Co. v. United States Customs Serv., 491 
F. Supp. 557, 559 (D.D.C. 1980). Under the precedents, information 
also must be deemed proprietary and confidential if public 
disclosure would displace a submitter from a level competitive 
playing field--by forcing it to divulge sensitive business 
information which competitors may access freely without incurring 
any parallel disclosure obligation to the submitter of the 
information.
    The courts thus will direct ``close attention'' to proposed 
agency disclosures that benefit competitors at the expense of 
submitters, and have disfavored disclosure that affords a potential 
windfall to competitors by providing them data at bargain rates 
rather than the considerable funds that otherwise would be expended 
in private research and development. Worthington Compressors, Inc. 
v. Castle, 662 F.2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981), supplemental opinion 
sub. nom. Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Gorsuch, 668 F.2d 1371 
(DC Cir. 1981). See also Allnet Communication Servs., Inc. v. FCC, 
800 F. Supp. 984, 988-89 (D.D.C. 1992); SMS Data Prods. Group, Inc. 
v. United States Dept. of Air Force, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3156, 35 
Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P 75644 (D.D.C. 1989) (noting that release 
would allow competitors access to information that they would have 
to spend ``considerable funds'' to develop on their own).
    No competitor of Fannie Mae is subject to data disclosure 
requirements of the breadth and detail included in the data elements 
we have submitted to HUD. The information contained in our 1993 
annual report on housing goals, the accompanying tables and the 
proprietary information in the database, as to which we have not 
requested confidential treatment, provide an unprecedented view of 
our business. We have limited our request for confidential treatment 
to only those parts of the database having the likelihood, if 
released, to cause us substantial competitive harm. As a result, our 
request is limited to only approximately 21 percent of the elements 
in the database. Because release of the information, for which we 
have asked for confidentiality, would have clearly adverse 
commercial consequences for us, we request that HUD designate the 
referenced items as ``proprietary pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4546 and 
invoke Exemption 4 to withhold release of such information.
    I hope this discussion and information is helpful to you in 
evaluating our confidentiality request.

      Sincerely,
Anthony F. Marra,
AFM/pab.

Exhibit C

May 9, 1994.
Kenneth Markison, Esquire, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.

    Dear Mr. Markison: The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 
(``Freddie Mac'') has submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (``HUD'') computer tapes that contain single-
family and multifamily loan registries for the mortgages that 
Freddie Mac acquired during 1993. Freddie Mac requests that HUD 
accord proprietary treatment to certain data elements of those loan 
registries because they contain confidential, proprietary Freddie 
Mac information.
    In support of our request, I enclose a memorandum that discusses 
the reasons those data elements must be accorded proprietary 
treatment and an attachment that identifies the individual data 
elements that contain confidential, proprietary Freddie Mac 
information. We would have no objection to your publishing the 
letter, memorandum and attachment in the Federal Register should you 
find it appropriate to do so.
    Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this 
matter or if there is anything further we can provide.
      Sincerely,
Allan G. Ratner,
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel.

    Enclosure

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Request for Proprietary 
Treatment of Certain Loan-Registry Data Elements

    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (``HUD'') 
has required the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (``Freddie 
Mac'') to provide HUD with extensive information on the mortgages 
that Freddie Mac acquired in 1993. HUD identified the general types 
of data required, in its Notice of Interim Housing Goals, 58 FR 
53,047-53,096 (Oct. 13, 1993), and specified the form in which 
Freddie Mac was to submit the data, in a letter dated January 14, 
1994. As so directed, Freddie Mac submitted the required information 
to HUD in the form of two sets of computer tapes and 19 tables.
    The computer tapes contain loan-level information for every 
mortgage that Freddie Mac acquired during 1993. One set of tapes 
includes information on Freddie Mac's 1993 single-family mortgages, 
and it includes from 51 to 66 required data elements for each loan, 
depending on the number of units in the property. The other set of 
tapes contains comparable information for Freddie Mac's 1993 
multifamily mortgages, and it includes a minimum of 42 elements for 
each loan, with additional sets of elements for each additional 
``unit type'' in the property. These two sets of tapes are referred 
to as the ``loan registries.''
    Freddie Mac requests that HUD accord proprietary treatment to 
certain of the data elements contained in the loan registries 
because they contain confidential, proprietary Freddie Mac 
information. Freddie Mac does not, however, object to the public 
release of the 19 tables submitted on March 31, 1994, which contain 
much of the categories of information that Freddie Mac seeks to 
protect from public disclosure--but which disclose the information 
in an aggregated form that is both useful and less likely to reveal 
confidential, proprietary Freddie Mac information.
    We discuss below the reasons that certain loan-registry data 
elements must be treated as proprietary information, and we 
designate the specific data elements affected in an attachment to 
this request. Freddie Mac also requests that any confidential 
treatment accorded to Fannie Mae data apply equally to data 
submitted by Freddie Mac, and vice-versa, so that the same data 
elements will be treated equally for both enterprises.

I. Proprietary Information Generally

A. The Proprietary-Information Balance

    HUD requested the loan registries under section 307(e) of the 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1456(e)). 
While HUD is generally authorized to make such section 307(e) loan-
registry data available to the public (section 1323 of the Federal 
Housing Enterprises Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (``FHEFSSA''), 
12 U.S.C. 4543), HUD is expressly not permitted to make proprietary 
loan-registry data available to the public (FHEFSSA 1326, 12 U.S.C. 
4546). In fact, FHEFSSA provides that no such information is to be 
made available to the public unless and until a final decision has 
been made that the data are not proprietary (FHEFSSA 1326(c), 12 
U.S.C. 4546(c)).
    In effect, FHEFSSA recognizes the inherent tension between (1) 
the provision that directs HUD to make available data that might be 
useful for housing-related research and (2) the provision that 
directs HUD to prevent the financial or competitive harm to the 
enterprises that could flow from providing public access to 
proprietary information. FHEFSSA, however, also provides guidance on 
how the balance between these conflicting directives is to be 
struck.
    That is, FHEFSSA suggests that where reasonable people might 
disagree as to whether information is proprietary or not, the issue 
should be resolved in favor of according the data proprietary 
treatment. Under FHEFSSA, information is not to be made public until 
HUD makes a final determination as to whether the information is 
proprietary. It follows, therefore, that where HUD is unable to make 
that determination to a reasonable degree of certainty, the 
information should not be made public. This treatment of data where 
its proprietary character is uncertain would seem to be especially 
appropriate during the 1993-1994 interim time period.
    The approach that the balance is to be struck against public 
disclosure presumably reflects a recognition on Congress' part that, 
in the long run, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will be able to 
contribute most effectively to the nation's housing needs if they 
retain one of the key attributes of every viable business--the 
ability to protect the confidentiality of business strategies and 
plans. That is, in close cases, the need to protect the fundamentals 
of the enterprises' ability to perform is presumed to outweigh the 
short-term benefits of placing more information on the public 
record.

B. What is ``Proprietary'' Information?

    The term ``proprietary'' is not defined in FHEFSSA and, on the 
face of the term, it could apply to virtually every data element of 
the loan registries: All were developed by Freddie Mac and are 
Freddie Mac's property, and nearly all are the types of information 
that Freddie Mac does not customarily provide to the public. 
However, reading the term in the context of the two competing 
directives described above, the legislative history of the Act and 
analogous case law, it may be more appropriate to interpret 
proprietary information to mean information that Freddie Mac does 
not customarily release to the public--where the release of that 
information could tend to cause financial or competitive injury to 
Freddie Mac, or could tend to impair competition between Freddie Mac 
and Fannie Mae.
    That more-limited interpretation is consistent with the 
legislative history of FHEFSSA. For example, the issue of the scope 
of the term ``proprietary'' information was discussed directly in a 
floor debate of section 515 of the Senate bill (the precursor to the 
proprietary provision of FHEFSSA) involving Senators Seymore and 
Garn:

    Mr. SEYMORE. It is my understanding that section 515 of the bill 
prohibits the Director [the Director was to administer the housing 
goals under the Senate bill] from disclosing to the public 
information provided by the enterprises that the Director determines 
to be proprietary. What types of information does this legislation 
contemplate would be treated as proprietary?
    Mr. GARN. As a general matter, courts have construed various 
types of business information to be proprietary if it might cause 
competitive or financial harm to the company.
    While the legislation contemplates that the Director will 
determine what information is proprietary consistent with current 
legal precedents applicable to other companies, section 515 is 
intended to protect especially information relating to pricing and 
fees. If one of the enterprises learned of the other's pricing and 
fee strategy, it would create an extraordinary competitive 
disadvantage.
    Maintining competition between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is 
essential because there are only two GSE's involved in mortgage 
finance. Congress created the two GSE's expressly for the purpose of 
ensuring competition. This competition has resulted in lowering 
prices and enhancing efficiency to the housing finance market, which 
ultimately benefits homeowners and renters.
    Mr. SEYMORE. So, if I understand the Senator correctly, section 
515 should ensure that information on pricing, fees and other key 
aspects of business strategy will be considered proprietary and 
therefore protected from disclosure to the public.
    Mr. GARN. That is correct. By including this provision in the 
legislation, it was intended that the Director protect from public 
disclosure a broad range of information that might impair 
competition between these two GSE's.

138 Cong. Rec. S8778-S8779 (daily ed. June 24, 1992).
    That interpretation also is consistent with case law 
interpreting Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act 
(``FOIA'') (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), which is probably the case law to 
which the two senators had referred. The term ``proprietary 
information'' does not appear in FOIA, but the principles underlying 
that exemption are similar--but not identical--to those underlying 
section 1326 of FHEFSSA.
    FOIA Exemption 4 applies to ``trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged and 
confidential,'' and courts have applied that exemption to protect 
information that a person is required to submit to a federal agency 
where
    (1) The information was of the type ``which would customarily 
not be released to the public by the person from whom it was 
obtained,'' S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 9 (1964), 
reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418 (quoted in Sterling Drug, Inc. 
v. FTC, 450 F.2d 698, 709 (D.C. Cir. 1971) and Critical Mass Energy 
Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, 872-73 (D.C. Cir. 1992)), and
    (2) The release of the information would be likely to cause 
substantial competitive injury to the person submitting the 
information, see Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 
F.2d 1280, 1291 & n.30 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Gulf & Western Industries, 
Inc. v. United States, 615 F.2d 527, 530 (DC Cir. 1979); National 
Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (DC Cir. 
1974); see also OCC Interpretive Letter from Chief Counsel P. Allan 
Schott to James C. Goodale, 1989 WL 300373 (database FFIN-OCCIL) 
(April 5, 1989) (based on Exemption 4, OCC denied FOIA request for 
portions of documents describing commercial and financial facts 
surrounding loan).

II. Reasons for Designating Certain Data Elements as Proprietary

    While Congress wished to shed increased light on the affordable-
housing activities of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it is virtually 
impossible to be certain that the release of any particular data 
from the loan registries would be harmless to Freddie Mac, 
particularly during this interim period. Freddie Mac operates in an 
environment in which its operations are constantly scrutinized by 
analysts at Fannie Mae, on Wall Street, and in other sophisticated 
financial institutions. Those analysts have access to information 
from a variety of sources, and have increasing abilities to analyze 
that information in ways that one may not immediately imagine.
     The data elements Freddie Mac has designated contain the type 
of information that Freddie Mac does not customarily release to the 
public, and if all those data elements were to be publicly 
disclosed, we believe a variety of competitive and financial harms 
could be suffered by Freddie Mac. In some cases, this harm could 
occur as a result of the disclosure of a data element standing on 
its own; in other cases, the harm would occur because of a 
correlation of one data element with another. The following are 
examples of problems that disclosure of all the elements would pose:
    (1) Both competitors and customers would be able to learn a 
great deal about the types of loans we are targeting for purchase in 
particular areas of the country, thereby enabling them to counter 
our marketing strategy more effectively. Moreover, the data would be 
available in one place, permitting competitors to obtain information 
relatively cheaply;
    (2) Competitors and customers would be able to learn far more 
than they can learn now as to our philosophy and strategy concerning 
the purchase of newly originated versus seasoned loans;
    (3) Both customers and competitors would be able to learn more 
about the cycles of Freddie Mac's business during the year, e.g., 
times at which we tend to be more busy than others, and the likely 
implications of seasonality to our pricing strategy;
    (4) By analyzing the types of products we are purchasing, and 
where the purchases are occurring, customers and competitors would 
be able to divine a great deal of nonpublic information about our 
likely strategy for meeting the affordable housing goals;
    (5) Customers and competitors would learn far more than they 
currently know about how the mix of mortgage types that we purchase 
varies by region, thereby affecting the course of business 
negotiations in particular transactions in particular regions:
    (6) Customers and competitors would be able to change the 
dynamics of business negotiations regarding the disposition of real 
estate owned (``REO''), since they would have access to far greater 
information concerning our REO disposition strategies and practices. 
In addition, by analyzing REO statistics, a competitor could learn 
much about our default patterns;
    (7) Customers and competitors would could use seemingly non-
proprietary data as a ``proxy'' for information that clearly is 
proprietary, or could use seemingly non-proprietary data as a link 
to other available information, so as to reveal other, previously 
inaccessible proprietary information.
    In each case, the disclosure of information would work to the 
disadvantage of Freddie Mac, and to the advantage of other parties. 
Also, in many cases--particuarly, but not exclusively, in the 
multifamily field--the public release of all the data elements 
listed in a fully correlated manner probably would permit reviewers 
of the data to identify specific properties. This raises important 
issues of personal privacy for homeowners, tenants, and lenders, who 
could soon expect to become the targets of marketing efforts not 
only by our competitors, but by other businesses seeking to market 
their products in demographic niches. In comparable circumstances, 
HUD has previously taken the position that it would not release 
individual mortgage records in response to a request under the 
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, because it would be an 
unwarranted invasion of the borrowers' privacy interests. See 
Schoettle v. Kemp, 733 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Haw. 1990) (upholding 
denial of FOIA request based on Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)): 
see also Heights Community Congress v. Veterans Administration, 732 
F.2d 526 (6th Cir. 1984) (court upholding VA's denial of FOIA 
request for property address, loan amount and identity of lender on 
VA-insured loans in certain city, based on FOIA Exemption 6).
    In light of the above concerns, Freddie Mac has evaluated each 
data element to determine whether or not its release would be 
reasonably likely to cause Freddie Mac competitive or financial 
harm, either standing alone or linked to other available 
information. In the interest of making as much data as possible 
available to the public, Freddie Mac also considered whether certain 
data elements might be made available as separate files or packages 
of data elements, so that they could be released without identifying 
the location of the underlying property. Without a link to the 
geographic data, there may be no reason for HUD to withhold certain 
data elements as proprietary information. Similarly, we considered 
whether certain data elements might be recoded so that HUD would not 
need to withhold them as proprietary information. Such alternative 
treatments would substantially reduce Freddie Mac's proprietary 
concerns with respect to those data elements, while making more 
information available to the public, consistent with the intent of 
Congress. See S. Rep. No. 464, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 44 (1992) (``The 
Director is encouraged whenever possible to develop disclosure 
methods that take into account any proprietary concerns, while 
continuing public access to the information.''). The results of 
Freddie Mac's evaluations, including proposed alternative treatments 
of certain data elements, are summarized in the attachment to this 
request.
    We trust that this request and attachment will be sufficient for 
HUD to make its determination that the information contained in the 
data elements designated in the attachment to this request contain 
``proprietary'' information--that is, that the designated data 
elements contain information that Freddie Mac does not customarily 
release to the public and that the release of that information could 
tend to cause financial or competitive injury to Freddie Mac, or 
could tend to impair competition between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. 
Alternatively, it should be sufficient for HUD to find that it 
cannot determine that certain of those data elements do not contain 
``proprietary'' information. In either case, the designated data 
elements should not be made publicly available.
* * * * *

Attachment

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Designation of Certain Loan-
Registry Data Elements as Proprietary\1\

I. Proprietary Confidential Data Elements

A. Single Family Data Elements

 Acquisition UPB [positions 80-85]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Each data element is identified by the field description and 
the position numbers shown in the January 14, 1994, letter from HUD 
that set forth the loan-registry requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Loan-to-Value Ratio At Origination [positions 86-88]
 Date of Mortgage Note [positions 89-94]
 Date of Acquisition [positions 95-100]
 Cooperative Unit Mortgage [position 102]
 Refinancing Loan From Own Portfolio [position 103]
 Special Affordable, Seasoned Loan Proceeds Recycled 
[position 104]
 Product Type [positions 105-106]
 RTC/FDIC [position 108]
 Term of Mortgage At Origination [positions 109-111]
 Amortization Term [positions 112-114]
 Seller Institution [position 115]
 Mortgage Purchased Under FHLMC/FNMA Community Lending 
Program [position 118]
 Acquisition Type [position 119]
 FHLMC's Real Estate Owned [position 120]
 Public Subsidy Programs [position 121]

B. Multifamily Data Elements

 U.S. Postal Zip Code [positions 13-17]
 Acquisition UPB [positions 71-76]
 Percent Participation [positions 77-80]
 Date of Mortgage Note [positions 81-86]
 Date of Acquisition [positions 87-92]
 Refinancing Loan From Own Portfolio [position 95]
 Special Affordable, Seasoned Loans: Are Proceeds Recycled? 
[position 96]
 Cooperative Project Loan [position 94]
 Mortgagor Type [position 97]
 Term of Mortgage At Origination [positions 98-100]
 Loan Type [position 101]
 Amortization term [positions 102-104]
 Seller Institution [position 105]
 Acquisition Type [position 107]
 FHLMC's Real Estate Owned [position 108]
 Public Subsidy Programs [position 109]
 Special Affordable--45% [positions 115-123]
 Special Affordable--55% [positions 124-132]
 MF Unit Type XX--Affordability Level [position 133+4--fifth 
unit-level field] Rather than making this data element available, 
Freddie Mac suggests that HUD instead disclose the element 
Affordability Category [position 70] (which is defined in terms of 
four ``buckets'' or range of values rather than as a particular 
percent)-- along with the unit-level data and in a manner that is 
entirely severed from any information from which one might determine 
location. Alternatively, or in addition, Affordability Level could 
be recoded into ``buckets'' or ranges of values rather than being 
expressed in terms of a specific percent of adjusted local median 
income, and then could be released with the unit-level data as 
described below.

II. Data Elements That Should Be Released Only in Unit-Level Files

    We request that the following unit-level data for two- to four-
unit and multifamily properties be released only as a separate file 
or ``package'' of data--severed entirely from the geographic and 
other data:

A. Single-Family Unit-Level Data Files

    We request that the following single-family elements for each 
two- to four-unit property be released only in a separate file, 
which file would contain no other data elements:

 Number of Units [position 133]
 Unit 1/2/3/4 Number of Bedrooms [positions 134, 147, 160, 
173]
 Unit 1/2/3/4 Owned-Occupied [or Tenant] [positions 135, 
148, 161, 174]
 Unit 1/2/3/4 Affordability Category [positions 136, 149, 
162, 175]
 Unit 1/2/3/4 Reported Rent Level [positions 137-141, 150-
154, 163-167, 176-180]
 Unit 1/2/3/4 Reported Rent Level Plus Utilities [positions 
142-146, 155-159, 168-172, 181-185]

B. Multifamily Unit-Level Data Files

    Similarly, we request that the following multifamily elements 
for each multifamily property be released only in a separate file, 
which file would contain no other data elements:

 Number of Units [positions 110-114]
 Unit Type XX--Number of Bedrooms [position 133--first unit-
level field]
 Unit Type XX--Numbers of Units [position 133+1--second 
unit-level field]
 Unit Type XX--Average Reported Rent Level [position 133+2--
third unit-level field]
 Unit Type XX--Average Reported Rent Level Plus Utilities 
[position 133+3--fourth unit-level field]
 Unit Type XX--Affordability Level [position 133+4--fifth 
unit-level field] As is described above, we would propose that this 
data element be included in a unit-level file only after it is 
recoded to show affordability level by ``bucket'' or range of values 
rather than by a particular percent of adjusted local median income. 
In its current form, the data element is proprietary and should not 
be released--even in a unit-level file.
 Affordability Category [position 70]

III. Data Element That Should Be Recoded Consistent With HMDA 
Before Being Made Publicly Available

    The data element Occupancy Code [position 132] indicates whether 
a single-family mortgage purchased by Freddie Mac was for a 
``Principal Residence/Owner Occupied,'' ``Second Home'' or 
``Investment Property (Rental).'' We request that this element be 
released only after it is recoded so that the second homes would be 
combined with investment properties as ``Not owner Occupied'' 
consistent with the treatment of second homes under the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act (``HMDA''). See 12 CFR part 203, App. A, 
section V(A)(7)(a).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-13783 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-M