**Before the**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matters of )

)

AMERITECH CORPORATION TELEPHONE )

OPERATING COMPANIES' CONTINUING )

PROPERTY RECORDS AUDIT )

)

BELL ATLANTIC (NORTH) TELEPHONE )

COMPANIES' CONTINUING PROPERTY )

RECORDS AUDIT )

)

BELL ATLANTIC (SOUTH) TELEPHONE )

COMPANIES' CONTINUING PROPERTY ) CC Docket No. 99-117

RECORDS AUDIT )

) ASD File No. 99-22

PACIFIC BELL AND NEVADA BELL )

TELEPHONE COMPANIES' CONTINUING )

PROPERTY RECORDS AUDIT )

)

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE )

COMPANY'S CONTINUING PROPERTY )

RECORDS AUDIT )

)

U S WEST TELEPHONE COMPANIES' )

CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS AUDIT )

)

In the Matter of )

)

MCI WORLDCOM, INC. ) FOIA Control No. 99-163

)

On Request for Inspection of Records )

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

Adopted: December 1, 1999; Released: December 6, 1999

By the Commission:

1.  The Commission has under consideration applications for review filed
    by Ameritech Communications, Inc. (Ameritech), BellSouth Corporation
    (BellSouth), Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell, and
    Nevada Bell (jointly, SBC), and U S WEST Communications, Inc. (U S
    West) (jointly referred to as the applicants).[^1] The applicants
    seek review of the decision of the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) to
    make available pursuant to a protective order materials related to
    the Bureau's audits of the Regional Bell Operating Companies'
    (RBOCs) Continuing Property Records (CPR), in response to a Freedom
    of Information Act (FOIA) request by MCI WorldCom, Inc. (MCIW).[^2]
    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Bureau's decision to
    release the materials subject to a protective order.

***Background***

2.  The Bureau\'s Accounting Safeguards Division (ASD) conducted audits
    of the RBOCs hard-wired central office equipment (COE) to determine
    whether the carriers' records are in compliance with Part 32 of
    Commission\'s rules. [^3] The CPR audits included field audits in
    which Commission auditors, together with representatives of the
    companies, inspected company premises to verify the physical
    existence of specific items of equipment. Items were classified or
    \"scored\" as (1) found; (2) found in another location; (3) not
    found/missing; or (4) unverifiable.[^4] Upon completion of the field
    audits, the ASD auditors asked the RBOCs for source documents to
    prove the physical existence of items not found and for items the
    companies recorded as \"undetailed.\" As the RBOCs provided
    documents, the auditors reviewed the information and determined
    whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to warrant a change in
    the scoring.[^5] The auditors also provided each RBOC with copies of
    their respective audit reports for comment. In their comments, the
    RBOCs disputed the auditors\' conclusions and questioned the
    validity of the audit procedures.

3.  The RBOCs subsequently waived their claims of confidentiality for
    information in the audit reports and the companies' comments, and
    the Commission publicly released these materials.[^6] In the audit
    reports, the ASD auditors noted that approximately 11 percent of the
    equipment could not be found, and approximately 14 percent was
    unverifiable or found in another location. The audit reports also
    noted that certain carrier records contained deficiencies and did
    not comply with the Commission\'s rules. The Commission also
    initiated a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) proceeding seeking comments on
    issues arising from the CPR audit reports.[^7] Most pertinent to
    this proceeding, the NOI sought public comment on "\[t\]he validity
    and reasonableness of the methodology used by the Bureau's auditors
    in determining whether to rescore or to modify a finding during the
    field audit that equipment was 'not found'."[^8]

4.  After the issuance of the NOI, MCIW filed a FOIA request seeking
    general public release of "any materials that the RBOCs have
    submitted to the \[ASD\] to explain why hard-wired COE equipment
    \[sic\] items were not found by the auditors or to support claims
    that items in the audit sample should be 'rescored.'"[^9] MCIW also
    sought "any audit workpapers generated by ASD staff during the
    course of the audits that show or support the item-by-item scoring
    of the items in the audit sample."[^10] Finally, MCIW sought CPR
    detail for any items scored "partially found," "not found," or "not
    verifiable" at any time during the audit process.[^11] MCIW asserted
    that this information was necessary to respond to the questions
    posed in the NOI, especially Issue No. 2.[^12] It stated that if the
    Commission determined that unrestricted public release was not
    possible, the public should be allowed to review the material under
    a protective order.[^13] The RBOCs opposed MCI\'s FOIA request.[^14]

5.  The Bureau granted MCIW\'s FOIA request subject to a protective
    order.[^15] The Bureau determined that, while certain of the
    materials filed by the RBOCs during the course of the audits
    contained confidential commercial information that presumably was
    exempt from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA, it would, in its
    discretion, authorize release of the materials to parties to the NOI
    who agreed to sign a protective order.[^16] The Bureau explained
    that the discretionary release was warranted because access to the
    materials was required in order to comment on Issue No. 2 of the
    NOI.[^17] The Bureau also explained that by allowing the release
    through a protective order, any potential competitive harm to the
    RBOCs from release the information would be \"reasonably
    ameliorated.\"[^18]

6.  All of the RBOCs, with the exception of Bell Atlantic,[^19] sought
    Commission review of the Bureau Decision. MCIW opposed the
    applications for review,[^20] and U S West replied to MCIW.[^21]

    ***Decision***

7.  Upon consideration of the applicants' arguments, and for the reasons
    stated below, we affirm the Bureau's decision to make specified CPR
    audit materials available to the public pursuant to a protective
    order. However, as indicated below, we modify the terms and
    conditions of the release in response to requests made by the
    carriers.

8.  The carriers generally contend that disclosure of these materials is
    unlawful, will result in competitive harm, and is unnecessary in
    order to afford meaningful comment on the issues in the NOI. We
    disagree. As to the claim that disclosure is unlawful, section
    220(f) of the Communications Act prohibits employees from disclosing
    information obtained during the course of an audit "except as \[the
    employee\] may be directed by the Commission or by a court."
    Contrary to the contention of several of the applicants,[^22] the
    Bureau properly observed (Bureau Decision at 3) that section 220(f)
    constitutes explicit authority to disclose audit-related materials
    as a matter of the Commission's discretion.[^23] [See]{.underline}
    [Examination of Current Policy Concerning the Treatment of
    Confidential Information Submitted to the Commission]{.underline},
    13 FCC Rcd 24816, 24820-21 (1998) ([Treatment of Confidential
    Information]{.underline}), recon. denied, FCC 99-262 (rel. Oct. 5,
    1999); [Amendment of Part 0 of the Commission's Rules with Respect
    to Delegation of Authority to the Chief, Common Carrier
    Bureau]{.underline}, 104 F.C.C.2d 733, 737 (1986) (*CCB*
    [Delegation]{.underline}). Because disclosure is authorized, the
    Trade Secrets Act,[^24] which prohibits the release of trade secrets
    and confidential information unless authorized by law, does not bar
    the release of the audit materials, as some applicants assert.[^25]
    [Treatment of Confidential Information at 24820-21; CCB Delegation
    at 737]{.underline}. Although some applicants argue that section
    220(f) was merely intended as a prohibition on disclosures by
    Commission employees, the section's language also creates an
    explicit exception to the prohibition for disclosures that are
    directed by the Commission. The Commission has consistently
    interpreted section 220(f) as permitting such discretionary
    disclosures, and the applicants have not persuaded us that our
    longstanding interpretation is in error. Indeed, given the
    importance of Commission audits to the effective performance of the
    Commission's statutory responsibilities with respect to carriers, we
    believe the Act's statutory scheme fully envisions that, in some
    cases, disclosures of carrier-supplied audit information might
    become necessary in the course of carrying out the Commission's
    enforcement and regulatory policymaking functions.

9.  We also agree with the Bureau and MCIW that in these circumstances
    the public interest outweighs any potential harm to the RBOCs.
    Release of the materials specified by MCIW will enable the public to
    comment on NOI Issue No. 2 to an extent that is otherwise not
    possible, and, most importantly, with respect to issues raised by
    the RBOCs that rescoring was done incorrectly. Several of the
    applicants claim that MCIW and other interested parties do not need
    access to the audit workpapers or related audit submissions to
    comment on Issue No. 2 because the previously disclosed audit
    reports and the Scoring Public Notice contain sufficient information
    to allow parties to comment.[^26] The scope of the inquiry
    envisioned by Issue No. 2 is not so narrow as that posited by the
    applicants, however. Public information released to date merely
    summarizes the auditors' general procedures. Comment on Issue No. 2
    would not elicit useful information about the accuracy and validity
    of the audits unless commenters were allowed to examine how those
    general procedures were actually implemented when the auditors
    decided whether rescoring was appropriate. Therefore, we agree with
    the Bureau that the workpapers and underlying submissions by the
    RBOCs are necessary to evaluate \"the validity and reasonableness of
    the methodology\" as provided for in Issue No. 2 of the NOI.[^27]

10. We recognize, as the applicants note, that in many instances in the
    past we have declined to release audit materials publicly.[^28] The
    disclosures here are not public, however. Moreover, in none of the
    cases cited had we embarked on the type of public inquiry we have
    instituted in the NOI. It is fully consistent with Commission
    precedent to disclose confidential information, using protective
    orders, to enable participation in Commission proceedings.[^29] We
    have therefore followed that policy here.

11. Nor do we perceive the disclosure here as establishing a precedent
    that compromises the integrity of the audit process. The NOI
    proceeding that prompted the disclosures is unusual: the Commission
    has rarely, if ever, sought public comment on its auditors'
    methodology and findings. Here, however, we were sufficiently
    concerned about the issues surrounding the audits to invite public
    comment, and we believe that broader comment will greatly assist us
    in resolving the issues. Hence, the Bureau's decision does not mark
    a departure from our general policies concerning the confidentiality
    of audit materials; rather, it is an exception to those policies
    that is warranted by unusual circumstances.

12. As to the potential harm to the carriers, the protective order
    adopted by the Bureau was crafted to ensure that the potential for
    competitive harm, if any at all, is minimal. Only information
    related to the sampled items not found, unidentified or found in
    another location will be disclosed, and then can only be used to
    file comments in the NOI proceeding. In addition, no party can copy
    these materials. We also remind the parties of the severe penalties
    for violation of the protective order.[^30]

13. The applicants indicate that they would prefer a more stringent
    protective order.[^31] We agree with certain of their proposals in
    this regard. We will grant the request that access to the materials
    be limited to persons without decision making authority or influence
    regarding competitive issues.[^32] We also agree with SBC and
    BellSouth that vendor-specific pricing information found in the
    audit materials should be redacted. [^33] Redaction of this
    information will not compromise the ability of the public to respond
    to Issue No. 2 of the NOI.[^34] Where invoices were supplied, the
    entire invoice may be redacted, but a notation should be inserted
    indicating that an invoice was provided. We recognize that there may
    be instances where cost is relevant to the Bureau's scoring of an
    item.[^35] MCIW already has access to this type of information from
    Bell Atlantic's documents, s*ee* paragraph 6, [supra]{.underline},
    which should provide it sufficient information to comment on the
    Bureau's methodology insofar as costs may be relevant to scoring.
    The extent to which cost issues were relevant varied considerably,
    depending on the carrier involved, but was most relevant in the case
    of the Bell Atlantic (North) audit. We do not think public comment
    on costs for the other carriers is critical to our consideration of
    this issue in the NOI.

14. Similarly, Ameritech and SBC object to the disclosure of materials
    concerning undetailed investment.[^36] MCIW's FOIA request did not
    include a request for these materials,[^37] and we conclude that
    access to these materials should not be required.[^38] The Bureau
    will also ensure that only materials related to Issue No. 2 will be
    made available under the protective order, thus alleviating
    Ameritech's concerns.[^39] For this purpose, as well as to ensure
    that no vendor pricing information is disclosed, we will permit the
    carriers to review and suggest redactions of our workpapers and the
    carriers' responses, as Ameritech and SBC request.[^40] However, the
    ultimate decision as to whether specific materials should be
    redacted in accordance with our decision here is to be made by the
    Bureau.[^41]

15. We will provide the carriers with ten (10) working days from the
    release date of this decision ([see]{.underline} paragraph 17,
    [infra]{.underline}) to perform the review and redaction we
    authorize in this decision.[^42] Carrier review shall take place at
    the Commission. Commission staff will be present to assist the
    carriers. Each carrier should review only the workpapers and
    carriers submissions relevant to that carrier, unless, of course,
    the carriers agree to some other method of carrying out the review.
    The Bureau will, within ten (10) working days of the submission of
    the redacted materials, determine whether the proposed redactions
    are within the scope of this decision. The redacted version will be
    provided to MCIW when the Bureau receives it, unless a carrier has
    sought a stay of our decision here, [see]{.underline} paragraph 17,
    [infra]{.underline}. To the extent the Bureau determines that any
    carrier-redacted materials should be disclosed, such materials will
    be provided only after the carriers have had an opportunity to seek
    Commission review of the Bureau's decision in accordance with
    section 0.461(i) of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.461(i). We expect,
    however, that the carriers will propose redactions only in good
    faith compliance with this decision. The Bureau is also directed to
    modify the protective order consistent with this decision for
    further use in this proceeding.

16. Finally, Ameritech and U S West, relying on FOIA Exemption 5, 5
    U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), argue that the Bureau\'s release of the audit
    workpapers is neither \"compelled nor warranted,\" and further that
    the Bureau provided no sound reasoning for its departure from
    precedent in choosing to disclose the workpapers.[^43] The decision
    to release or withhold Exemption 5 materials is within the
    discretion of the Commission, and, as indicated above, we believe
    that disclosure is warranted in the unusual circumstances of this
    case.[^44]

    ***Conclusion and Ordering Clauses***

17. For the reasons stated above, the materials sought by MCIW will be
    released under a protective order, as modified in this decision,
    pursuant to section 220(f). The Bureau will notify applicants by
    telephone of this decision and the time for seeking a stay. They
    will be afforded ten (10) working days from the release date of this
    decision to seek a stay. [See]{.underline} 47 C.F.R. §
    0.461(i)(4).[^45]

18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the applications for review by
    Ameritech Communications, Inc., BellSouth Corporation, Southwestern
    Bell Telephone Company, Pacific

19. Bell, and Nevada Bell, and U S West Communications, Inc. ARE GRANTED
    IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

20. The Officials responsible for this action are the following
    Commissioners: Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness,
    Furchtgott-Roth, Powell and Tristani.

#  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[^1]: Ameritech's Application for Review of the CCB's Action Granting
    MCI WorldCom's FOIA Request (Aug. 3, 1999) (Ameritech App. For
    Rev.); Letter from M. Robert Sutherland, General Attorney,
    BellSouth, to Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel (Aug. 3, 1999)
    (BellSouth App. for Rev.); SBC Application for Review (SBC App. for
    Rev.) and letter from B. Jeannie Fry, Director \-- Federal
    Regulatory, SBC, to Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel (Aug. 3,
    1999) (Fry Letter); U S WEST Application for Review and Review of
    Freedom of Information Action (Aug. 3, 1999) (U S West App. for
    Rev.).

[^2]: Letter from Lisa Zaina, Acting Deputy Chief, Common Carrier
    Bureau, to Mary Brown, Senior Policy Counsel, MCI WorldCom, Inc.
    (July 27, 1999) (Bureau Decision).

[^3]: [See]{.underline} 47 C.F.R. §§ 32.000(e) and (f). In Part 32 of
    its rules, the Commission prescribes a Uniform System of Accounts
    for telecommunications carriers. Specifically, Part 32 requires
    companies to maintain CPRs and supplemental records that include:
    (1) a description of the property; (2) the specific location of the
    property; (3) the identification of the work under which the unit
    was installed; (4) the year of installation of the property; and (5)
    any other information necessary to determine the original cost of
    the property. The rules require that the property be described in
    sufficient detail that it may be spot checked for physical
    verification of its existence.

[^4]: [See]{.underline} The Accounting Safeguards Division Releases
    Information Concerning Audit Procedures For Considering Requests By
    The Regional Bell Operating Companies To Reclassify Or \"Rescore\"
    Field Audit Findings Of Their Continuing Property Records, [Public
    Notice]{.underline}, 14 FCC Rcd 6243 (1999).

[^5]: Ameritech requested that its submission be kept confidential
    consistent with section 220(f) of the Act, and not be disclosed
    publicly pursuant to sections 0.457(d) and 0.459 of the Commission's
    rules. [See]{.underline} Letter from Robin Gleason, Director,
    Regulatory Finance, Ameritech, to Kenneth M. Ackerman, Chief, Audits
    Branch (May 1, 1997). SBC marked its submissions "proprietary."
    BellSouth noted that it did not make a confidentiality request under
    47 C.F.R. § 0.459 (letter from M. Robert Sutherland, General
    Attorney, BellSouth, to Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director (July
    12, 1999)), but it marked its submissions "private/proprietary." U S
    West noted that the information submitted should "receive the normal
    protection afforded by the Audits Branch to information collected
    during the audit process." Letters from C. Michael Crumling,
    Executive Director -- Federal Regulatory, U S West, to Kenneth M.
    Ackerman, Chief, Audits Branch (April 30, 1997, July 16, 1997, March
    31, 1998) (Crumling Letters).

[^6]: Ameritech Corporation Telephone Operating Companies' Continuing
    Property Records Audit, 14 FCC Rcd 4273 (1999); BellSouth
    Telecommunications' Continuing Property Records Audit, 14 FCC Rcd
    4258 (1999); Bell Atlantic (South) Telephone Companies' Continuing
    Property Records Audit, 14 FCC Rcd 5541 (1999); Bell Atlantic
    (North) Telephone Companies' Continuing Property Records Audit,
    [Order]{.underline}, ASD File No. 99-22 (Mar. 12, 1999); Pacific
    Bell and Nevada Bell Telephone Companies' Continuing Property
    Records Audit, 14 FCC Rcd 5839 (1999); U S West Telephone Operating
    Companies' Continuing Property Record Audits, [Order]{.underline},
    ASD File No. 99-22 (Mar. 12, 1999); Southwestern Bell Telephone
    Company's Continuing Property Records Audit, 14 FCC Rcd 4242 (1999).

[^7]: [See]{.underline} In the Matters of Ameritech Corporation
    Operating Companies' Continuing Property Records Audit, [et
    al]{.underline}*.*, Notice of Inquiry, 14 FCC Rcd 7019 (1999).

[^8]: [Id]{.underline}*.* at 3.

[^9]: Letter to Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director, from Mary L. Brown,
    MCI Telecommunications Corporation (June 22, 1999) (MCIW FOIA
    Request) at 1.

[^10]: [Id]{.underline}*.* at 2. Specifically, MCIW sought the letters
    sent by ASD auditors to the RBOCs providing the results of the
    physical inspection, and audit workpapers showing item-by-item
    scoring underlying these letters or the draft audit reports.

[^11]: [Id.]{.underline} at 2.

[^12]: [Id.]{.underline} at 2-4.

[^13]: [Id.]{.underline} at 4.

[^14]: Letter from Leander R. Valent, Vice President & General Counsel,
    Ameritech, to Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director (July 12, 1999);
    Letter from M. Robert Sutherland, General Attorney, BellSouth, to
    Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director (July 12, 1999); Letter from
    James T. Hannon, Senior Attorney, U S West, to Andrew S. Fishel,
    Managing Director (July 12, 1999); Letter from Jonathan W. Ryosan,
    Senior Counsel, SBC, to Andrew S. Fishel, Managing Director (July 9,
    1999).

[^15]: Bureau Decision, [supra.]{.underline}

[^16]: [Id.]{.underline} at 5.

[^17]: [Id]{.underline}*.* at 4.

[^18]: ^?^ [Id]{.underline}*.* at 2.

[^19]: Bell Atlantic filed a FOIA request for various internal
    Commission documents that concerned the ASD audit of Bell Atlantic's
    own equipment. Letter from G.R. Evans, Vice President, Federal
    Regulatory Matters, Bell Atlantic to Andrew S. Fishel, Managing
    Director (July 7, 1999) (FOIA Control No. 99-177). The Bureau denied
    Bell Atlantic's request. Letter from Lisa M. Zaina, Acting Deputy
    Chief, CCB, to G.R. Evans, Vice President, Federal Regulatory
    Matters, Bell Atlantic (Aug. 12, 1999). Bell Atlantic has sought
    review of the Bureau's decision. Letter from Edward Shakin,
    Regulatory Counsel, Bell Atlantic, to Christopher J. Wright, General
    Counsel (Aug. 26, 1999).

[^20]: MCI WorldCom Opposition to the Applications for Review (Aug. 17,
    1999).

[^21]: Reply of U S West to MCI's Opposition (Aug. 27, 1999). U S West
    sought leave to file this reply, [see]{.underline} Motion by U S
    West for Leave to File Reply to MCI's Opposition (Aug. 27, 1999),
    but leave is not necessary. [See]{.underline} 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(d).

[^22]: ^?^ Ameritech App. for Rev. at 3-4, 7; SBC App. for Rev. at 7.

[^23]: ^?^ Section 4(j) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    § 154(j), and the Commission's implementing rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
    0.457(d)(1) and (d)(2), also authorize us, as a matter of
    discretion, to release the confidential commercial information[. See
    v FCC. Schreiber]{.underline}, 381 U.S. 279, 291-92 (1965) ("Grants
    of agency authority comparable in scope to § 4(j) have been held to
    authorize public disclosure of information . . . as the agency may
    determine to be proper upon a balancing of the public and private
    interests involved."). [See]{.underline} [Treatment of Confidential
    Information]{.underline} at 24820.

[^24]: 18 U.S.C. § 1905.

[^25]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 7; SBC App. for Rev. at 7; U S West
    App. for Rev. at 6.

[^26]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 4-5; SBC App. for Rev. at 4; BellSouth
    App. for Rev. at 3.

[^27]: [See]{.underline} MCI Opp. at 5.

[^28]: SBC App. for Rev. at 5-6; U S West App. for Rev. at 11; Ameritech
    App. for Rev. at 8-9; BellSouth App. for Rev. at 6-7, all citing
    cases such as [J. David Stoner]{.underline}, 5 FCC Rcd 6458, 6460-61
    (1990); [Martha H. Platt]{.underline}, 5 FCC Rcd 5742, 5743 (1990);
    [Scott J. Rafferty]{.underline}, 5 FCC Rcd 4138 (1990); [Western
    Union Tel. Co]{.underline}*.*, 2 FCC Rcd 4485 (1987[); GTE Tel.
    Operating Cos]{.underline}*.*, 9 FCC Rcd 2588 (1994).

[^29]: [See]{.underline} [Treatment of Confidential
    Information]{.underline} at 24844 & nn. 146-47 citing,
    [e.g]{.underline}*.,* [Abbott Laboratories v. Young]{.underline},
    691 F. Supp. 462, 467 (D.D.C. 1988) (disclosure to ensure interested
    parties have meaningful opportunity to participate in rulemaking),
    [remanded on other grounds]{.underline}, 920 F.2d 984 (D.C. Cir.
    1990), [cert]{.underline}*.* [denied]{.underline}, 502 U.S. 819
    (1991); [Petition of Public Utilities Commission, State of
    Hawaii]{.underline}, 10 FCC Rcd 2881, 2884 and nn. 37-38 (1995).
    [See also]{.underline} [MCI Telecommunications Corp]{.underline}*.*,
    58 R.R.2d 187, 190 (1985) (third-party agreements held confidential
    but made available subject to a protective order for use in an
    ongoing investigation).

[^30]: [Treatment of Confidential Information]{.underline} at 24835 and
    n.96.

[^31]: [See]{.underline} Ameritech App. for Rev. at 7; U S West App. for
    Rev. at 14 n.5; SBC App. for Rev. at 7-8.

[^32]: [See]{.underline} [Treatment of Confidential
    Information]{.underline} at 24834.

[^33]: ^?^ SBC App. for Rev. at 9-10; BellSouth App. for Rev. at 7.
    [See]{.underline} [also]{.underline} Letter from Judith St.
    Ledger-Roty, Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP (attorney for Fujitsu Network
    Communications, Inc.) to Lisa M. Zaina, Acting Deputy Chief, CCB
    (Sept. 10, 1998 \[sic\]) (seeking protection of vendor specific
    pricing information under the protective order).

[^34]: [See]{.underline}, [e.g.]{.underline}*,* Audit of the Continuing
    Property Records of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company as of June
    30, 1997 (CCB/ASD Dec. 22, 1998) at 11-12 ("For the purpose of this
    report, we assume the original costs recorded on \[the carrier's\]
    CPR are correct. At some later date, we will investigate these costs
    and determine their validity.").

[^35]: [See]{.underline} MCIW Reply at 6 n.13.

[^36]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 7; SBC App. for Rev. at 7.

[^37]: [See]{.underline} MCIW FOIA Request, [supra]{.underline} n.9.

[^38]: Our request for public comment on methodology in Issue No. 2 did
    not encompass the different issues surrounding undetailed
    investment. [See]{.underline} NOI at 3 (Issue No. 5).

[^39]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 7 n.20.

[^40]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 7; SBC App. for Rev. at 8-9.

[^41]: The carriers may, of course, seek Commission review of the
    Bureau's decisions.

[^42]: SBC suggested ten days to review the workpapers and 60 days to
    redact vendor specific information. [See]{.underline} Fry Letter at
    1; SBC App. for Rev. at 9 n.19 and 10 n.23. Ameritech's suggestion
    that "a minimum of 90 days" is required (Ameritech App. for Rev. at
    7) is rejected as too lengthy a period of time, as is SBC's request
    for a 60 day review period.

[^43]: Ameritech App. for Rev. at 6-7; U S West App. for Rev. at 11 n.4.

[^44]: We deny U S West's request that if we affirm the Bureau's
    decision to disclose its materials, we instead should return its
    three volumes of confidential data. U S West App. for Rev. at 14-15
    n.6, [citin*g*]{.underline} 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(e). Section 0.459(e)
    applies only to voluntarily submitted materials. As U S West
    acknowledged when it submitted these materials to the Bureau, it was
    responding to data requests pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 218 and 220(c)
    and 47 C.F.R. § 0.291. [See]{.underline} Crumling Letters[,
    supra]{.underline} n.5. Moreover, our rules provide that "no
    materials submitted with a request for confidentiality will be
    returned if a request for inspection is filed under § 0.461." 47
    C.F.R. § 0.459(e). [See]{.underline} [also]{.underline} [Treatment
    of Confidential Information]{.underline} at 24829-30.

[^45]: The action of any one RBOC seeking a stay of our decision will
    stay the release of the materials only for that RBOC. We note that
    the Bureau erroneously relied on 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(g) in providing
    the carriers five days to seek Commission review of the its
    decision. Bureau Decision at 5. Instead, it should have given the
    RBOCs 10 days to seek review of its decision pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §
    0.461(i)(1).