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 )
) EB File No. EB-03-IH-0341
Section 272(d) Biennial Audit of )
Verizon Communications, Inc. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 7, 2003 Released:
August 8, 2003
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny
Verizon Communications, Inc.'s (``Verizon's'') request for
confidential treatment of information contained in its audit
report filed under section 272(d) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').1
2. Section 272 of the Act requires Bell Operating
Companies (``BOCs'') offering in-region, interLATA service
to do so through a separate affiliate.2 Section 272
establishes certain structural, transactional, and
nondiscrimination safeguards that govern the relationship
between a BOC and its affiliate after the BOC receives
authorization to provide in-region interLATA
telecommunications services pursuant to section 271 of the
Act. In addition, section 272(d) requires a BOC, after
receiving section 271 authorization, to obtain a joint
Federal/State audit conducted by an independent auditor to
determine the BOC's compliance with section 272 and the
Commission's rules.3
3. In a series of orders, the Commission implemented
the separate affiliate safeguards mandated by the Act. 4
The Commission intended to deter conduct that would furnish
an unfair competitive advantage to a BOC's in-region
interLATA operations over other carriers, such as cost
misallocation or discrimination in favor of the BOC's
section 272 separate affiliate.5 In the Accounting
Safeguards Order, the Commission adopted requirements
governing the section 272(d) biennial audit, the oversight
of the independent auditor, and filing the audit report.6
4. On June 11, 2001, Verizon submitted its first
section 272(d) biennial audit report.7 The final audit
report provided facts concerning the compliance of several
Verizon affiliates that were providing in-region, interLATA
service in New York pursuant to Verizon's section 271
authorization. Verizon requested confidential treatment of
certain financial and accounting information, including
performance measurement data; the request was denied by the
Commission.8 The Commission observed that section 272(d)(2)
provides that the independent auditor ``shall submit the
results of the audit to the Commission and to the State
commissions of each State in which the company audited
provides service, which shall make such results available
for public inspection.''9 The Commission concluded that the
plain language and the purpose of section 272(d)(2) mandates
public disclosure of the results of the audit, which are
contained in the audit report.10 The Commission also found
public disclosure consistent with the audit provisions of
section 220 of the Act, the Trade Secrets Act, and Exemption
4 of the Freedom of Information Act.11
5. Similarly, on September 5, 2002, the Commission
denied SBC Communications, Inc.'s (``SBC's'') request for
confidential treatment of information contained in its
272(d) audit report.12 SBC had requested confidential
treatment for financial and accounting information,
performance data depicting quality of service, and other
commercial information.13 The Commission rejected SBC's
request, observing that the performance data was aggregated
summary information and that SBC did not provide adequate
grounds for granting confidential treatment.14
6. On June 12, 2003, the independent auditor
submitted Verizon's second section 272(d) audit report. By
letter dated June 12, 2003, attached to the audit report,
Verizon requests confidential treatment of the performance
data, specifically for the volumes of special access
services purchased by Verizon's affiliates and non-
affiliates, as well as the number of presubscribed
interexchange carrier (``PIC'') changes submitted by
Verizon's long distance affiliates and other carriers.15
Specifically, Verizon seeks confidential treatment for the
volumes contained in the performance measure results in
Attachment A, pages A-3 through A-79 and the PIC changes
data in Appendix A, pages 80 and 81.
II. DISCUSSION
7. For the reasons stated in the Verizon
Confidentiality Order and the SBC Confidentiality Order, we
reject Verizon's request for confidential treatment.
Verizon here asserts the same arguments for confidential
treatment of performance measurements and other data that
the Commission addressed and rejected in the Verizon
Confidentiality Order. As the Commission stated there, the
plain language of section 272(d)(2) mandates public
disclosure of the results of the audit, contained in the
audit report.16 Moreover, as the Commission observed in
both the Verizon Confidentiality Order and the SBC
Confidentiality Order, public disclosure of the audit
results will promote meaningful comment on the audit results
pursuant to section 272(d)(2) and thereby help the
Commission determine compliance with section 272 and the
Commission's rules. 17
8. As it did with the last 272 audit report, Verizon
asserts that disclosure of this aggregated 2001 and 2002
information would likely substantially harm its competitive
position. In the Verizon Confidentiality Order, the
Commission rejected this argument, noting that Verizon only
referred generally to redactions in the audit report and did
not explain how specific information would cause competitive
harm.18 Under the Commission's confidentiality rules, it is
the submitter's responsibility to explain the degree to
which information is commercially sensitive (or contains
trade secrets) and the manner in which the subject area
could be used by competitors to inflict substantial
competitive harm.19 We therefore conclude that Verizon's
contentions here, without more, do not demonstrate how this
information would likely substantially harm its competitive
position.
9. Finally, we reject Verizon's request to limit
access to the audit information with a protective agreement.
In the Verizon Reconsideration Order and the SBC
Confidentiality Order the Commission rejected the same
request, observing that a protective order would run counter
to the statutory requirement to make the audit results
contained in the final section 272 audit available for
public inspection and to allow any party to comment on the
audit report.20
10. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we deny
Verizon's request for confidential treatment of information
contained in its section 272(d) audit report. As discussed
below, an unredacted version of the section 272(d) audit
report, in its entirety, will be available for public
comment.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to sections
4(i), 220, and 272(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 220,
and 272(d), that Verizon Communications, Inc.'s request for
confidential treatment of the section 272(d) audit report,
as noted and described herein, IS DENIED for the reasons
indicated in this Order.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to sections
4(i), 220, and 272(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 220,
and 272(d), that the unredacted version of the final section
272(d) audit report be filed in this docket within ten days
of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, subject
to paragraph 13 below. Interested parties will have 60 days
from that date to file comments.
13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section
0.459(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(g),
that Verizon has five working days from telephone notice of
decision to file an Application for Review of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order with the Commission. If
Verizon files such an Application for Review, the materials
will be accorded confidential treatment until the Commission
acts on the Application for Review.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________
1 47 U.S.C. § 272(d).
2 47 U.S.C. § 272.
3 47 U.S.C. § 272(d).
4 See Accounting Safeguards under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 17539 (1996)
(``Accounting Safeguards Order''), Second Order on
Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 1161 (2000); Implementation of
the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, First Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
21905 (1996) (``Non-Accounting Safeguards Order''), First
Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2297 (1997), Second
Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 8653 (1997), aff'd sub
nom. Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044
(D.C. Cir. 1997), Third Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd
16299 (1999); see also 47 C.F.R. §§ 32.27, 53.1-53.213,
64.901-64.904.
5 See Accounting Safeguards Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 17546, ¶
13.
6 See id. at 17628-632, ¶¶ 197-205; 47 C.F.R. §§ 53.209-
53.213.
7 See Accounting Safeguards under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996: Section 272(d) Biennial Audit Procedures,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1374 (``Verizon
Confidentiality Order''), recon. denied, Order on
Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 6955 (``Verizon Reconsideration
Order'') (2002).
8 See Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1375, ¶
4.
9 Id. at 1375-76, ¶ 5.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 1380-83, ¶¶ 13-20.
12 See Accounting Safeguards under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996: Section 272(d) Biennial Audit Procedures,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 17012 (2002) (``SBC
Confidentiality Order'').
13 SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17017-18, ¶ 17.
14 Id. at 17018-19, ¶ 19.
15 See Letter from Joseph DiBella, Regulatory Counsel,
Verizon to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission (June 12, 2003) (``Verizon
Confidentiality Request'').
16 Section 272(d)(2) states that the auditor ``shall submit
the results of the audit to the Commission and to the State
commission of each State in which the company audited
provides service, which shall make such results available
for public inspection. Any party may submit comments on the
final audit report.'' 47 U.S.C. § 272(d)(2). See Verizon
Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1375-76, ¶ 5.
17 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1377-78, ¶
8; SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17023, ¶ 33.
18 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1381, ¶ 15.
19 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459(b)(3), 0.459(b)(5).
20 Verizon Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 6956, ¶ 3;
SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17024, ¶ 35.