WPCwk 2 BP Z Courier 10cpi3|x Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSx  @HCNX@2<"Lv 3|wCourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)Times ItalicCG Times Bold ItalicCourier BoldCourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)CG Times Bold Italic (Scalable) P7XP>7zC;,"sXz_ p^7Xx/c81,c P7P6uC;,E;Xu&_ x7XX4wC;,/Xw*0 x]7XV"G($,}hG PE37hPH<!,,< PE37,Pz-b81,ub&_ x7X?xxx,Dx `7X2V5vpkuCourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)[X@a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2 k}v"ta5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 >  { " a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2    t <a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2n>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2"'|a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2UT3"a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2epPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8CddoddCdYds`xUvdddCCCCxoxoYNYYYN8YooYdYxxdxddYYxoxxxNdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYCȐCdxdoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCxxxoxoYxLoYdYC8YooYdYxxdxddoYoYxxoxxxxxCdooxYxxxxCCddddxdddoooxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2cZSFQ}WA]?xxx,wx6X@8;X@=8wC;,[hXw P7XP>7zC;,"sXz_ p^7X?x/c81,c P7P&@6uC;,;/3Xu&_ x$&7XXAV"G($,hG P7hPH<!, ,< P7,PdopoopoxdxLxLxLdxdoodxdxdCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"d~d9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ87zC;,"sXz_ p^7X?x/c81,c P7P&@6uC;,;/3Xu&_ x$&7XXAV"G($,hG P7hPBH<!, ,< P7,P&Cz-b81,;b&_ x$&7Xd4wC;,VXw*0 xM7X       "Sh5^;LhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxLdxxoxxxCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddLL8oYdYLdddddddddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYL8L8L8L8oddddoooozYddddxYdxdddddddddddddddddood8ddddkdddxdxdxDx8ooddהddpLododxdxdxdooooxdxLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddLdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d尰dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYC2uk Y-\!G Y-#Xw PE37[hXP#  Federal Communications Commission ă  Y-`(#  FCC 98300 ă  Y-  Y-\Պ#c PE37P#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xw PE37[hXP#  (2 Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 TP  Y-In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  Y`-CHADMOORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. h)ppFOIA Control No. 97308  YI-x` `  hh@h)pp  Y2-on Request for Inspection hh@h)  Y -of Records hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  Y -In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  Y -MOBEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.@h)ppFOIA Control No. 98139 x` `  hh@h)  Y-on Request for Inspection hh@h)  Yz-of Records` `  hh@h)  X5- } MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă x` ` Adopted: November 13, 1998; Released: November l6, l998 xBy the Commission:  Y- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) A 1. a (1)(a)(i) 1) a)x1. ` ` The Commission has under its consideration two applications for review involving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for related agency records. Chadmoore Communications, Inc. (Chadmoore), seeks review of the denial of its FOIA request (as subsequently amended) for the list of licensees similarly situated to the licensees  YO-who were granted relief in the Commission's Goodman/Chan I decision.O xP-ԍxIn the Matter of Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver; Dr. Robert Chan, Petition for Waiver of Sections  xP-90.633(c) and 1.1102 of the Commission's Rules, 10 FCC Rcd 8537 (1995). Mobex Communications, Inc. (Mobex), seeks review of the denial of its FOIA request for the  Y!-Goodman/ChanI list of licensees. On our own motion, we consolidate the two applications for review. For the reasons discussed below, Chadmoore's application for review is dismissed as moot, and Mobex's application for review is granted. " 0*%%  "Ԍ X-x Background   Y-x2. ` ` These FOIA requests arise from the Goodman/Chan proceeding. @p xPK-ԍxThe lengthy and complex history of the Goodman/Chan proceeding was recounted by the Commission  xP-in Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver; Dr. Robert Chan Petition for Waiver of Sections 90.633(c) and 1.1102 of the  xP-Commission's Rules, FCC 98167 (rel. July 31, 1998) (Goodman/Chan II), at  222. We repeat here only those facts necessary to understand the FOIA requests and applications for review. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a complaint in Federal district court alleging that four companies (hereinafter, the "Receivership Companies") defrauded approximately 4,000 individuals seeking licenses for 800 MHz conventional SMR licenses on General Category channels and misled those individuals as to the Commission's rules. The court froze the  Y_-assets of the four companies and appointed a receiver.[_@p xP -ԍxSee Goodman/Chan II at 10.[  Y1-x3. ` ` Daniel R. Goodman (Goodman), courtappointed receiver of the Receivership Companies, and Dr. Robert Chan (Chan), a licensee of five stations obtained through the Receivership Companies, each then sought a waiver of the Commission's rules to permit SMR licensees who had received licenses with the help of the Receivership Companies additional time to construct their stations. Goodman provided, and then amended, a list of the licensees (the Affected Licensees) on whose behalf a waiver was sought. Goodman  Y - sought confidentiality for the list of Affected Licensees, and the FTC supported this request.  Y-The Commercial Wireless Division issued an order (Confidentiality Order) granting the request for confidentiality based on its belief that licensees who had obtained their licenses through the efforts of the Receivership Companies had a privacy interest in the compilation of the listing and because it believed the licensees could be subject to harassment and other  Y4-deceptive tactics if their names were released.4@@p xP%-ԍxIn the Matter of Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver; Dr. Robert Chan, Request for Confidential Treatment  xP-Pursuant to Section 0.549 [sic] of the Commission's Rules, 10 FCC Rcd 10471 (Comm. Wireless Div. 1995). In addition to the Affected Licensees, an  Y-additional group of SMR licensees sought the same relief as those on the Goodman/Chan  Y-list.@p xPO-ԍxSee Goodman/Chan II at 11 n.50. See Letter from Kathryn M. Garland, Chief, Consumer Assistance Branch, Office of Operations (Gettysburg) to Don F. Hough, Statewide SMR Network, Inc. (Nov. 24, 1995). The names of these licensees, however, were not subject to the Confidentiality Order.  Y-x4. ` ` The waiver sought by Goodman and Chan was granted in part in  Y-Goodman/Chan I, effective upon publication in the Federal Register. However, the waiver decision was not published in the Federal Register until the Commission resolved post" 0*$$  "ԫ Y-Goodman/Chan I petitions and motions in Goodman/Chan II.X@p xPy-ԍx800 MHz SMR Licensees, 63 Fed. Reg. 45751 (Aug. 27, 1998) (waiver decision); Temporary Waiver  xPA-of Rules Granted to Goodman/Chan Receivership Licensees and Similarly Situated NonGoodman/Chan General  xP -Category SMR Licensees, 63 Fed. Reg. 45814 (Aug. 27, 1998) (notice of waiver). The Goodman/Chan II decision was intended to resolve all outstanding issues in the proceeding, to allow licensees to construct or transfer their licenses, and to give prospective bidders a clear idea on  Y-available spectrum in the upcoming lower band auction.X@p xPT-ԍxGoodman has sought judicial review of the Commission's action. Daniel R. Goodman, solely in his  xP -Capacity as the Receiver v. FCC, No. 981373 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 17, 1998), consolidated with  Daniel R.  xP -Goodman, solely in his capacity as Receiver v. FCC, No. 951585 (D.C. Cir.).  X-xThe FOIA Requests  Y`-x5.` `  Chadmoore's FOIA request`@p xP-ԍx"Federal Freedom of Information Act Request," filed by Walter Steimel, Jr., Esq., et al., Hunton & Williams, on behalf of Chadmoore Communications, Inc. (Oct. 16, 1997). sought "[a] current list of licensees to whom the Commission will extend the relief sought by Daniel R. Goodman and ultimately granted by  Y2-the May 24, 1995, Order published at 10 FCC Rcd 8537 [Goodman/Chan I]." Mobex sought "[t]he current Goodman Chan (FCC 95211) list of approximately 4,000 licensees  Y -granted a construction waiver by the FCC."  ` @p xP-ԍxLetter from Jonathan D. Lunenfeld, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Mobex, to the FCC FOIA Officer  xP-(May 19, 1998), at 1. The Bureau denied both requests based on its  Y -Confidentiality Order.E X @p xPV-ԍxLetter David L. Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Walter J. Steimel, Jr., Hunton & Williams (Dec. 11, 1997); Letter from Steven E. Weingarten, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, WTB, to Jonathan D. Lunenfeld (Aug. 27, 1998).E In its application for review, Chadmoore argues that the additional  Y -licensees who are entitled to the Goodman/Chan I relief are not subject to the Confidentiality  Y -Order, and that their names should be released. Chadmoore subsequently clarified that it was only seeking "the identity of the GX [General Category] 800 MHz SMR licensees, other than those contained on Goodman's list, that will be accorded the relief provided by the  Yz-Goodman/Chan Order." z@p xP -ԍxLetter from Ronnie London, Esq., Hunton & Williams (counsel for Goodman) to Laurence H. Schecker, Office of General Counsel (Feb. 20, 1998) at 4. Mobex asserts that in light of the issuance of the Goodman/Chan"z0 0*$$  ;"  Y- m%9}n  m%9}n II m%9}n  m%9}n  decision, it believes there is no basis for continued confidential treatment of the  Y-Goodman/Chan list of the Affected Licensees.f @p xPb-ԍxLetter of Jonathan D. Lunenfeld (Sept. 3, 1998) at 1.f  X- xDecision  Y-x6.` ` On October 9, 1998, the Bureau, in response to another FOIA request, released the listing of other SMR licensees eligible to receive the same relief as the Affected  Y_-Licensees.C X_X@p xPh -ԍxLetter from Steven E. Weingarten, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, WTB, to Russ Taylor,  xP0 -Gardner, Carton & Douglas, DA 982043 (Oct. 9, 1998) (FOIA Control No. 98263), reprinted at .C Therefore, since the Bureau has now publicly disclosed the requested information, Chadmoore's application for review of the Bureau's withholding of these  Y1-records is dismissed as moot. For the reasons stated below, we also conclude that the list of  Y -Affected Licensees is not entitled to confidential treatment. Mobex's application for review is therefore granted.  Y -  Y -x7.` ` The Bureau's decision to keep the list of Affected Licensees confidential was  Y -based on the privacy interests of the licensees and the fear that the licensees could be subject  Y -to harassment and other deceptive tactics. See Confidentiality Order. The FTC also supports confidentiality based on privacy concerns, because it believes the licensees might be  Yy-subjected to repeated fraudulent sales pitches.yx@p xP-ԍxLetter from Stephen Gurwitz, Senior Trial Counsel, FTC, to Laurence H. Schecker (Feb. 13, 1998). We conclude, however, that the information in question does not qualify for withholding under either of the FOIA exemptions which  YK-authorize agencies to withhold information to protect "personal privacy" interests. See 5  Y4-U.S.C.  552(b)(6) and (7)(C); see generally United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters  Y-Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). Exemption 6 permits withholding information when the disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Exemption 7(C) provides for the protection of law enforcement information the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." However, there are no personal privacy interests at stake here. Even though the majority of the names on the list of Affected Licensees are individuals, they are listed in their status as holders of commercial radio licenses, a capacity in which they have neither a personal privacy interest nor an expectation  Ye-of privacy.  m%9}o  m%9}o See m%9}o  m%9}o  47 C.F.R.  0.453(l) (all authorizations in private radio services publicly  YN-available); see also Sims v. CIA, 642 F.2d 562, 572 n.47 (D.C. Cir. 1980); National Parks"N0*$$  M"  Y-and Conservation Ass'n v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673, 685 n.44 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Ivanhoe  Y-Citrus Ass'n v. Handley, 612 F. Supp. 1560, 1567 (D.D.C. 1985) (individuals acting in a business capacity have little or no expectation of privacy). Even assuming that these  Y-commercial licensees have a privacy interest, it is at most de minimis and is far outweighed by the public interest in publicly disclosing information about commercial licensees who have  Y-been granted rule waivers in Commission proceedings. See 47 U.S.C.  154(j) (Commission  Yv-proceedings shall be public upon the request of any party interested). Therefore, the list of  Y_-Affected Licensees will be made public.0_@p xP-ԍxThe absence of a bona fide personal privacy interest here is further supported by Goodman's public  xP -disclosure of some of this information in a recent filing in court seeking a stay of Goodman/Chan II. Goodman  xPh -attached a list of approximately 800 of the Goodman/Chan licensees whose licenses, he asserts, present  xP0 -unresolved problems preventing them from attaining the relief afforded these licensees by the Commission. See  xP -Emergency Motion for Stay and Application for Interlocutory Injunction in Daniel R. Goodman, solely in his  xP -Capacity as the Receiver v. FCC, No. 981373 (D.C. Cir. filed Aug. 18, 1998), App. A. 0  Y1-x8.` ` For the reason just discussed, Goodman's objections to the release of the list are without merit. FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) are inapplicable here. Goodman also argues that the list was compiled in conjunction with law enforcement proceedings and therefore the names of the individual Affected Licensees should be withheld under Exemption 7(C). In addition to the reasons discussed above, the list of Affected Licensees cannot be withheld under Exemption 7(C) because the records were not "compiled for law enforcement  Y -purposes." The list of Affected Licensees was compiled for Goodman's waiver request  Y-before this agency. Cf. Reed v. NLRB, 927 F.2d 1249, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 1991), citing Birch  Yy-v. United States Postal Serv., 803 F.2d 1206, 1209-10 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (for agencies performing both law enforcement and administrative functions, only "investigations which focus directly on specifically alleged illegal acts" are covered by Exemption 7).  X-x Ordering Paragraphs  x9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Chadmoore and Mobex Applications for Review are consolidated for disposition.  Y-x 10. ` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chadmoore's Application for Review is DISMISSED AS MOOT and Mobex's Application for Review IS GRANTED. Goodman will first be afforded ten (10) working days from the release date of this Order during which he may seek judicial review of our decision to disclose the names of the Affected Licensees pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  552(a)(4)(B) and 47 C.F.R.  0.461(i)(4). "7@0*$$  "ԌHx 11. The Officials responsible for this action are the following Commissioners: Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness, FurchtgottRoth, Powell and Tristani. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x H x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` ` hhSecretary