*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 8580.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  976 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 the  Applications  of 


 UTV  of  San  Francisco,  Inc.,  KCOP  Television, 
 Inc. 
 UTV  of  San  Antonio,  Inc.,  Oregon  Television, 
 Inc.,  UTV  of  Baltimore,  Inc.,  WWOR-  TV,  Inc., 
 and 
 UTV  of  Orlando,  Inc.  and  United  Television,  Inc. 
 (Assignors) 


 and 
 Fox  Television  Stations,  Inc. 
 (Assignee) 


 For  Consent  to  the  Assignment  of  Licenses 
 for  Stations  KBHK-  TV,  San  Francisco,  CA; 
 KCOP-  TV,  Los  Angeles,  CA;  KMOL-  TV, 
 San  Antonio,  TX;  KPTV-  TV,  Portland,  OR; 
 WUTB-  TV,  Baltimore,  MD;  WWOR-  TV, 
 Secaucus,  NJ;  WRBW-  TV,  Orlando,  FL; 
 KMSP-  TV,  Minneapolis,  MN;  KTVX-  TV, 
 Salt  Lake  City,  UT;  KUTP-  TV,  Phoenix,  AZ 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 File  Nos.  BALCT-  20000918ABB, 
 ABC,  ABD,  ABF,  ABK,  ABL, 
 ABM,  ABN,  ABU,  ABY,  ABG, 
 ABH,  ABI,  ABJ,  ABO,  ABP, 
 ABQ,  ABR,  ABS,  ABV,  ABW, 
 ABX,  ABZ,  ACA,  ACB,  ACC, 
 ACD,  ACE 


 FURTHER  SUPPLEMENTAL  PROTECTIVE  ORDER 
 Adopted:  April  18,  2001  Released:  April  19,  2001 
 By  the  Chief,  Mass  Media  Bureau: 
 1.  On  April  3,  2001,  the  Mass  Media  Bureau,  Video  Services  Division  directed  the  News 
 Corporation  Limited  (News  Corp)  to  submit  further  information  regarding  the  financial  condition 
 of  the  New  York  Post  in  connection  with  our  consideration  of  the  above-  captioned  applications. 
 Although  some  information  had  been  submitted  in  response  to  a  December  21,  2000  request,  we 
 determined  that  additional  information  was  necessary  in  order  to  evaluate  properly  the  claims 
 raised  with  respect  to  the  financial  condition  of  the  newspaper.  News  Corp  had  accompanied  its 
 initial  January  22,  2001  submission  with  a  request  for  confidential  treatment  pursuant  to  Sections 
 0.457  and  0.459  of  the  Commission’s  rules.  47  C.  F.  R.  §§  0.457  and  0.459.  Thereafter,  News 
 Corp  and  The  Office  of  Communications  of  the  United  Church  of  Christ,  et  al.  (Petitioners) 
 negotiated  a  proposed  protective  order  which  we  released  as  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  528,  and 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  976 
 2 
 subsequently  amended  by  Supplemental  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  579.  In  the  April  3,  2001  letter, 
 we  stated  that  “requests  for  confidential  treatment”  of  the  additional  financial  information  would 
 be  entertained  “consistent  with  our  protective  order  procedures  in  this  proceeding.”  Letter  from 
 Barbara  Kreisman,  Chief,  Video  Services  Division,  to  William  S.  Reyner,  Jr.,  John  C.  Quale,  and 
 Marvin  J.  Diamond,  April  3,  2001,  at  page  2. 


 2.  On  April  9,  2001,  News  Corp  responded,  and  requested  that  the  additional  financial 
 information  furnished  be  subject  to  the  existing  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  528,  as  amended  by  the 
 Supplemental  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  579,  incorporating  by  reference  the  arguments  for 
 confidentiality  raised  in  its  December  13,  2000  and  January  22,  2001  letters.  News  Corp  requests 
 that  Paragraph  2  of  the  existing  Protective  Order  be  supplemented  as  follows: 


 “Confidential  Document”  shall  also  mean  the  financial  information 
 and  data  submitted  by  News  Corp,  with  a  request  for  confidential 
 treatment,  in  response  to  the  letter,  dated  April  3,  2001,  from 
 Barbara  A.  Kreisman,  Chief,  Video  Services  Division,  Mass  Media 
 Bureau,  to  William  S.  Reyner,  Jr.,  John  C.  Quale,  and  Marvin  J. 
 Diamond.  As  used  herein,  Confidential  Document  may  refer  to  the 
 singular  or  the  plural. 


 As  with  its  previous  confidentiality  requests,  News  Corp  maintains  that  the  financial  information 
 and  data  submitted  are  proprietary  and  competitively  sensitive  and,  therefore,  it  does  not  make 
 this  type  of  information  available  to  the  public.  News  Corp  further  states  that  public  disclosure  of 
 the  documents  submitted  is  “likely  to  cause  substantial  harm  to  the  competitive  position  of  the 
 New  York  Post  by  allowing  competitors  to  use  such  information  to  disadvantage  the  paper  with 
 readers  and  advertisers  at  a  time  when  competition  in  the  New  York  market  has  become 
 increasingly  fierce.”  Letter  from  Arthur  M.  Siskind,  Senior  Executive  Vice  President  of  The 
 News  Corporation  Limited,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 
 Commission,  April  9,  2001,  at  page  2  footnote  1. 


 3.  The  Petitioners  object  to  “blanket”  confidential  treatment  of  the  financial  information 
 submitted  in  response  to  the  April  3,  2001  letter.  The  Petitioners  contend  that  the  Commission’s 
 established  policy  is  to  make  most  information  filed  in  Title  III  licensing  proceedings  publicly 
 available  in  order  to  provide  opportunities  for  comment  by  the  public.  The  Commission  should 
 further  allow  the  widest  public  access  to  the  information,  the  Petitioners  contend,  since  the  case  is 
 being  treated  as  “permit-  but-  disclose”  with  respect  to  the  ex  parte  rules.  The  Petitioners  argue 
 that  the  “Commission  should  expediently  review  any  information  submitted  by  Fox  and  [News 
 Corp]…  to  determine  the  extent  to  which  the  information  is  entitled  to  confidential  treatment.” 
 Letter  from  Christopher  R.  Day  and  Angela  Campbell,  Attorneys  for  The  Office  of 
 Communications  of  the  United  Church  of  Christ,  et  al.,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission,  April  10,  2001,  at  page  3.  The  Petitioners  state  that,  to 
 the  extent  any  information  is  entitled  to  confidential  treatment,  it  should  be  subject  to  entry  of  a 
 protective  order  consistent  with  the  existing  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  528,  as  amended  by  the 
 Supplemental  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  579. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  976 
 3 
 4.  We  have  reviewed  the  information  submitted  in  response  to  our  April  3,  2001  letter.  While 
 Commission  policy  is  to  make  most  information  submitted  in  Title  III  licensing  proceedings 
 routinely  available  for  public  inspection,  the  Commission  will  limit  disclosure  to  individuals  and 
 entities  who  file  a  petition  to  deny  and  execute  a  protective  order  in  those  circumstances  where  an 
 applicant  has  made  an  adequate  showing  under  Section  0.459  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47 
 C.  F.  R.  §0.459.  Examination  of  Current  Policy  Concerning  the  Treatment  of  Confidential 
 Information  Submitted  to  the  Commission,  13  FCC  Rcd  24816,  24838-  39  (1998).  We  believe 
 that  subjecting  the  information  provided  by  News  Corp  to  a  protective  order  is  appropriate  in  this 
 instance  given  that  the  information  is  treated  confidentially  by  News  Corp,  and  is  not  otherwise 
 publicly  available.  5  U.  S.  C.  §552(  b)(  4).  See  Landfair  v.  U.  S.  Department  of  Army,  645  F.  Supp. 
 325,  327  (D.  D.  C.  1986)  (commercial  and  financial  information  can  include  business  sales 
 statistics,  research  data,  technical  designs,  overhead  and  operating  costs,  and  information  on 
 financial  condition).  We  also  agree  that,  given  the  level  of  competition  that  already  exists  in  the 
 New  York  market,  release  of  the  information  to  the  public  could  result  in  a  negative  competitive 
 impact  on  the  New  York  Post. 


 5.  In  the  April  3,  2001  letter  we  stated  that  the  Petitioners  would  be  granted  10  days  from  the 
 receipt  of  the  amendment  to  file  a  response.  Receipt  of  a  redacted  version  by  the  Petitioners  met 
 service  requirements.  With  respect  to  the  response  period,  however,  the  Petitioners  have  not 
 properly  received  the  amendment  until  the  financial  information  is  available  for  review. 
 Consequently,  the  ten-  day  period  will  begin  to  run  from  the  release  date  of  the  instant  order.  Any 
 reference  to  confidential  information  in  the  decision  regarding  the  above-  referenced  applications 
 will  be  consistent  with  the  existing  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  528. 


 6.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  That  the  request  to  supplement  the  Protective  Order,  DA 
 01-  528,  as  amended  by  the  Supplemental  Protective  Order,  DA  01-  579,  IS  GRANTED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Roy  J.  Stewart 
 Chief,  Mass  Media  Bureau 
3