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 Docket No. 03-200
Section 272(d) Biennial Audit of ) EB File No. EB-
03-IH-0341
Verizon Communications, Inc. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: December 2, 2003 Released:
December 5, 2003
By the Commission:
I.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. In this Order, we deny an Application for Review
filed on behalf of Verizon Communications, Inc.
(``Verizon''). Verizon challenges a decision by the
Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'')1 denying 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'').2
2. Section 272 of the Act requires Bell Operating
Companies (``BOCs'') offering in-region, interLATA service
to do so through a separate affiliate.3 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.4 On June 11, 2001,
Verizon submitted its first section 272(d) biennial audit
report, which contained facts concerning the compliance of
Verizon affiliates that were providing in-region, interLATA
service in New York. Verizon sought confidential treatment
of financial and accounting data, including performance
measurements; the Commission denied the request.5 On June
12, 2003, Verizon submitted its second section 272(d) audit
report.6 By letter dated June 12, 2003, attached to the
audit report, Verizon requested confidential treatment of
the performance data, specifically 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.7 In
the Section 272(d) Audit Order, the Bureau denied Verizon's
request, based on the Commission's previous determinations
regarding requests for confidential treatment of section
272(d) audit reports in the Verizon Confidentiality Order
and the SBC Confidentiality Order. 8 On August 14, 2003,
Verizon filed an Application for Review.9
II. DISCUSSION
3. In this Application for Review, Verizon seeks
confidential treatment of information relevant to its
compliance with section 272 of the Act. Verizon contends
that the Bureau's denial of its confidentiality request is
``inconsistent with the Commission's previous decisions
regarding the confidentiality of section 272 audit
reports.''10 As explained below, we find the Bureau's
decision entirely consistent with Commission precedent. As
we stated in previous section 272 orders addressing
confidentiality, section 272(d)(2) mandates public
disclosure of the section 272 audit results.11 Indeed,
section 272(d)(2)'s mandate reflects Congress's conclusion
that the value of publicly available audit results outweighs
any potential competitive harm resulting from such
disclosure. We also conclude, as we have in the previous
orders,12 that disclosure is necessary to promote meaningful
comment pursuant to section 272(d)(2) and will thereby help
the Commission determine whether Verizon has complied with
section 272 and the Commission's rules.13
4. We also agree with the Bureau that disclosure of
information at issue is not likely to cause Verizon
substantial competitive harm. The information at issue is
not raw data, but aggregated information that summarizes and
reformats more detailed findings on a state-wide basis.14
Moreover, the information in the audit report is from 2001
and 2002, which further mitigates the likelihood of
substantial competitive harm. 15 In addition, Verizon's
claim is conclusory and does not explain how the specific
information at issue could cause likely competitive harm.16
Finally, we find that the public interest will be served by
disclosure of the audit results.
A. Public Disclosure Requirement of Section 272(d)(2)
5. Verizon's first argument is that the Bureau erred
in concluding that the plain language of section 272(d)(2)
mandates public disclosure of the results in the audit
report.17 Verizon contends that in the SBC Confidentiality
Order, the Commission allowed SBC to redact the names of
certain customers and vendors from the audit report, which
contradicts the Bureau's conclusion that section 272(d)(2)
mandates public disclosure.18 We do not agree with
Verizon's interpretation. In the SBC Confidentiality Order,
the Commission denied SBC's request for confidential
treatment of the audit report. While it is true that the
Commission allowed SBC to redact a very limited amount of
information from its audit report (i.e., company and vendor
names), we based that determination on the fact that the
information was irrelevant to SBC's compliance with section
272 (not that disclosure posed substantial competitive harm)
and the Commission's rules and therefore was not properly
section 272 audit results in the first place. 19 As a
result, this finding did not disturb the Commission's
earlier conclusion in the Verizon Confidentiality Order that
section 272(d)(2) requires public disclosure of the audit
results.
B. Freedom of Information Act Exemption 4 and
Commission Rules
6. Verizon next argues that the information
identified as proprietary is exempt from disclosure under
Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'').20
In light of our prior conclusion that section 272(d)(2)
mandates public disclosure, we need not address these
issues. Nevertheless, to provide a full response to Verizon
and to make clear that our application of section 272(d)(2)
here is consistent with our traditional confidentiality/FOIA
analysis in other contexts, we will do so.
7. Under Exemption 4, commercial or financial
materials are held to be confidential when disclosure would
likely substantially harm the competitive position of the
submitter.21 For the reasons set forth below, we find that
the Bureau correctly concluded that Verizon failed to
demonstrate with specificity how disclosure of these data
would likely substantially harm Verizon's competitive
position.22
8. Verizon argues that if competitors were provided
the ``volumes'' information, they would gain insight into
Verizon's success in the exchange access market in each
state and obtain data on the growth rates for specific
services and in specific areas.23 We disagree. The audit
report does not provide specific information about
individual orders; the ``volumes'' data in the audit report
are aggregated state-wide on a monthly basis. As the
Commission explained in the Verizon Confidentiality Order,
the information in the audit report is not raw data, but
aggregated information that summarizes and reformats
detailed findings.24 Competitors could not derive from this
aggregated data the specific information alleged by Verizon.
9. Verizon contends that the volumes data ``would
help [competitors] in targeting their competitive services
to services and areas where Verizon is experiencing the
greatest growth and to use their resources to present the
strongest competitive challenge to Verizon.''25 Verizon
does not explain precisely how competitors might use this
information to accomplish these goals. Presumably, Verizon
would argue that the volumes data for Verizon's 272
affiliate, reviewed over time, could show the states in
which the affiliate was increasing its market share in 2001
and 2002. Verizon has not shown how this information,
aggregated state-wide on a monthly basis for 2001 and 2002,
would likely substantially harm its competitive position.
As we concluded in the SBC Confidentiality Order, a
competitor cannot use aggregated performance data to target
specific customers in specific markets or to provide
interLATA telecommunications service more efficiently.26 We
therefore conclude that Verizon's allegation that the 2001
and 2002 data could provide information about the section
272 affiliate's growth to competitors is insufficient to
demonstrate that such data would likely substantially harm
its competitive position.
10. Verizon next argues that ``[i]n some instances,
the data is so granular as to provide information to
competitors regarding success with specific customers or
bids. Knowledge of the long distance affiliates' success in
attracting long distance customers and in processing orders
for those customers would help competitors develop marketing
strategies and plans.''27 The Commission rejected this
argument in the Verizon Confidentiality Order, concluding
that none of the information contained in the audit report
described Verizon's long distance marketing plans, its
advertising program, or its pricing strategies.28 The data
at issue here similarly do not identify these facts.
11. Verizon further contends that ``in some months the
order volumes for non-affiliates for a specific product in a
small state such as Vermont or Maine only show one
order.''29 Thus, competitors ``could easily deduce which
carrier ordered service.''30 The volumes data at issue are
aggregated by state and month and by class of carrier; the
audit report does not identify customers, specific markets,
or details about the services.31 Even if we assume that
Verizon's contention -- that if there is one order by a non-
affiliate in one state, competitors could deduce which
carrier ordered service -- is correct, Verizon has not shown
how this event in 2001 or 2002 would likely substantially
harm its competitive position today.
12. Verizon also contends that ``the information about
services obtained by Verizon's long distance affiliates
would allow competitors to evaluate the present and future
business plans of those affiliates, giving them insight into
the affiliate's financial status, market plans, growth
potential, and technical capabilities.''32 Verizon does
not, however, explain how the performance data aggregated by
state would provide this level of detailed information to
competitors. In the Verizon Confidentiality Order, the
Commission rejected the same argument, noting that Verizon
did not explain how the specific information at issue would
cause competitive harm.33 Verizon's contentions, without
more, do not demonstrate how this aggregated information
from 2001 and 2002 would likely give competitors insight
into the affiliate's financial status, market plans, growth
potential, and technical capabilities and substantially harm
Verizon's competitive position.
13. As the Bureau observed, the purpose of the section
272(d) audit report is to assist the Commission, the state
commissions, and the public in determining whether a BOC and
its affiliates are complying with the section 272
requirements. 34 To offer meaningful comments on the audit
report, the public must have access to sufficient
information. Ensuring public disclosure of the information
contained in the audit report is fully consistent with the
underlying purpose of section 272(d) of the Act. Verizon's
attempt to redact the volumes information from the audit
report would thwart this purpose.
C. Other Issues
14. Verizon also contends that it does not have
similar order volume information about other carriers,
putting it at a disadvantage. 35 The Commission addressed
this argument in the Verizon Confidentiality Order, and
noted that Verizon and its affiliates will obtain the same
information from other BOCs and their section 272
affiliates, although not from long distance competitors
without dominant carrier affiliates. 36 The Commission
observed that Congress required the publicly available audit
report disclosing the results of the section 272(d) audit
and also required public disclosure of transactions between
the BOC and its section 272 affiliate. 37 The Commission
concluded that the section 272 requirements are intended to
deter misuse of the BOCs' dominant position in local markets
and therefore it would not grant confidential treatment of
the information in the section 272(d) audit report on the
ground that Verizon and its affiliates do not have the same
information about other long distance providers. 38 For the
same reasons, we agree that the Bureau properly rejected
Verizon's argument.
15. With respect to PIC change orders, Verizon argues
that these data are highly sensitive due to the intensely
competitive market for local exchange services and long
distance services.39 Verizon contends, and we agree, that
the long distance market is highly competitive and consumers
frequently change long distance providers. 40 Any potential
harm from the disclosure of aggregated information regarding
PIC change orders would be eliminated, however, because of
the dated nature of the information in the audit report.41
16. Verizon claims that in prior decisions, the
Commission has protected carrier demand data and traffic
volume data from disclosure.42 The cases cited by Verizon
do not, however, arise from section 272(d) audits, which,
pursuant to the Act, must be made available for public
inspection and comment.43 First, Verizon contends that
because number utilization and forecast data submitted by
carriers is exempt from public disclosure, the performance
measures in the section 272(d) audit should also be exempt.
44 Verizon has not shown how aggregated performance
measures from 2001 and 2002 in a section 272(d) audit report
should be treated in the same manner as disaggregated
carrier-specific number utilization and forecast data
reported by carriers to allow the Commission to monitor
nationwide numbering resources.45 These data are very
different and serve completely different purposes. For
example, the audit report contains the volume of DS1 orders
by Verizon's section 272 affiliates on a state-wide basis;
the number utilization and forecast data reported by
carriers are highly disaggregated and identify the quantity
of assigned, intermediate, reserved, aging, and
administrative numbers.46 The information in the audit
report is made public in order to allow meaningful third-
party comments regarding the carrier's compliance with
section 272 of the Act. The numbering data, on the other
hand, is filed by carriers in order to allow the Commission
to monitor nationwide number usage.
17. Verizon also contends that in the merger context,
traffic volume data is deemed confidential. 47 In the cases
cited by Verizon, the Cable Services and Common Carrier
Bureaus adopted protective orders because they anticipated
receiving additional filings that would contain confidential
information such as future business plans, customer names,
usage patterns, locations, and traffic volumes. The
confidential nature of the data was not discussed in the
Bureaus' orders; however, the information was obviously far
more extensive and detailed than the data at issue here.
Verizon has not shown that the data in the section 272(d)
audit report is disaggregated to the same extent as the
confidential data in the merger orders. Next, Verizon
contends that in tariff-related proceedings, the Commission
has found that disaggregated demand data are competitively
sensitive.48 In the GCI FOIA case cited by Verizon, the
Commission found that the documents sought contained
``specific cost and demand data that is highly detailed and
disaggregated.''49 Verizon has not shown that the data it
seeks to redact is as detailed or disaggregated as the
Alascom data at issue in the GCI FOIA case. We conclude
that Verizon has failed to show that the information it
seeks to protect merits the same treatment as the data in
the merger cases, numbering resources case, or the FOIA case
cited.
18. Finally, we agree with the Bureau's rejection of
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 this same approach.50 As the Commission explained,
a protective order would run contrary to the statutory
requirement to make the audit results available for public
inspection and to allow any party to comment on the report.
51
19. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Bureau
correctly denied Verizon's request for confidential
treatment of the information contained in the section 272(d)
audit report.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
20. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to sections
4(i), 220, and 272(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 220, and 272(d), and section
1.115(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(g),
the Application for Review filed on behalf of Verizon
Communications, Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding is
DENIED.
21. 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.
Interested parties will have 60 days from that date to file
comments.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
_________________________
1 Section 272(d) Biennial Audit of Verizon Communications,
Inc., EB File No. EB-03-IH-0341, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, DA 03-2619 (rel. Aug. 8, 2003) (``Section 272(d)
Audit Order'').
2 47 U.S.C. § 272(d).
3 47 U.S.C. § 272.
4 47 U.S.C. § 272(d).
5 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).
6 The period of time covered by the audit was January 3,
2001 through January 2, 2003.
7 See Letter from Joseph DiBella, Regulatory Counsel,
Verizon to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission (June 12, 2003). These data in the
audit report for which Verizon seeks confidential treatment
are 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.
8 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'').
9 Section 272(d) Biennial Audit of Verizon Communications,
Inc., EB File No. EB-03-IH-0341, Application for Review
(filed Aug. 14, 2003) (``Verizon Application for Review'').
10 Verizon Application for Review at 1. Under section
1.115(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, applicants must
demonstrate one of the following: that the action taken
pursuant to delegated authority is in conflict with statute,
regulation, case precedent, or established Commission
policy; that the action involves a question of law or policy
which has not previously been resolved by the Commission;
that the action involves application of a precedent or
policy which should be overturned or revised; an erroneous
finding as to an important or material question of fact; or
prejudicial procedural error. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2).
11 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1376, ¶ 5;
Verizon Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 6956, ¶ 3.
12 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1377-78, ¶
8; SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17023, ¶ 33.
13 See SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17023, ¶ 33.
14 See Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1377, ¶
8.
15 See Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1382, ¶
19; SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17017, ¶ 15.
16 See Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1381, ¶
15; SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17018-19, ¶ 19.
17 Verizon Application for Review at 3.
18 Id. at 3-4, citing SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd
at 17022-23, ¶ 32.
19 SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17022-23, ¶ 32.
20 Verizon Application for Review at 7-10.
21 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459; see also Verizon Confidentiality
Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1380, ¶ 13. For a comprehensive
discussion of the Commission's confidentiality rules, see
SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17015-16, ¶¶ 10-11.
22 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. 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.459(b)(3), 0.459(b)(5).
23 Verizon Application for Review at 5.
24 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1377-78, ¶
8. For example, the audit report shows, by state, the
number of DS1 orders by ``272 affiliate,'' ``non-272
affiliate,'' and ``non-affiliated carriers,'' aggregated on
a monthly basis for 2001 and 2002.
25 Verizon Application for Review at 5.
26 See SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17021, ¶ 26.
27 Verizon Application for Review at 5.
28 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1382, ¶ 17.
29 Verizon Application for Review at 6.
30 Id.
31 The services are: DS0, DS1, DS3, and OCn.
32 Verizon Application for Review at 6.
33 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1381, ¶ 15.
34 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1377-78, ¶ 7
(citing Accounting Safeguards under the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-150, Report and Order, 11 FCC
Rcd 17539, 17628-29, ¶ 197 (1996) (``Accounting Safeguards
Order''), Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 1161
(2000)).
35 Verizon Application for Review at 6.
36 Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1382, ¶ 18.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Verizon Application for Review at 6.
40 Id. The Commission also made this observation in the
Verizon Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1382, ¶ 19.
41 See SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17017 & n.51
(rejecting SBC's confidentiality claims in light of dated
nature of the information).
42 Verizon Application for Review at 9.
43 47 U.S.C. § 272(d)(2).
44 Verizon Application for Review at 9, citing Numbering
Resource Optimization, Report and Order and Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 7574, 7607, ¶ 78 (2000)
(``Numbering Report and Order'').
45 In the Numbering Report and Order, the Commission
codified six primary categories of number usage: assigned,
intermediate, reserved, aging, administrative, and
available. The Commission found that monitoring individual
carrier's use of numbering resources was necessary to ensure
that numbering resources are efficiently used and that the
North American Numbering Plan (``NANP'') is not prematurely
exhausted. Numbering Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 7593,
¶ 37.
46 Aggregated data, such as carrier's Numbering Plan Area
(``NPA'')-wide utilization rate and number of NXXs (or
central office codes) assigned, do not require confidential
treatment. Id. at 7607-08, ¶ 79.
47 Verizon Application for Review at 9, citing Applications
of America Online, Inc. and Time Warner, Inc. for Transfers
of Control, Order Adopting Protective Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6117
(Cab. Serv. Bur. 2000) and Application of WorldCom, Inc. and
MCI Communications Corporation for Transfer of Control of
MCI Communications Corporation to WorldCom, Inc., Order
Adopting Protective Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11166 (Com. Car. Bur.
1998); Verizon Application for Review at 10, citing
Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of
Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from MediaOne Group,
Inc. Transferor, to AT&T Corp., Transferee, Order Adopting
Protective Order, 14 FCC Rcd 12286 (Cab. Serv. Bur. 1999).
48 Verizon cites General Communications, Inc., FOIA Control
Nos. 95-355, 95-403, 11 FCC Rcd 5373 (1996) (``GCI FOIA'').
49 GCI FOIA, 11 FCC Rcd at 5374-75, ¶ 11. For example, the
information would reveal the costs and demand for various
sites within the non-Bush area where GCI competes with
Alascom, as well as profit margins. Id.
50 Verizon Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 6956, ¶ 3;
SBC Confidentiality Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 17024, ¶ 35.
51 Verizon Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 6956, ¶ 3.