[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 73 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16424-16432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9240]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 0

[GC Docket No. 96-55, FCC 96-109]


Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of 
Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted a Notice of Inquiry and a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to begin a proceeding to evaluate its practices and 
policies concerning the treatment of competitively sensitive 
information that has been provided to the Commission. The Commission's 
objective is to develop a policy that will guide it in evaluating an 
increasing number of requests that it afford confidential treatment to 
information that has been provided to it by regulated entities and 
others. The central issue that confronts the Commission is how to avoid 
unnecessary competitive harm that could be caused by the disclosures of 
such information and still fulfill its regulatory duties in a manner 
that is efficient and fair to the parties and members of the public who 
have an interest in its proceedings.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 14, 1996 and Reply comments 
are due on or before July 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Kaufman, Office of General 
Counsel, (202) 418-1720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The complete text of this Notice of Inquiry 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (room 
239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased 
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription 
Service at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, 
DC 20037.

Synopsis

I. Background

A. Authority To Disclose and Withhold Competitively Sensitive 
Information

1. Freedom of Information Act

    1. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, the 
Commission is required to disclose reasonably described agency records 
requested by any person, unless the records contain information that 
fits within one or more of the nine exemptions from disclosure provided 
in the Act. For the purposes of this proceeding, the most important of 
the FOIA exemptions is commonly referred to Exemption 4. Exemption 4 
provides that the government need not disclose ``trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 
privileged or confidential.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(4).
    2. For many years, the applicable standard for whether commercial 
or financial information was ``confidential'' under Exemption 4 of FOIA 
was set forth in National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 
498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974). In National Parks, the Court set forth a 
two-part test, stating that ``[c]ommercial or financial matter is 
`confidential' * * * if disclosure of the information is likely * * * 
either * * * (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. In Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 
S.Ct. 1579 (1993), the court limited National Parks to situations where 
a party must submit information to a federal agency. Under Critical 
Mass, ``financial or commercial information provided to the Government 
on a voluntary basis is `confidential' for the purpose of Exemption 4 
if it is of a kind that would customarily not be released to the public 
by the person from whom it was obtained.'' Id. at 879.

2. The Trade Secrets Act and Commission Authority To Disclose Exemption 
4 Records

    3. While FOIA Exemption 4 allows an agency to withhold business 
competitive information from public disclosure, the Trade Secrets Act, 
18 U.S.C. 1905, acts as an affirmative restraint on an agency's ability 
to release such information. It states:

    Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of 
any department or

[[Page 16425]]

agency thereof, * * * publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known 
in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information 
coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties * * 
* [that] concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, 
operations, style of work, or apparatus * * * shall be fined not 
more than $1000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and 
shall be removed from office or employment.

18 U.S.C. 1905 (emphasis added).
    4. In Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the Supreme 
Court discussed the relationship between the Trade Secrets Act and 
Exemption 4 as follows:

    Although there is a theoretical possibility that material might 
be outside Exemption 4 yet within the substantive provisions of [the 
Trade Secrets Act] * * * that possibility is at most of limited 
practical significance in view of the similarity of language between 
Exemption 4 and the substantive provisions of [the Trade Secrets 
Act].

Id. at 319 n. 49. Thus, if information may be withheld under Exemption 
4, the agency is barred from disclosing it by the terms of the Trade 
Secrets Act unless the disclosure is otherwise authorized by law.
    5. Sections 0.457(d)(1) and 0.457(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR Secs. 0.457(d)(1), 0.457(d)(2)(i), constitute the 
requisite legal authorization for disclosure of competitively sensitive 
information under the Trade Secrets Act. These rules permit disclosure 
of trade secrets and commercial or financial information upon a 
``persuasive showing'' of the reasons in favor of the information's 
release.
    5. The Commission's legal authority to adopt a rule that permits 
disclosure of materials covered by the Trade Secrets Act is grounded in 
Section 4(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 4(j). In Federal 
Communications Commission v. Schreiber, 381 U.S. 279, 291-92 (1965), 
the Supreme Court expressly addressed the Commission's authority under 
that Section, noting: ``Grants of agency authority comparable in scope 
to Sec. 4(j) [of the Communications Act] have been held to authorize 
public disclosure of information, or receipt of data in confidence, as 
the agency may determine to be proper upon a balancing of the public 
and private interests involved.''
B. Review of Commission's Policies Governing Disclosure

1. Commission Rules and Procedures

    6. The Commission has adopted general rules to implement the 
provisions of the FOIA. Section 0.457(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR Sec. 0.457(d), implements FOIA Exemption 4. Quoting Exemption 4, it 
provides that records not routinely available for public inspection 
include ``[t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from any person and privileged or confidential.'' Section 
0.457 of the Commission's rules also provides that certain categories 
materials listed therein are deemed to be within Exemption 4 and 
therefore are ``not routinely available for public inspection.'' Such 
Exemption 4 materials may not be disclosed by Commission employees 
unless an appropriate request for inspection is made and, after 
weighing the considerations favoring disclosure and non-disclosure, the 
Commission determines that a ``persuasive showing'' has been made to 
warrant disclosure. 47 CFR Secs. 0.451(b)(5), 0.457(d)(1); 
0.457(d)(2)(i); 0.461(f)(4).
    7. Any person submitting information or materials to the Commission 
not falling within the specific categories set forth in Section 0.457 
may also request on an ad hoc basis that such information not be made 
routinely available for public inspection under Exemption 4. Each such 
request must contain a statement of the reasons for withholding the 
materials from inspection and of the facts upon which those reasons are 
based. A request that information not be made routinely available for 
public inspection will be granted if it presents by a preponderance of 
the evidence a case for non-disclosure consistent with the provisions 
of FOIA. 47 CFR Sec. 0.459(b). If a request that materials not be 
routinely available for public inspection is granted, the material will 
be treated the same as those categories of information presumed not 
routinely available for public disclosure. 47 CFR Sec. 0.459(h). The 
Commission's rules also contain procedures to protect the 
confidentiality of information until administrative and judicial 
appeals procedures have been completed. 47 CFR Sec. 0.459(g).

2. General Policies Regarding Disclosure of Exemption 4 Records

    8. As indicated above, the Commission's rules provide for the 
disclosure of Exemption 4 material if a ``persuasive showing is made.'' 
The Commission generally has exercised its discretion to release FOIA 
Exemption 4 information only in very limited circumstances such as 
where a party placed its financial condition at issue in a Commission 
proceeding or where the Commission has identified a compelling public 
interest in disclosure. See e.g., The Western Union Telegraph Company, 
2 FCC Rcd 4485, 4487 (1987) (citing Kannapolis Television Co., 80 FCC 
2d 307 (1980)); MCI Telecommunications Corporation, 58 RR 2d 187 
(1985). In determining whether a public interest in the privacy of 
proprietary business data exists, the Commission has adhered to a 
policy whereby it ``will not authorize the disclosure of confidential 
financial information on the mere chance that it might be helpful, but 
insists upon a showing that the information is a necessary link in a 
chain of evidence that will resolve a public interest issue.'' E.g., 
Classical Radio for Connecticut, Inc., 69 FCC 2d 1517, 1520 n.4 (1978).

3. The Protective Order Approach

    9. In recent years, the Commission also has increasingly relied on 
special remedies such as redaction,1 aggregated data or 
summaries,2 and protective orders 3 to balance the interests 
in disclosure and the interests in preserving the confidentiality of 
competitively sensitive materials. In particular, the Commission has 
refined the manner in which it releases confidential information by 
relying more frequently on protective orders or agreements. Protective 
orders or agreements essentially require parties to whom confidential 
information is made available to limit the persons who will have access 
to the information and the purposes for which the information will be 
used. Disclosure under a protective order or agreement may serve the 
dual purpose of protecting competitively

[[Page 16426]]

valuable information while still permitting limited disclosure for a 
specific public purpose. Cincinnati, 10 FCC Rcd at 10575; Hawaii, 10 
FCC Rcd at 2366. While protective orders permit the Commission to make 
confidential information available on a limited basis while minimizing 
the competitive harm that might ensue from widespread disclosure, the 
Commission is mindful of the fact that extensive reliance on protective 
orders may also impose burdens on the public and the Commission. See 
e.g., Motorola Satellite Communications Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 5062, 5064 
(1992) (quoting Letter of Thomas P Stanley, Chief Engineer (June 3, 
1992)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allnet Communications Services, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 5629, 5630 
(1993) (withholding from public release some redacted material 
provided to the parties under a protective order, but releasing 
other redacted material that did not contain confidential 
information).
    \2\ Id. (finding certain averaged data not to be competitively 
sensitive); Bellsouth Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 8129, 8130 (1993) (releasing 
summary of audit findings despite claim of confidentiality since 
summary nature of information significantly diminished the 
likelihood of competitive harm).
    \3\ See, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. (``Cincinnati''), 
10 FCC Rcd 10574 (Com. Car. Bur. 1995); Petition of Public Utilities 
Commission, State of Hawaii, for Authority to Extend its Rate 
Regulation of Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the State of 
Hawaii (``Hawaii''), 10 FCC Rcd 2359 and 10 FCC Rcd 2881 (Wireless 
Bur. 1995); In re Applications of Craig O. McCaw, Transferor, and 
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Transferee, for Consent to 
the Transfer of Control of McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. and 
its Subsidiaries, 9 FCC Rcd 2610 (Com. Car. Bur. 1994); Commission 
Requirements for Cost Support Material to be Filed with Open Network 
Architecture Access Tariffs (``Open Network Architecture''), 7 FCC 
Rcd 1526 (Com. Car. Bur. 1992), aff'd, 9 FCC Rcd 180 (1993); 
Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. Request for Pioneer's 
Preference to Establish a Low-Earth Orbit Satellite System in the 
1610-1626.5 MHz Band (``Motorola''), 7 FCC Rcd 5062 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Issues for Comment

A. General Issues
    10. The Commission's policies implementing its rules governing 
confidentiality affect both the competitive nature of the 
telecommunications industry and performance of the Commission's public 
responsibilities. The Commission has long been sensitive to the concern 
that fulfillment of its regulatory responsibilities does not result in 
unnecessary disclosure of confidential information that places 
Commission regulatees at an unfair competitive disadvantage. In that 
respect, we recognize that the ``private'' interests of regulatees in 
ensuring their own competitive vitality generally coincide with the 
public interest in promoting a robust and competitive 
telecommunications market. Further, allowing confidential submission 
increases the willingness of holders of confidential information to 
provide that information to the Commission and, even where submission 
is mandatory, often avoids the burden and delay of invoking such 
mandatory means. For these reasons, the Commission's policy has been to 
avoid disclosures of confidential information except where necessary to 
the effective performance of its regulatory duties and to employ 
protective orders where appropriate.
    11. At the same time, allowing confidential submission necessarily 
decreases the amount of information publicly available to facilitate 
public participation in the regulatory process. Public participation in 
Commission proceedings cannot be effective unless meaningful 
information is made available to the interested persons. As noted, in 
recent years, the Commission also has relied more frequently on 
protective orders and agreements. Protective orders and agreements have 
the advantage of permitting the release--albeit on a limited basis--of 
more information than would be possible without them, given our 
obligations to protect trade secrets and commercial or financial 
information. On the other hand, protective orders are inconvenient and 
sometimes cumbersome and increase the administrative burdens on the 
Commission and those subject to them. In addition, protective orders 
may make it less likely that the Commission will receive a diversity of 
public comment on the protected materials. Given the Commission's 
obligation to balance these concerns, we therefore seek comment whether 
the Commission should adopt additional policies or rules governing the 
treatment of information submitted to the Commission in confidence.
    12. Specifically, we seek comment on the standard in the 
Commission's current rules that permits disclosure of trade secrets and 
confidential commercial or financial information upon a ``persuasive 
showing'' of the reasons in favor of the information's release. See 47 
CFR Sec. 0.457(d)(1), (d)(2)(i). We ask commenters to address whether 
this continues to be the appropriate standard or whether the Commission 
should adopt some other standard. Assuming we retain this standard, we 
seek comment on what should constitute a ``persuasive showing'' of the 
reasons in favor of the information's release. As discussed in more 
detail below, we also ask comment on standards that should apply in 
particular types of Commission proceedings.
    13. We also seek comment on whether the Commission's current 
approach to the use of protective orders is the appropriate approach or 
whether the Commission should adopt some other approach. Advantages and 
disadvantages of the current approach should be discussed. We 
specifically request comment on any problems or burdens that commenters 
perceive with the current protective order approach and ways in which 
these problems or burdens might be minimized. Commenters should also 
address whether the Commission's willingness to release confidential 
information subject to a protective order reduces submitters 
willingness to voluntarily submit information to the Commission. And, 
we seek comment on whether the use of protective orders unduly 
interferes with the Commission's ability to obtain public comment or 
with the public's right to know what actions the Commission is taking 
and why it is taking them.
    14. As a related matter, we note that a recent D.C. Circuit opinion 
suggests that the Commission may have the option of releasing all or 
part of an order under seal. SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 56 F.3d 
1484, 1492 (D.C. Cir. 1995). We seek comment whether it is appropriate 
for the Commission to draft a decision that relies on confidential data 
(or data disclosed pursuant to protective order) without publicly 
revealing the information. If the Commission determines that the data 
is necessary to support the order, should the Commission place the 
relevant order under seal or should the information lose protected 
status at this point?
    15. Commenters also are invited to address and comment on any other 
issues relating to the Commission's policies and rules governing 
confidential treatment of information submitted to the Commission.
B. Model Protective Order
    16. As discussed, release of confidential information under a 
protective order or agreement can often serve to resolve the conflict 
between safeguarding competitively sensitive information and allowing 
interested parties the opportunity to fully respond to assertions put 
forth by the submitter of confidential information. We seek comment as 
to whether it would be helpful for the Commission to develop a standard 
form protective order that could then be modified as appropriate to fit 
the circumstances of particular cases. We have supplied, as an 
Attachment to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a draft model 
protective order. We look forward to receiving comments on this draft 
order, and in particular what modifications need to be made to make it 
suitable to the varied types of Commission proceedings in which issues 
of confidentiality arise.
    17. We also seek comment on what procedures the Commission should 
use to resolve disputes about the issuance and content of protective 
orders and how to ensure compliance with them. We are especially 
interested in whether commenters believe that our rules should be 
amended to address such issues directly.
C. Issues That Arise With Respect to Specific Types of FCC Proceedings
    18. As indicated above, we also seek comment on whether different 
standards should apply for various categories of proceedings with 
respect to (i) what constitutes a ``persuasive showing'' of the reasons 
in favor of confidential information's release and (ii) what, if any, 
protective conditions we should place upon released material and 
whether this should vary depending on the nature of a proceeding.

[[Page 16427]]

Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission should apply 
different disclosure policies to rulemakings, licensing proceedings, 
tariff proceedings and perhaps other categories of proceedings. For 
example, we seek comment on whether the Commission should require 
public disclosure of information without protective orders in some 
types of Commission proceedings even though that information is within 
FOIA Exemption 4. Specific issues that arise in connection with various 
types of proceedings are discussed below. In addition, we request 
comments on whether special disclosure policies should apply to other 
categories of proceedings, not specifically mentioned below, and, if 
so, what those procedures should be.

1. Title III Licensing Proceedings

    19. Section 309 of the Communications Act provides that the 
Commission must allow at least 30 days following issuance of a public 
notice of certain radio license applications for interested parties to 
file petitions to deny an application. 47 U.S.C. 309(b), (d)(1). 
Section 309 thus contemplates that interested members of the public 
will have a full opportunity to challenge the grant of license 
applications. In addition, relevant case law indicates generally that 
petitioners to deny must be afforded access to all information 
submitted by licensees that bear upon their applications. See, e.g., 
Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 
621, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (en banc).
    20. We seek comment on whether the fact that the statutory scheme 
expressly contemplates public participation in Title III license 
application proceedings makes it inappropriate to withhold information 
filed in such proceedings from routine public disclosure. In this 
regard, we note that Commission rules currently specify that broadcast 
and other Title III license applications are routinely available for 
public inspection. See 47 CFR Secs. 0.453, 0.455. Nevertheless, 
applicants do sometimes request confidential treatment pursuant to 
Section 0.459 of our rules for information submitted with their 
applications in both contested and uncontested application proceedings. 
In light of the special issues regarding public participation that 
arise in Section 309 proceedings, we therefore seek comment on whether 
our general policy should be to discourage submission of confidential 
information in the application context but still to leave the 
Commission some discretion to use protective orders where it seems 
warranted. Or, is it appropriate to adopt a general policy with regard 
to licensing proceedings, permitting disclosure of trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information only pursuant to protective orders?
    21. If the Commission were to adopt a policy favoring the use of 
protective orders in licensing proceedings, we assume that petitioners 
would be given an opportunity to supplement their petitions to deny 
after reviewing the protected material. We also seek comment on whether 
members of the public should be afforded access to such protected 
material (pursuant to protective orders) in order to enable them to 
determine whether they wish to file petitions to deny. Would such 
policies tend to unduly delay Commission action on license 
applications? We also seek comment on whether it is ever appropriate to 
withhold from release entirely some Exemption 4 information, as has 
sometimes been done in the context of licensing proceedings and if so 
what standard should be used. See e.g., Application of Mobile 
Communications Holdings, Inc. for Authority to Construct the ELLIPSO 
Elliptical Orbit Mobile Satellite System, 10 FCC Rcd 1547, 1548 (Int'l 
Bur. 1994) (declining to release, even under protective order, detailed 
cost and pricing information of applicant for a license). Finally, we 
seek comment on whether different policies apply to different 
categories of material. For example, commenters should address whether 
our policy would be to use protective orders in licensing proceedings 
only in instances in which the material in question satisfies the trade 
secrets or ``substantial competitive harm'' prongs of Exemption 4 and 
to require public disclosure in all other cases in which the Exemption 
is invoked.

2. Tariff Proceedings

    22. Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, requires 
that common carriers file and maintain tariffs with the Commission. 
Section 204, 47 U.S.C. 204, gives the Commission the authority to 
review tariffs for lawfulness, which involves, among other things, a 
determination of whether the tariff is just and reasonable pursuant to 
Section 201(b), 47 U.S.C. 201(b), and is not unjustly discriminatory 
pursuant to Section 202, 47 U.S.C. 202. The Commission has adopted 
rules specifying what support materials carriers must file to enable it 
to carry out its tariff review authority. See 47 CFR Secs. 61.38, 
61.49. Pursuant to Section 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR Sec. 0.455(b)(11), cost support data are routinely available for 
public inspection.
    23. The Commission has generally made tariff support material 
publicly available. See, e.g., Cincinnati, 10 FCC Rcd at 10575. It has 
departed from this policy only in a few limited circumstances, for 
example, to protect third-party vendor data where the data were made 
available subject to a protective agreement. See Letter from Kathleen 
M.H. Wallman to Jonathan E. Canis, et al., 9 FCC Rcd 6495 (Com. Car. 
Bur. 1994) (denying unrestricted access to cost support data filed in 
connection with virtual collocation tariff, but allowing access 
pursuant to protective order), application for review pending. 
Recently, a number of carriers have filed requests for confidential 
treatment of their cost support data with their tariff transmittals. 
This presents a number of problems during the tariff review process. 
The maximum period for tariff review is defined by statute. The 
Commission has a maximum of one hundred and twenty days to determine 
the lawfulness of the tariff transmittal. See 47 U.S.C. 203(b)(2); 47 
CFR Sec. 61.58(a)(2). The tariff goes into effect on its effective date 
unless the Commission issues an order rejecting or suspending and 
investigating the tariff. 47 U.S.C. 204. Section 402(b) of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, effective one year after 
enactment, a local exchange carrier may file charges, classifications, 
regulations or practices on a streamlined basis, which shall be 
effective 7 days (in the case of a reduction in rates) or 15 days (in 
the case of an increase in rates) after the date on which they are 
filed unless the Commission takes action before the end of the period.
    24. A request for confidential treatment may not be resolved within 
the 120 day statutory time frame established for the tariff review 
process under current law, especially if a ruling is appealed. A 
request for confidentiality is unlikely to be resolved under the 7 or 
15 day time frame that is to become effective for streamlined local 
exchange carrier filings under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We 
therefore seek comment on how to resolve a request for confidentiality 
made in the context of the tariff review process. One possibility that 
takes account of the statutory time frame for the tariff review process 
is to require that carriers file any confidential information first, 
independent of the filing of the tariff transmittal. Under this 
alternative, the tariff filing could not be made until the request for 
confidentiality was resolved.

[[Page 16428]]

Commenters should also address whether we should continue to make 
exceptions to the Commission's rule requiring such data to be made 
publicly available. In this regard, we seek comment on how petitioners 
will be able to formulate meaningful objections to the proposed tariff 
rates, terms and conditions, often a critical part of the tariff review 
process, if they are unable to review all support material prior to the 
date that petitions are due. One possible solution is to develop a 
generic protective agreement that parties can use to protect the 
information during the tariff review process.
    25. Commenters also should address whether different disclosure 
policies should apply to different phases of the tariff review process. 
Specifically, should different disclosure policies be applied to the 
tariff review and tariff investigation stages? Actions denying 
petitions to suspend or reject tariffs, thereby allowing a tariff to go 
into effect, are considered non-final, non-judicially reviewable 
actions because a party can seek further redress by filing a formal 
complaint pursuant to Section 208 of the Act. In contrast, a tariff set 
for investigation is assigned a docket number and a pleading cycle is 
established providing for direct cases, comments and replies. At the 
conclusion of the investigation, the Commission issues an order which 
is subject to judicial review. Therefore since decisions to allow 
tariffs to go into effect are non-reviewable, non-final orders, should 
the Commission's policies focus on the need for disclosure to 
petitioners (whether or not pursuant to protective orders) primarily in 
instances in which a particular tariff has been set for investigation?

3. Rulemaking Proceedings

    26. Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq., generally requires notice and an opportunity to 
comment before promulgation of a final agency rule. An agency's 
decision to withhold information in the context of a rulemaking can 
have a significant impact on whether meaningful notice and opportunity 
to comment on the bases of an agency's decision have been given. In 
addition, issues arise to the extent that an agency relies on 
information that has not been made available to commenters. For these 
reasons, the Commission generally has not afforded confidential 
treatment to material submitted in rulemakings, although it has on rare 
occasions utilized protective orders or agreements in the context of 
rulemakings. Rulemakings also may create special problems for use of 
protective orders, however, because a large number of commenters may be 
involved. On the other hand, a blanket refusal to apply protective 
orders in the context of rulemakings might cause the Commission to have 
access to less information than if it used protective orders. We seek 
comment on these issues as well as the general issue of whether it is 
ever appropriate to withhold competitively sensitive information filed 
in rulemaking proceedings from routine public disclosure. We note that 
the Commission has the option of refusing to consider information in a 
rulemaking that is submitted along with a request for confidentiality.

4. Requests for Special Relief and Waivers

    27. Parties affected by our rules have the right to seek special 
relief from the rules' scope or waiver of these rules. In certain 
cases, parties may base their request for relief upon--or otherwise put 
into issue--information that is confidential. This information may 
include financial information explaining cash flow, profitability, or 
bankruptcy problems, or corporate or partnership structure designed to 
demonstrate insulation from control or interest. For example, in 
various cable television special relief proceedings, a party may seek 
relief based on severe financial difficulties, or upon corporate or 
partnership structure and insulation from control. See 47 CFR 
Sec. 76.7(a) (cable petitions for special relief). We seek comment on 
whether and under what circumstances it is appropriate to withhold 
information filed in such proceedings from routine public disclosure, 
particularly when the information is potentially decisional to a point 
placed in issue by the party seeking to withhold such information and 
may have precedential value for future cases.

5. Formal Complaints

    28. Section 208 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 208, 
permits any party to bring before the Commission a complaint against a 
common carrier for acts or omissions in violation of either the Act or 
a Commission rule or order. Our rules, in turn, establish both informal 
and formal procedures for handling such complaints. 47 CFR Sec. 1.711 
et seq. Confidentiality issues frequently arise in formal complaint 
proceedings, especially in connection with discovery. See 47 CFR 
Sec. 1.731; see also Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures to Be 
Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed Against Common Carriers, 58 
FR 25569 (1993), 8 FCC Rcd 2614, 2621-22 (1993).
    29. We ask commenters to consider the most effective means of 
balancing our sometimes conflicting obligations to ensure protection of 
proprietary business data, to prevent undue delay in resolving formal 
complaints, and to produce decisions that adequately explain, by 
reference to a specific record, the basis for our disposition of a 
complaint. For instance, in some cases, a factually and legally sound 
decision cannot be drafted without referring to information subject to 
a claim of confidentiality. The particular information deemed by the 
staff as necessary for resolution may be only a small portion of 
voluminous materials that are subject to a protective order and 
provided to the Commission in confidence. Thus, considerable time might 
be necessary for the staff to examine all materials subject to claims 
of confidentiality and rule on those claims. If the staff were to rule 
on the confidentiality of only the particular information determined to 
be decisionally significant, however, this ruling might prematurely 
indicate to the parties the staff's recommendation for Commission or 
Bureau disposition of the complaint. In either instance, the complaint 
process could be delayed by administrative and judicial appeals of a 
confidentiality ruling. We ask commenters to consider whether any such 
delays and burden on Commission resources could or should be mitigated 
by issuing parts of adjudicatory decisions that rely on confidential 
information under seal. We seek comment on whether such a procedure 
would serve the public interest, given that complaint cases--although 
adjudications of disputes between particular parties--may result in 
rulings that indirectly, through the establishment of precedent, 
determine the legality of the practices of non-parties. We welcome 
suggestions as to how we can preserve the broad utility of the formal 
complaint process to elucidate the Commission's judgments regarding 
carrier conduct without either compromising sensitive business data or 
miring complaint proceedings in protracted peripheral disputes 
involving confidentiality.

6. Audits

    30. The Commission has a statutory right of access to all accounts, 
records and memoranda, including all documents, papers, and 
correspondence kept or required to be kept by common carriers. 47 
U.S.C. 220(c). The detailed financial and commercial information

[[Page 16429]]

inspected during an audit is generally sensitive in nature and is not 
customarily released to the public. This fact is highlighted by section 
Sec. 220(f) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 220(f), which 
expressly prohibits the release of information gathered during an audit 
absent a Commission or court order. The Commission has held that the 
public disclosure of data gathered in an audit is likely to impair its 
future ability to obtain such data because while the Commission could 
rely on compulsory measures to obtain the desired materials, such 
measures would involve significant expense and delay. J. David Stoner, 
5 FCC Rcd 6458, 6459 (1990); Martha H. Platt, 5 FCC Rcd 5742, 5743 
(1990); Scott J Rafferty, 5 FCC Rcd 4138, 4138 (1990); Western Union 
Telegraph Co., 2 FCC Rcd 4485, 4486 (1987).
    31. The Commission has departed from its general policy and 
publicly released audit reports only in extraordinary circumstances 
when (i) the summary nature of the data contained in a particular 
report is not likely to cause the providing carrier substantial 
competitive injury, (ii) the release of the summary data and 
information is not likely to impair our ability to obtain information 
in future audits and (iii) overriding public interest concerns favor 
release of the report. See Bell Telephone Operating Companies, FCC 94-
418 (released Oct. 17, 1995); see also, e.g., Bell Communications 
Research, Inc, 7 FCC Rcd 891 (1992); BellSouth Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 8129, 
8130 (1990). In the past, we have normally allowed submitters to 
request confidentiality for such data and have dealt with such requests 
on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the applicable standards in 
FOIA. See id. We seek comment on whether we should continue to follow 
this policy and on whether and in what circumstances information 
gathered during an audit should be released even under a protective 
order.

7. Surveys and Studies.

    32. The Commission has authority to conduct studies and surveys 
needed to fulfill its regulatory functions. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 403. 
Unlike information submitted in support of a specific regulatory action 
involving the submitting entity, surveys may request information from a 
broad category of regulated entities who are only submitting data 
because they were selected as part of a survey sample. Because these 
studies may involve the submission of information deemed competitively 
sensitive by responding entities, we seek comment on standards that 
should be applied to protect the confidentiality of information 
submitted in this context. We also seek comment regarding the treatment 
of such information when the information is used ultimately in the 
development of Commission rules or policies.
D. Scope of Materials Not Routinely Available for Public Inspection
    33. The need for and burdens associated with protective orders are 
necessarily affected by the amount of information eligible for 
protected status. Accordingly, we seek comment on several issues raised 
by our current rules on materials not routinely available for public 
release.
    34. Categories of Materials that are not Routinely Available for 
Public Inspection. Section 0.457(d) of our rules, 47 CFR Sec. 0.457(d), 
contains a list of categories of materials that are not routinely 
available for public inspection and as such do not require a request 
for such treatment under Section 0.459, 47 CFR Sec. 0.459. To the 
extent it is possible to define broad categories of information that 
should not be routinely available for public inspection, we can reduce 
administrative burdens on the Commission and submitters. On the other 
hand, over-inclusive categories would not be consistent with the 
presumption FOIA creates in favor of disclosure. We seek comment 
whether the current list of materials that are not routinely available 
for public inspection is appropriate or whether the list ought to be 
expanded or contracted.
    35. Substantiating Confidentiality Claims. Section 0.461(a) of the 
Commission's confidentiality regulations, 47 CFR Sec. 0.461(a), 
provides that a person submitting information or materials to the 
Commission may request that the information not be made routinely 
available to the public. Section 0.461(b), 47 CFR Sec. 0.461(b), 
requires that each such request contain a statement of the reasons for 
withholding the materials from inspection and of the facts upon which 
those reasons are based. Because the Commission sometimes receives 
frivolous or unsubstantiated requests for confidentiality, we seek 
comment on whether the Commission should establish a policy or rule 
specifying more explicitly types of information that should be provided 
to comply with Section 0.461(b).
    36. Information that the submitter could be required to provide to 
substantiate requests for confidentiality might include:
    (1) What portion of the information the submitter believes is 
entitled to confidential treatment;
    (2) The length of time for which confidential treatment is desired;
    (3) Measures taken by the business to prevent undesired disclosure 
to others;
    (4) The extent to which the information has already been disclosed 
to others;
    (5) Specific information showing the degree to which the 
information concerns a service that is subject to competition; and
    (6) Specific information concerning why disclosure would result in 
substantial harmful effects to the business' competitive position.
    37. Establishing a policy specifying what types of information 
should be provided to comply with Section 0.461(b) might be beneficial 
for several reasons. First, it would enable the Commission to deal in a 
more efficient fashion with requests that materials not be made 
routinely available to the public and with requests to release 
materials not made routinely available to the public. For example, even 
though our rules provide for seeking confidential treatment for only 
portions of documents when other portions of documents are 
nonconfidential, 47 CFR Sec. 0.459(a), submitters frequently assert an 
entire submission as confidential, even though many documents are not 
composed entirely of confidential business information. When the 
Commission is dealing with masses of data from multiple submitters, 
uncertainty as to what specific confidentiality claims are being 
asserted can be a significant barrier to efficient action. In addition, 
a policy specifying what types of information should be provided to 
comply with Section 0.461(b) might help reduce those confidentiality 
claims made as a matter of course and induce submitters to be more 
selective in their confidentiality claims. We seek comment on these 
benefits and on whether more precise substantiation requirements might 
burden a submitter's assertion of a claim for information which is 
truly entitled to confidential treatment. We also seek comment on what 
measures might be appropriate to deter frivolous requests for 
confidential treatment.
    38. Aggregated or Sanitized Information. The Commission sometimes 
finds it beneficial to disclose to the public non-confidential 
information derived from data supplied by businesses and claimed as 
confidential. Such releases might take the form of industry-wide data 
aggregated into a non-confidential figure, or sanitized documents where 
all information that could identify the submitters has been removed. We 
seek comment on procedures the

[[Page 16430]]

Commission could use to ensure that the portions of the sanitized or 
aggregated documents which are disclosed do not contain information 
claimed as confidential and whether the rules should be amended to 
incorporate such procedures.
E. Proposed Clarifications to Commission Rules
    39. Any person submitting information or materials to the 
Commission that do not fall within the specific categories of 
information not subject to routine disclosure may also request, on an 
ad hoc basis, that such information not be made routinely available for 
public inspection under Exemption 4. 47 CFR Sec. 0.459(a). The 
Commission is considering amending Section 0.459 of its rules to make 
express in the rules an existing practice whereby the Commission 
sometimes defers acting on a request for confidentiality if no request 
for inspection has been made. This practice conserves Commission 
resources because Exemption 4 determinations are often complex and 
require substantial Commission analysis. In such instances, the party 
submitting the information for which confidentiality is claimed is not 
harmed because the information is not available for public inspection 
pending Commission action on the confidentiality request. Likewise, the 
public is not harmed, because, under the FOIA, the Commission would be 
required to rule on any request that the information be disclosed. We 
seek comment on codifying this practice of deferring action on requests 
for confidentiality in the absence of a FOIA or other request for the 
information.
    40. The Commission also proposes a clarifying amendment to the 
title of Section 0.457(d) of its rules, 47 CFR Sec. 0.457(d), to better 
describe the Section's contents. The amended title would read: 
``Certain trade secrets and commercial or financial information 
obtained from any person and privileged or confidential--categories of 
materials not routinely available for public inspection.''

Administrative Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    41. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact of these proposed policies and 
rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing 
deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall 
cause a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to be sent to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance 
with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981).

Reason for Action

    42. The Communications Act of 1934 and the Commission's rules 
require the Commission to balance various factors in determining 
whether and under what conditions to withhold or to disclose 
competitively sensitive information that has been submitted to the 
Commission and that is not required to be publicly disclosed under the 
Freedom of Information Act. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes 
to examine the Commission's regulations and policies to determine 
whether the Commission should modify its existing disclosure policies 
and rules.

Objectives

    43. To implement the Communications Act of 1934 and the Freedom of 
Information Act and to develop a policy that will guide the Commission 
in evaluating the increasing number of requests that it afford 
confidential treatment to information that has been provided to it by 
regulated entities and others.
    Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in 
Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended.

Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Affected

    44. The Commission's policies and rules regarding the disclosure of 
confidential commercial and financial information affects small 
entities that are regulated by the Commission and small entities that 
participate in Commission proceedings. We are presently unable to 
estimate the

Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    45. None.

Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With This Rule

    46. None.

Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and 
Consistent with Stated Objectives

    47. None.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    48. The requirements proposed herein have been analyzed with 
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and found to impose no 
new or modified information collection requirement on the public.

Procedural Provisions

    49. This Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r) 
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
154(i), 154(j), 303(r) and 403. Pursuant to applicable procedures set 
forth in Sections 1.415, 1.419 and 1.430 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR Secs. 1.415, 1.419 and 1.430, interested parties may file comments 
on or before June 14, 1996, and reply comments on or before July 15, 
1996. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an 
original and four copies of all comments, reply comments and supporting 
comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive a personal 
copy of their comments, an original plus ten copies must be filed. 
Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 
Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of 
the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20554.
    50. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-
restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules. See 
generally 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Ordering Clauses

    51. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r) and 
403 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154 (i), 154 
(j), 303(r) and 403, notice is hereby given of proposed amendments to 
Part 0, in accordance with the proposals and discussions, in this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and that comment is sought regarding 
such proposals, discussion, and statement of issues.
    52. It is further ordered that, the Secretary shall send a copy of 
this

[[Page 16431]]

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0

    Freedom of information, Public information and inspection of 
records.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.

    Not to be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Attachment--Model Protective Order and Declaration

Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554

    In the Matter of [Name of Proceeding], Docket No. ______.

Protective Order

    This Protective Order is a device to facilitate and expedite the 
review of documents containing trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged or 
confidential. It reflects the manner in which ``Confidential 
Information,'' as that term is defined herein, is to be treated. The 
Order is not intended to constitute a resolution of the merits 
concerning whether any Confidential Information would be released 
publicly by the Commission upon a proper request under the Freedom 
of Information Act or otherwise.
    1. For purposes of this Order, ``Confidential Information'' 
shall in the first instance mean either (i) information submitted to 
the Commission by the Submitting Party that has been so designated 
by the Submitting Party and which the Submitting Party has 
determined in good faith constitutes trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information which is privileged or confidential within the 
meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552(b)(4) or (ii) information submitted to the Commission by 
the Submitting Party that has been so designated by the Submitting 
Party and which the Submitting Party has determined in good faith 
falls within the terms of [cite Commission order designating items 
for treatment as Confidential Information]. Confidential Information 
shall be deemed to include additional copies of and information 
derived from Confidential Information.
    2. The Commission may sua sponte or upon petition determine that 
all or part of the information claimed as ``Confidential 
Information'' is not entitled to such treatment.
    3. Confidential Information submitted to the Commission shall 
bear on the front page in bold print, ``CONTAINS PRIVILEGED AND 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION--DO NOT RELEASE.'' Confidential Information 
shall be segregated by the Submitting Party from all non-
confidential information submitted to the Commission. To the extent 
a document contains both Confidential Information and non-
confidential information, the submitting party shall designate the 
specific portions of the document claimed to contain Confidential 
Information and shall, where feasible, also submit a redacted 
version not containing Confidential Information.
    4. The Secretary of the Commission or other Commission staff to 
whom Confidential Information is submitted shall place the 
Confidential Information in a non-public file. In the event that any 
person requests that Confidential Information be released publicly, 
the Commission will treat the request pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 0.461.
    5. Confidential Information shall only be made available to 
Commission staff, Commission consultants and to counsel to the 
Reviewing Parties or if a Reviewing Party has no counsel to a person 
designated by the Reviewing Party. Reviewing Party shall mean a 
party to a Commission proceeding or any person or entity filing a 
pleading in a Commission proceeding. Before counsel to a Reviewing 
Party or such other designated person may obtain access to 
Confidential Information, counsel or such other designated person 
must execute the attached Declaration.
    6. Counsel to a Reviewing Party or such other person designated 
pursuant to Paragraph 5 may disclose Confidential Information to 
other Authorized Representatives to whom disclosure is permitted 
under the terms of paragraph 7 of this Protective Order only after 
advising such Authorized Representatives of the terms and 
obligations of the Order. In addition, before Authorized 
Representatives may obtain access to Confidential Information, 
Authorized Representatives must execute the attached Declaration.
    7. Authorized Representatives shall be limited to:
    a. Counsel for the Reviewing Parties to this proceeding 
including in-house counsel actively engaged in the conduct of this 
proceeding and their associated attorneys, paralegals, clerical 
staff and other employees, to the extent reasonably necessary to 
render professional services in this proceeding, provided that such 
persons are not representing or advising or otherwise assisting * * 
*;
    b. Specified persons, including employees of the Reviewing 
Parties, requested by counsel to furnish technical or other expert 
advice or service, or otherwise engaged to prepare material for the 
express purpose of formulating filings in this proceeding except 
that disclosure to persons in a position to use this information for 
competitive commercial or business purposes shall require the 
approval of the Commission; or
    c. Any person designated by the Commission in the public 
interest, upon such terms as the Commission may deem proper.
    8. Confidential Information shall be maintained by a Submitting 
Party for inspection in at least two locations, one of which shall 
be in Washington, D.C. Inspection shall be carried out by Authorized 
Representatives by appointment during normal business hours. The 
Submitting Party shall provide copies of the Confidential Material 
to Authorized Representatives upon request and may charge a 
reasonable copying fee not to exceed twenty five cents per page.
    9. Authorized Representatives may make additional copies of 
Confidential Information but only to the extent required and solely 
for the preparation and use in this proceeding, and provided further 
that the original copy and all other copies of the Confidential 
Information shall remain in the care and control of Authorized 
Representatives at all times and shall not pass to any other persons 
except as provided herein.
    10. Counsel for Reviewing Parties shall provide to the 
Submitting Party and the Commission with a copy of the attached 
Declaration for each Authorized Representative within five (5) 
business days after the attached Declaration is executed, or by any 
other deadline prescribed by the Commission.
    11. Confidential Information shall not be used by any person 
granted access under this Protective Order for any purpose other 
than for use in this proceeding (including any subsequent 
administrative or judicial review), shall not be used for 
competitive business purposes, and shall not be disclosed except in 
accordance with this Order. This shall not preclude the use of any 
material or information that is in the public domain or has been 
developed independently by any other person who has not had access 
to the Confidential Information nor otherwise learned of its 
contents.
    12. Reviewing Parties may, in any pleadings that they file in 
this proceeding, reference the Confidential Information, but only if 
they comply with the following procedures:
    a. Any portions of the pleadings that contain or disclose 
Confidential Information must be physically segregated from the 
remainder of the pleadings;
    b. The portions containing or disclosing Confidential 
Information must be covered by a separate letter referencing this 
Protective Order;
    c. Each page of any Party's filing that contains or discloses 
Confidential Information subject to this Order must be clearly 
marked: ``Confidential Information included pursuant to Protective 
Order, [cite proceeding];'' and
    d. The confidential portion(s) of the pleading shall be served 
upon the Secretary of the Commission, the Submitting Party, and 
those Reviewing Parties that have signed the attached Declaration. 
Such confidential portions shall be served under seal, and shall not 
be placed in the Commission's Public File unless the Commission 
directs otherwise (with notice to the Submitting Party and an 
opportunity to comment on such proposed disclosure). A Reviewing 
Party filing a pleading containing Confidential Information shall 
also file a redacted copy of the pleading containing no Confidential 
Information, which copy shall be placed in the Commission's public 
files. Reviewing Parties may provide courtesy copies of pleadings 
containing Confidential Information to Commission staff.
    13. Should a Reviewing Party that has properly obtained access 
to Confidential

[[Page 16432]]

Information under this Protective Order violate any of its terms, it 
shall immediately convey that fact to the Commission and to the 
Submitting Party. Further, should such violation consist of improper 
disclosure of Confidential Information, the violating party shall 
take all necessary steps to remedy the improper disclosure. The 
Commission retains its full authority to fashion appropriate 
sanctions for violations of this Protective Order, including but not 
limited to denial of further access to Confidential Information in 
this proceeding.
    14. Within two weeks after final resolution of this proceeding 
(which includes any administrative or judicial appeals), Authorized 
Representatives of Reviewing Parties shall destroy all Confidential 
Information as well as all copies and derivative materials made, and 
shall certify that no material whatsoever derived from such 
Confidential Information has been retained by any person having 
access thereto, except that counsel to a Reviewing Party may retain 
two copies of pleadings submitted on behalf of the Reviewing Party.
    15. Disclosure of Confidential Information as provided herein 
shall not be deemed a waiver by the Submitting Party of any 
privilege or entitlement to confidential treatment of such 
Confidential Information. Reviewing Parties, by viewing these 
materials: (a) agree not to assert any such waiver; (b) agree not to 
use information derived from any confidential materials to seek 
disclosure in any other proceeding; and (c) agree that accidental 
disclosure of privileged information shall not be deemed a waiver of 
the privilege.
    16. The entry of this Protective Order is without prejudice to 
the rights of the Submitting Party to apply for additional or 
different protection where it is deemed necessary or to the rights 
of Reviewing Parties to request further or renewed disclosure of 
Confidential Information. Moreover, it in no way precludes the 
Commission from disclosing any Confidential Information where it 
determines the public interest so requires.
    17. This Protective Order is issued pursuant to Section 4(i) of 
the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 154(i) and 47 CFR 
Sec. 0.457(d).
    18. As used in this Order, the term ``Commission'' shall also 
include any arm of the Commission acting pursuant to delegated 
authority.

Declaration

[Cite Proceeding]

    I, __________, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I 
have read the foregoing Protective Order that has been entered by 
the Commission in this proceeding, and that I agree that I will be 
bound by its terms pertaining to the treatment of Confidential 
Information submitted by parties to this proceeding. I understand 
that the Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to anyone 
except in accordance with the terms of the Protective Order and 
shall be used only for purposes of the proceedings in this matter. I 
acknowledge that a violation of the Protective Order is a violation 
of an order of the Federal Communications Commission.

(signed)---------------------------------------------------------------

(printed name)---------------------------------------------------------

(title)----------------------------------------------------------------

(affiliation)----------------------------------------------------------

(address)--------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(phone)----------------------------------------------------------------

(date)-----------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-9240 Filed 4-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P