NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** $// Order; SWB; Confidential Treatment; Trans. No. 2533; DA 96-398 //$ $/ Section 0.291 Delegated Authority /$ TRANSMITTED FOR FCC RECORD ONLY DA 96-398 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 Southwestern Bell Telephone ) Company ) ) Transmittal No. 2533 Tariff F.C.C. No. 73 ) ) ) ORDER Adopted: March 20, 1996; Released: March 20 , 1996 By the Chief, Tariff Division, Common Carrier Bureau: 1. On January 25, 1996, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) filed Transmittal No. 2533. On that same date, SWB filed a request pursuant to Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.457 and 0.459, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(4) for confidential treatment of the cost support data filed in support of Transmittal No. 2533. On February 9, 1996, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) filed a petition to reject or, alternatively, to suspend and investigate Transmittal No. 2533. On February 20, 1996, SWB filed a response to MCI's petition. 2. In Transmittal No. 2533, SWB seeks to introduce a new service offering called ReliaNet Service. According to SWB, this new offering is being made in response to customer requirements for reliable SONET-based facilities to transport their high capacity telecommunications traffic. SWB states that ReliaNet is a transport service, which provides customer access to SONET-based high capacity inter-office network utilizing ring network architecture for facility redundancy and fault-tolerance in the event of a single facility or equipment failures. SWB further states that the basic structure of ReliaNet revolves around the SWB inter-office network. According to SWB, this network consists, by definition, only of SWB central offices and each central office on the ReliaNet network is called a node. SWB then states that these nodes are equipped with the SONET transmission equipment necessary to produce the bandwidth to transport a variety of Access Services. Finally, SWB maintains that the inter-office network is sized according to the volume option level required by the customer. 3. In its request for confidential treatment of the cost support data, SWB states that the documents in question contain confidential information on investments, depreciation, cost of money, ad valorem and income taxes, administrative costs, and overheads. SWB maintains that disclosure of such confidential financial information could substantially harm the competitive position of SWB by assisting competitors in preparing marketing strategies to use in direct competition with SWB. According to SWB, the cost support data contain the specific costs of the equipment required to provide this service. These data indicate the breakdown of capital costs and operating expenses as well as the total installed cost (total investment). SWB maintains that if its competitors had access to this information, they could use it to calculate the factors used by SWB in developing cost data and, in turn, the information could be used to derive competitive information from other SWB filings. Finally, SWB provides information to support its claim that there is competition for the service proposed in Transmittal No. 2533. 4. In its petition, MCI argues that Transmittal 2533 should be rejected or, alternatively, suspended and investigated, because SWB has violated Section 203 and 412 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  203 and 412, and Part 61 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 61. MCI maintains that these statutory and rule provisions require that tariff cost support material be filed on the record. According to MCI, SWB has not demonstrated that it faces sufficient competition for the services in question to justify confidential treatment of cost support data. 5. In response, SWB asserts that it has demonstrated that it faced significant competition for each of the services being proposed in Transmittal No. 2433. According to SWB, it has shown that there are both alternative suppliers and alternative service choices for each of the services it proposes. 6. Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11), provide that material filed in support of tariff revisions are to be publicly available. SWB, however, has filed a request for confidential treatment of its tariff support material filed in Transmittal No. 2533 under the requirements of Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.459 and Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(4). Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.3 provides that the Commission may, on its own motion, waive any provisions of its rules if good cause is shown. The Tariff Division finds that there is good cause to waive the Commission's rules that cost support data filed with Transmittal No. 2533 be publicly available. Therefore, on our own motion, the Division grants SWB a waiver of Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules. As a result, the Transmittal No. 2533 cost support data for which SWB sought confidentiality will not be publicly available. The Division grants this waiver for the limited purpose of reviewing this transmittal. 7. We have reviewed the transmittal filed by SWB, and all the associated pleadings. We conclude that no compelling argument has been presented that the tariff is patently unlawful so as to warrant rejection and that an investigation of this transmittal is not warranted at this time. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.291 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.291, 1.3, for the purposes of this proceeding, Sections 0.453(j) and 0.455(b)(11) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.453(j), 0.455(b)(11), ARE WAIVED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to reject or suspend and investigate SWB Tariff F.C.C. No. 73, Transmittal No. 2533 filed by MCI Telecommunications Corporation IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION James D. Schlichting Chief, Tariff Division Common Carrier Bureau