Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
Antenna Systems & Supplies, Inc.      )  File  No. EB-05-SE-
109
Schaumburg, Illinois            )      
                                 
                            ORDER

Adopted:  November 28, 2005             Released:   November 
30, 2005

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement 
Bureau:

I.           INTRODUCTION

1.   In this Order, we grant in part and deny in part a 
   request for confidential treatment of material submitted 
   by Antenna Systems & Supplies, Inc. (``AS&S'') in 
   response to a letter of inquiry (``LOI'').  

II.         BACKGROUND

2.   On March 7, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division 
   (``Division'') of the Enforcement Bureau sent Sandown 
   Wireless, a distributor of AS&S's products, an LOI 
   seeking information and documents concerning its 
   marketing of cell phone jammers and multi-purpose jammers 
   to state and local law enforcement agencies in the United 
   States in apparent violation of Section 302(b) of the 
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), and 
   Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  On 
   behalf of Sandown, AS&S submitted a response to this LOI 
   on March 25, 2005.2  AS&S included with its response a 
   confidentiality request, in which AS&S asked that ``all 
   documents found within a directory (CD-ROM) and an 
   appendix (printed) named CONFIDENTIAL or marked 
   CONFIDENTIAL be held in confidence and not be made 
   available for public inspection.''  AS&S stated that 
   ``[t]he specific information for which confidential 
   treatment is sought is a) customer names and addresses, 
   b) product serial numbers and specifications, c) prices, 
   and d) sales presentation materials.''  AS&S also marked 
   as ``confidential'' certain other information and 
   documents that do not fall within any of these four 
   categories.  Specifically, AS&S marked as 
   ``confidential'' its responses to questions concerning 
   when AS&S began manufacturing and marketing the cell 
   phone jammers, how many of the devices have been 
   manufactured and distributed in the United States, where 
   AS&S manufactured the devices, and whether or not it 
   continues to manufacture these devices.  Additionally, 
   AS&S marked as ``confidential'' several sales invoices 
   for its cell jammers, a letter to AS&S from a customer 
   concerning one of its cell jammers, and a copy of a draft 
   SAFETY Act Application3 for AS&S's cell jammers, dated 
   March 21, 2005.  

3.   In support of its request for confidentiality in its 
   March 25, 2005 response, AS&S asserted that ``[t]he 
   information comprises commercial and financial 
   information as well as trade secret information.''4  In 
   addition, AS&S stated that ``the information concerns a 
   product and technology that are subject to competition''5 
   and that ``[d]isclosure of this information could harm 
   [AS&S] by making known the names of its customers, its 
   prices and its product information to its competitors.''6  
   AS&S also noted that it maintains physical control of its 
   confidential information in its office, which has 
   security safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized 
   entry.7  AS&S further stated that its sales invoices are 
   not made available to the public and that its sales 
   presentations are restricted to potential customers who 
   are law enforcement agencies or who are authorized 
   distributors.8  Finally, AS&S asserted that ``because of 
   national security issues that are involved,'' this 
   material should never be available for public 
   inspection.9 

III.      DISCUSSION

4.    Section 0.459 of the Rules establishes a procedure by 
   which parties may request that information or materials 
   that they have submitted to the Commission not be 
   routinely available for public inspection.10  This rule 
   requires that a party seeking confidentiality provide a 
   statement of the reasons for withholding the materials in 
   question from public inspection and set forth the 
   specific categories of materials for which such treatment 
   is appropriate.11  The standards of this section are 
   governed by the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''), 
   and the requesting party must show ``by a preponderance 
   of the evidence'' that non-disclosure is consistent with 
   the pertinent provision of FOIA.12

5.        Exemption 4 of the FOIA permits the Commission, in 
   its discretion, to withhold from  disclosure any 
   documents containing either (1) trade secrets or (2) 
   information which is (a) commercial or financial, and (b) 
   obtained from a person, and (c) privileged or 
   confidential.13  Further, commercial or financial 
   information is privileged or confidential if either (1) 
   disclosure of the information is likely to impair the 
   government's ability to obtain necessary information in 
   the future or (2) disclosure is likely to cause 
   substantial harm to the competitive position of the 
   person from whom the information was obtained.14  The 
   Commission has found that ``the entity or person seeking 
   confidentiality must show that substantial competitive 
   injury is likely to result from disclosure.  While an 
   elaborate economic analysis need not be made to establish 
   the likelihood of substantial competitive injury, 
   `conclusory and generalized allegations' cannot support 
   nondisclosure.''15  

6.        We find that AS&S has demonstrated in accordance 
   with our rules that certain of the information provided 
   in response to the LOI contains trade secrets, commercial 
   or financial or privileged information, the disclosure of 
   which could result in substantial competitive harm.16  
   Specifically, we find that AS&S has demonstrated that its 
   customer names and addresses are commercial information 
   and should be accorded confidential treatment.  Indeed, 
   the Commission has acknowledged that ``customer records 
   are among the most basic business records that a company 
   uses in furtherance of its commercial activities.''17  
   Disclosure of AS&S's customer records could result in 
   substantial competitive harm because its competitors 
   could use this information to solicit its customers.  
   Likewise, we find that disclosure of AS&S's price lists, 
   sales invoices and sales presentation materials could 
   result in substantial competitive harm and should be 
   treated confidentially.  AS&S explained that this 
   information is not made available to the public and 
   described the security measures it takes to maintain 
   control over this information.  We also grant 
   confidential treatment to the number of devices that AS&S 
   has manufactured and distributed in the United States.  
   Such information could be used by its competitors to 
   approximate its market share.  Finally, we will accord 
   confidential treatment to AS&S's draft SAFETY Act 
   application.  

7.        Thus, we find that AS&S has demonstrated that the 
   following portions of documents submitted in response to 
   the LOI should be accorded confidential treatment:

         Response to LOI, Page 1/3 of ``Confidential 
          Answers,'' Responses (b) and (c); 

         Response to LOI, Page 2/3 of ``Confidential 
          Answers,'' Response (c); and

         Response to LOI, Page 3/3 of ``Confidential 
          Answers,'' all of the attached documents listed in 
          items 1-3, Invoice No. 106125 listed in item 4, 
          and all of the attached documents listed in items 
          5-9.  

8.   We find, however, that AS&S's request for 
   confidentiality of the other information marked as 
   ``confidential'' in its LOI response is overbroad and 
   fails to comply with the standards set forth in Section 
   0.459 of the Rules.  The Commission's rules make clear 
   that casual requests for confidentiality that do not 
   comply with the requirements of Section 0.459 will not be 
   considered.18  Further, the LOI explicitly warned that 
   requests for confidential treatment must comply with the 
   requirements of Section 0.459, including the standards of 
   specificity mandated by Section 0.459(b), and that the 
   Bureau will not consider confidentiality requests that do 
   not comply.19  Although AS&S seeks confidentiality for 
   its product serial numbers and specifications, this 
   information is publicly available on its website and was 
   also previously available on the website of its 
   distributor, Sandown.  Similarly, while AS&S requested 
   confidential treatment of a letter from a customer 
   concerning one of its cell phone jammers, the Division 
   staff observed that this letter was previously posted on 
   the website of AS&S's distributor, Sandown.  AS&S also 
   requested confidentiality of its responses to questions 
   concerning when it began manufacturing and marketing the 
   cell phone jammers, where AS&S manufactured the devices, 
   and whether or not it continues to manufacture these 
   devices.  Because AS&S did not explain the degree to 
   which this information is commercial or financial or 
   contains a trade secret as required by Section 
   0.459(b)(3), or explain how disclosure of such 
   information could result in substantial competitive harm 
   as required by Section 0.459(b)(5), we deny its request 
   for confidentiality of this information.  

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

9.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
   0.311, 0.459(c) and 0.459(d)(2) of the Rules,20 that the 
   Confidentiality Request filed on March 25, 2005 by 
   Antenna System and Supplies, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART AND 
   DENIED IN PART as described herein.

10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.459(g) of 
   the Rules, that Antenna System and Supplies, Inc. may 
   file an application for review of this denial with the 
   Commission within five (5) working days of this Order.

11.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall 
   be sent via facsimile, first class mail and certified 
   mail, return receipt requested, to Sheldon L. Epstein, 
   Esq., counsel for Antenna System and Supplies, Inc., P.O. 
   Box 400, Wilmette, Illinois 60091-0400.  

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         



                              Joseph P. Casey
                              Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division
                              Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1Letter from Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Keith Clark, President, 
Sandown Wireless (March 15, 2005) (``LOI'').

2Response from Sheldon L. Epstein, counsel for AS&S, to 
Katherine Power, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement 
Bureau (March 25, 2005) (``Response to LOI'').

3As part  of the Homeland  Security Act of 2002,  Public Law 
107-296, Congress  enacted the SAFETY Act  to provide ``risk 
management'' and  ``litigation management''  protections for 
sellers of qualified  anti-terrorism technologies and others 
in  the supply  and distribution  chain.  Specifically,  the 
SAFETY  Act   creates  certain  liability   limitations  for 
``claims arising out  of, relating to, or  resulting from an 
act   of   terrorism''    where   qualified   anti-terrorism 
technologies have  been deployed.   Sellers that wish  to be 
awarded SAFETY  Act protections  for such  technologies must 
submit  an   application  to  the  Department   of  Homeland 
Security.

4Response to LOI at 1.

5Id. 

6Id. at 2.

7Id.

8Id.

9Id.

1047 C.F.R.  0.459.

1147 C.F.R.  0.459(b).  Section 0.457 sets forth the 
categories of records that are not routinely available for 
public inspection, i.e., accorded confidential treatment, 
and Section 0.459 sets forth the procedures for submitting 
requests that material or information be withheld from 
public inspection.  For instance, Section 0.459(b)(3) 
provides that a request for confidentiality shall, among 
other things, include an ``explanation of the degree to 
which the information is commercial or financial, or 
contains a trade secret or is privileged.'' 47 C.F.R.  
0.459(b)(3).

1247 C.F.R.  0.459(d).  See also 5 U.S.C.  552, et seq.

135 U.S.C.  552(b)(4).

14See Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871 
(D.C. Cir. 1992).  In cases involving financial or 
commercial information that was supplied voluntarily to the 
government, Exemption 4 applies if the provider would not 
customarily release the information to the public.  Id. at 
879-880.  See also, TKR Cable Company of Ramapo, 11 FCC Rcd 
3538 at 3538 (1996).

15National Exchange Carrier Ass'n, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 7184 
(1990) (quoting Nat'l Parks and Conservation Ass'n v. 
Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 680-81 (D.C. Cir. 1976)).

1647 C.F.R.  0.459(b)(3).   

17Mobile  Relay Associates,  14 FCC  Rcd 18919,  18922 (WTB, 
1999).

18 See 47 C.F.R.  0.459(c). 

19LOI at 3.

2047 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 0.459(c) and 0.459(d)(2).