DE 97-171
BELL ATLANTIC
Petition for Approval of Statement of Generally Available Terms
Order Granting Motion for Proprietary Treatment
O R D E R N O. 22,851
February 17, 1998
On January 15, 1998, New England Telephone and
Telegraph Company (Bell Atlantic) filed with the Commission a
Motion for Protective Treatment of certain Data Responses
provided in answer to Data Requests from AT&T and the Commission
Staff (Staff). Bell Atlantic sought concurrence from AT&T, the
Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA), and Staff. The OCA and
Staff took no position on the issue and AT&T did not respond.
Bell Atlantic specifically requests protective
treatment of its Data Responses to AT&T Data Requests numbered 3-14(d), 3-48, 3-85(c), 4-8 and 4-16 and Staff Data Request
numbered 1-5. These Data Responses (hereinafter referred to as
Specified Data Responses), Bell Atlantic asserts, are exempt from
public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, as they pertain to
confidential commercial or financial information which warrants
confidential treatment pursuant to N.H. Admin. Rules Puc 204.05
and .06. The Specified Data Responses, according to Bell
Atlantic, include specific systems test plans and results,
operational methods, practices, specifications and procedures,
vendor pricing details underlying engineering cost assumptions,
and disaggregated information by specific wire centers and
categories of retail services.
In addition, Bell Atlantic seeks protective treatment
of future Data Responses containing similar information
(hereinafter referred to as Similar Data Responses) during the
remainder of this docket. Bell Atlantic describes the Similar
Data Responses as: operations support systems (OSS) expenses
paid to specific vendors for specific services, product delivery
processes, operational methods and procedures, OSS design
specifications, detailed departmental budget information, vendor-specific price/cost specifications and bidding information, and
disaggregated usage and revenue data. The Similar Data Responses
should be available to parties to the docket, to the Commission
and to the Commission Staff, but not to the public, according to
Bell Atlantic, under the same RSA 91-A:5 exemption applied to the
Specified Data Responses.
Furthermore, Bell Atlantic requests that the parties
and Staff give Bell Atlantic prior notice of the identity and
affiliation of independent consultants, experts, or any other
person, to whom the parties and Staff intend to provide access.
Bell Atlantic seems to reserve the right to refuse such access to
any person who is an officer, director, stockholder, partner,
owner, consultant or employee of a direct competitor of Bell
Atlantic or a Bell Atlantic affiliate. Bell Atlantic proposes
that access to the Information be contingent upon a Commission
order instructing all parties and Staff to maintain the
Information as confidential.
We find that the Specified Data Responses and the
Similar Data Responses warrant protection under RSA 91-A:5, IV
and the Commission's standards for granting confidential
treatment in Re New England Telephone Co. d/b/a NYNEX, 80 NHPUC
437 (1995) and Puc 204.06. Bell Atlantic has demonstrated that
public release of the Specified and Similar Data Responses would
provide competitors with an unfair competitive advantage in
developing marketing strategies.
Under the balancing test we have applied in prior
cases, Re New England Telephone Co. d/b/a NYNEX, 80 NHPUC 437
(1995) et al., the benefits of non-disclosure to NYNEX appear to
outweigh the benefits of disclosure to the public. Puc 204.06(d)
provides us with latitude to prescribe the manner in which
information shall be protected from disclosure. Therefore,
although atypical, the treatment Bell Atlantic requests for the
Information is not prohibited. We note that we granted
substantially similar treatment to Data Responses provided in DE
96-420, Petition Requesting that Incumbent LECs Provide Customers
with a Fresh Look Opportunity, and DE 96-220, Petition for
Approval of Proposed Merger of a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Bell
Atlantic Corporation into NYNEX Corporation.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Bell Atlantic's Motion for Confidential
Treatment of the Responses to the Data Requests enumerated above
is GRANTED, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Bell Atlantic's Motion for
Confidential Treatment of Data Responses provided in the docket
which contain similar information shall be similarly treated, and
it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Bell Atlantic shall specifically
identify Data Responses, filed subsequent to the date of this
order, for which confidentiality is claimed under this order; and
it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that this order is subject to the
Commission's on-going rights in light of RSA 91-A, should
circumstances so warrant.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this seventeenth day of February, 1998.
Douglas L. Patch Bruce B. Ellsworth Susan S. Geiger
Chairman Commissioner Commissioner
Attested by:
Thomas B. Getz
Executive Director and Secretary