Opinion ID: 493673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of Section 12(c)(1)

Text: 18 The government may refuse to disclose the names of exporters granted licenses if such information is information obtained for the purpose of consideration of, or concerning, license applications under this Act. 50 U.S.C.App. 2411(c)(1). 19 In interpreting the scope of the provision, we look first at the language of the statute. See Landreth Timber Company v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681, 685, 105 S.Ct. 2297, 2301, 85 L.Ed.2d 692 (1985). Names of applicants certainly would be information ... concerning applications and therefore information that may be withheld under section 12(c)(1). Names of applicants whose applications were granted constitute merely a subset of all names of applicants, and therefore would also appear to be properly withheld. Nonetheless, Lessner asserts that Congress did not intend to prohibit disclosure of information pertaining to licenses. We therefore address the legislative history of section 12(c)(1). See United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 1063, 84 L.Ed. 1345 (1940). 20 Section 12(c)(1) underwent several revisions before its final form was set. 6 The Senate committee bill, S. 737, would have exempted information required to be furnished pursuant to the [EAA], other than boycott-related information, from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, except as otherwise provided by statute and except where the Secretary of Commerce determines that to withhold such information is contrary to the national interest. S.Rep. No. 96-169, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 17, reprinted in 1979 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1147, 1164. The committee expressly stated that to disclose such information as the precise value, nature, parties to the transaction and shipping date where the sole reason that information is provided to the government is to obtain an export license is not in the public interest. Id. 7 21 On the Senate floor, Sen. Hatch introduced an amendment, which contained language virtually the same as the provision enacted. He stated that after 1980, all export control information [would be] subject to the Freedom of Information Act except for license applications. These license applications are the items that exporters are most concerned about becoming available to their competitors, plus they contain sensitive national security information. 125 Cong.Rec. 20013. The Senate adopted the amendment without debate. Id. 22 The classification we attach to licenses determines whether the information must be disclosed--information on license applications is exempt; export control information is not. The meaning of the term, export control information, is unclear. One clue may be culled from Sen. Hatch's statement that the issue of access to export control information would be considered the following year. Id. In 1980, Congress considered whether Shippers' Export Declarations (SEDs) should be kept confidential. 8 The government argues that data other than that collected for licensing is collected under other EAA provisions, and that it is this other data to which Sen. Hatch must have referred. As noted above, the EAA does have other data-collecting provisions. 23 Similar to the Senate committee bill, the House committee bill, H.R. 4034, would have barred the disclosure of information which would reveal the parties to an export or re-export transaction, the type of good or technology being exported or reexported, or the destination, end use, quantity, value, or price of such good or technology. H.R.Rep. No. 96-200 at 62-63 (emphasis added). A daily list of summary information, including type of commodity, value of the transaction, and country of destination when export licenses have been granted could continue to be published. 125 Cong.Rec. 25639. The bill purported to have rejected the broad confidentiality provisions suggested by the White House, although as Rep. Dornan pointed out, it is unclear what could have been released under the committee bill. 125 Cong.Rec. 25641. 24 On the House floor, Rep. Dornan suggested amending the House committee bill to make nearly all EAA data disclosable. It is unclear, however, whether the names of parties to export transactions would have been revealed. Rep. Quayle changed the Dornan amendment by imposing a bar to disclosure for six months following the issuing of a license. After the six months, under his suggestion for disclosure, the countries of the parties, the type of goods or technology, the destination, the end use, and the quantity would be revealed, but the identities of the parties, the value and the price would remain confidential. 125 Cong.Rec. 25640; 125 Cong.Rec. 25642. He stated that We are not after licensing information, we are not after information during the process, we are concerned and interested about historical data. 125 Cong.Rec. 25642. Significantly, under this proposal, which requires more disclosure than the statute enacted, the names of parties to export transactions could be withheld. Rep. Dornan accepted the proposal, but it was ultimately defeated in favor of the Preyer amendment. 25 In arguing for more confidentiality than that provided for by the Quayle amendment, Rep. Preyer suggested prohibiting the disclosure of all information concerning licensing of exports. 125 Cong.Rec. 25635 (emphasis added). Seemingly using the terms licenses and licensing applications interchangeably, he stated that he had the same intent as the House Committee with regard to export license information, id., and that [w]here export licenses are required, [his] amendment [would] allow[ ] for full protection of confidential information related to the license application. Id. Rep. Preyer's proposal for disclosure of other export information, except that otherwise barred by other FOIA exemptions, seems to have been directed primarily at Shippers' Export Declarations. 9 Rep. Preyer's amendment was adopted by the House. 26 At conference, the committee adopted the Senate bill as amended by the Hatch proposal. The conference report does not explain why it selected Sen. Hatch's language referring to license application information rather than Rep. Preyer's amendment concerning licensing information. H.Conf.Rep. No. 96-482, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1979 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1147, 1180, 1194. In reporting to the House, a conference committee member simply stated that [t]he Preyer amendment on confidentiality was retained. 125 Cong.Rec. 26811. In sum, the legislative history suggests that Congress intended information other than that contained in licenses, including information from SEDs, to be disclosed, and that licenses were classified with license applications, which are withheld from disclosure. 27 The legislative purpose of section 12(c)(1) reinforces our view. The government argues that in passing section 12(c)(1), Congress intended to protect exporters from harassment by members of the public who do not approve of the exporters' goods or buyers. Although several Members of Congress did refer to harassment, see, e.g., 125 Cong.Rec. 25639; 125 Cong.Rec. 25642, the context and brevity of these statements render their meaning elusive. More likely, as the government also suggests, Congress intended to protect exporters from the disclosure of information that a competitor would use to the exporters' disadvantage. See, e.g., 125 Cong. Rec. 8261 (discussing stricter White House version of confidentiality provision). The identity of an exporter, when combined with other information that is publicly released, such as a general description of the commodity or its value, would convey vital information about a company's trade and commercial position. Id. The release of this information could damage exporters, and, in turn, the country's balance of trade. Although export information, including identity, could be protected under Exemption 4, which prohibits disclosure of trade or commercial secrets, Congress endeavored to avoid judicial piecemeal determinations, and instead chose to establish a bright-line rule for nondisclosure. 28 These policies apply equally to the identity of licenseholders as to the identity of license applicants. 10 When combined with the statutory language, the use by Members of Congress of the terms licenses and license applications interchangeably, and the existence of other data, including notably information from the Shippers' Export Declaration, that Congress intended to prevent the department from withholding, the policy considerations compel us to conclude that Congress intended to permit the names of licenseholders to be withheld from disclosure. 11 29 AFFIRMED.