$//ORDER Dismissing Appeal of C4 Media Cable Southeast, DA 94-1247 //$ $/76.944 Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions/$ $/76.933 Franchising Authority Review of Basic and Equipment Rates/$ $/0.459 Withholding Information From Public Inspection/$ $/76.938 Proprietary Information/$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DA 94-1247 Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) C4 Media Cable Southeast, L.P., ) at Chatsworth, Georgia (GA0252) ) ) Appeal of Denial of Request for ) Confidentiality ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 9, 1994 Released: By the Chief, Cable Services Bureau: 1. C4 Media Cable Southeast, L.P. ("C4"), has filed with the Commission an appeal of the denial by the City of Chatsworth, Georgia ("City"), of C4's request to keep confidential the information contained in C4's FCC Form 393, which was submitted to the City to justify C4's rates for basic cable television service. For the reasons set forth below, we deny C4's appeal. 2. C4 submitted its FCC Form 393 to the City on January 31, 1994, in response to the City's request for its schedule of rates. At the same time, C4 requested that none of the information contained in the rate justification be made routinely available for public inspection. C4 contended that the material was confidential proprietary information, consisting of the details of its revenues, expenses (identified by category), profits and losses. According to C4, the rate justification information is "substantially identical" to the type of information afforded confidential treatment under Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules. For this reason, and because the City apparently has "adopted the FCC's standard for dissemination of proprietary information to the public," C4 requests that the Commission review the City's denial of confidentiality and stay the City's ability to make the information available for public inspection. The City opposes C4's appeal, arguing that withholding the rate justification materials from public inspection would prevent the public from commenting in a meaningful way on the reasonableness of the cable operator's rates. 3. With respect to requests for confidentiality of rate justification materials filed with the Commission, we have denied such requests where the cable operator has failed satisfy its burden of demonstrating that disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to its competitive position. Likewise, in this case, it appears that C4 has made no allegations concerning the likelihood of competitive harm that would result if the materials are made available for public inspection. 4. Furthermore, because this appeal does not involve a determination of whether the franchising authority has acted consistently with the 1992 Cable Act or our implementing rules, we have no basis for granting the relief requested. Rather, this appeal raises the issue of whether the City properly refused to accord C4's rate justification materials confidential treatment. In order to evaluate this appeal, the Commission would have to determine whether the City complied with applicable state or local law, since Section 76.938 of our rules establishes that state or local law governs public access to proprietary information. There is no evidence before us that the City has not complied with the applicable state or local law. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the appeal of the City's denial of confidentiality for the rate justification materials submitted by C4 Media Cable Southeast, L.P., IS DENIED. This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau