Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
August 1, 2012
in Reply Refer to:
1800B3-TH

Jerold L. Jacobs, Esq.
Cohn and Marks LLP
1920 N St., N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Re:

Request for Confidential Treatment of Information
W23 8CE, Montgomery, AL
Facility ID No. 146162
File No. BALFT-20120523ABY

Dear Mr. Jacobs:
This letter responds to the request for confidential treatment of information contained in the
referenced application for consent to assignment of license of FM translator station W238CE,
Montgomery, Alabama ("Application"). In the Application, Lake Broadcasting, Inc. ("Lake") seeks nondisclosure of two documents relating to Michael Rice's mental health, submitted as relevant information
concerning Lake's qualifications to hold a Commission license. In support of the request, the Application
states that the two documents contain privileged medical records pertaining to Mr. Rice's personal health.
We review requests for confidentiality and non-disclosure on a case-by-case basis. Section 0.459
of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules") requires an entity requesting confidential treatment to submit a
statement of the reasons for withholding the materials from inspection and of the facts upon which those
reasons are based. Mere conclusory or generalized allegations cannot support a request for nondisclosure. Rather, the submissions must show by a preponderance of the evidence that non-disclosure is
consistent with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.
We find that the request does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 0.459 of the Rules.
The statement regarding the purportedly privileged and confidential nature of the information fails to
include several of the required reasons for withholding the materials from public inspection. Specifically,
the request failed to include: "Explanation of the degree to which the information is commercial or
financial, or contains a trade secret, or is privileged;" "Identification of any measures taken by the
submitting party to prevent unauthorized disclosure;"2 and "Identification of whether the information is
available to the public and the extent of any previous disclosure of the information to third parties."3

'47 C.F.R. § O.459(b)(3).
247 C.F.R. § O.459(b)(6).
' 47 C.F.R. § O.459(b)(7).

/
/
/

/

/

With respect to the latter two factors, we find that the information contained in the specified
documents is already largely a matter of public record and, therefore, granting confidential treatment
would not be appropriate. The Declaration of Wayne Stillings, dated May 17, 2001, was included in a
previous application submitted by Mr. Rice.4 The Letter of Wayne Stillings, dated October 31, 2011,
contains no significantly different information from that'provided by the Biographical Sketch included
with the Application-the Sketch in fact quotes directly from that letter.5
Accordingly, the request for confidential treatment of the designated medical information in the
Application IS DENIED. We will not proceed with our review of the Application until the parties have
exhausted their appeal rights under Section 0.459(g) of the Rules.6

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

L

Peter H. Doyle
Chief, Audio Division
Media Bureau

1rw

tSee FCC File No. BAL-20050610AGS, dismissed August 8, 2008.
The only information in the letter that is not provided in the Sketch is the specific name and dosage of a medication
for Mr. Rice, which would not be a decisional factor in our consideration of the Application.
6

C.F.R. § 0.459(g).