March 18, 2026

Joseph Calascione
Bureau Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20554
Re:

Challenge to confidential treatment of National Sheriffs’ Association data
WC Docket Nos. 12-375 & 23-62

Dear Chief Calascione:
The United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry (UCC Media Justice) and the
undersigned organizations hereby challenge the confidential treatment of the National
Sheriffs’ Association’s (NSA) redacted materials in this docket. 1
Over many years, UCC Media Justice and the undersigned organizations have been
active participants in the above-captioned dockets regarding incarcerated people’s
communications services (IPCS) and implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act. 2
We have filed, and intend continue filing, ex partes and other responsive pleadings in
this docket.
As part of the most recent phase of this rulemaking, the National Sheriffs’ Association
(NSA) submitted opening comments3 that rely extensively on the organization’s “2025
NSA Facility IPCS Cost Survey,” which the NSA describes as “the most comprehensive
facility cost survey in the history of this proceeding—which provides the reliable, current
data the Commission has long requested . . .” 4 The NSA’s opening comments apparently
include the 2025 Cost Survey Analysis, the 2025 Cost Survey, and the 2025 Cost Survey
Data Collection Guide, however these attachments have been entirely withheld from the
public docket under a dubious and unsupported claim of confidentiality. The survey’s
1 Protective Order, WC Docket Nos. 12-275 & 23-62, DA 23-298 at ¶ 4 (Wireline Bur.

2023) (IPCS Protective Order or Protective Order). Pursuant to that Order, the
“Submitting Party and any Third-Party Interest Holders must file any reply within five
business days of being served and include a justification for treating the information as
Confidential.” Id.
2 See, e.g., UCC Media Justice and Public Knowledge Petition for Reconsideration, WC
Docket 12-375 at 6-8 (filed Aug 27, 2021); Comments of Prison Policy Initiative, Inc.,
WC Docket 12-375 at 13-19 (filed Sept. 27, 2021).
3 Comments of the National Sheriffs’ Association (redacted), WC Docket Nos. 12-275 &
23-62 (filed Feb. 3, 2026) (NSA 2026 Redacted Comments).
4 Id. at 1.
1

data, if relied upon by the FCC, will dramatically and unjustly impact IPCS rates. The
NSA is using its 2025 survey in support of its argument to impose a rate additive equal
to 75%-253% of existing rates on top of the already inflated IPCS rate caps.5
The NSA’s withholding of the entire 2025 survey and related documents is not proper
under applicable law. To begin, the NSA did not justify or explain the redaction under
the Commission’s rules. As the Bureau acknowledged in the IPCS Protective Order, the
Commission recognizes “the general right of the public, and [the Commission’s] desire
for the public, to participate in these proceedings in a meaningful way. . . .”6 The
Commission’s rules on protection of confidential information incorporate the
substantive law of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552). 7 A party
seeking confidential status bears the burden of proof,8 and “[c]onclusory and
generalized allegations of substantial competitive harm . . . are unacceptable.” 9
NSA submitted its previous study in 2015 as part of the public record.10 There is no
indication that the data in the new study is materially different. Based on the text of the
NSA’s public comments, the withheld survey information appears to consist entirely of
data about local government expenditures (primarily for staff) at jails. Public budget
information like this is universally subject to disclosure under public records laws of the
states.
The NSA data is outside the scope of the existing Protective Order and, regardless, does
not deserve confidential treatment under the Commission’s rules. The Protective Order
extends to “competitively sensitive materials” 11 that are “subject to withholding under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Commission’s
implementing rules, unless the Commission determines, sua sponte or by request

5 The proposed additive depends on the size of the relevant correctional facility. NSA

states that the survey shows costs per minute by facility size tier is as follows: Extremely
Small Jails (0-49 ADP), $0.43 per minute; Very Small Jails (50-99 ADP), $0.32 per
minute; Small Jails (100-349 ADP), $0.15 per minute; Medium Jails (350-999 ADP),
$0.13 per minute; and Large Jails (1,000+ ADP), $0.06 per minute. The overall average
across all facilities is $0.20 per minute. NSA 2026 Redacted Comments at 11.
6 IPCS Protective Order at ¶ 1.
7 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(d)(2).
8 Id.; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182, 1187 (D.C.
Cir 2004) (quoting Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770
(D.C. Cir. 1974) (internal quotation marks omitted, omission by McDonnell Douglas)).
9 Prison Legal News v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 113 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1082
(W.D. Wash. 2015) (quoting Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Protection,
643 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration and
omission by District Court)).
10 Comments of the National Sheriffs’ Association, Exhibit A, WC Docket 12-375 (filed
Jan. 12, 2015), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001008035/1.
11 IPCS Protective Order at ¶ 1.
2

pursuant to paragraph 4 of [the] Protective Order or sections 0.459 or 0.461 of its rules,
that such information is not entitled to confidential treatment.” 12
The NSA did not make any showing under Section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules, nor
is it apparent how the NSA could make such a showing under any of the potentially
applicable FOIA exemptions. First, government expenditures are not trade secrets
under FOIA because they do not relate to “the making, preparing, compounding, or
processing of trade commodities.”13
Second, government-operated jails are public institutions that are funded by tax dollars
and perform a public service, thus making FOIA Exemption 4’s treatment for
commercial or financial information inapplicable. 14 For purposes of FOIA, “commercial
information” must relate to “the exchange of goods or services or the making of a profit,”
and is generally used to cover “basic commercial operations, such as sales statistics,
profits and losses, and inventories . . . [that] relate to the income-producing aspects of a
business.” 15 Given the public nature of jails, these facilities’ financial affairs do not
“concern[] a service that is subject to competition;”16 nor could disclosure of such
information “result in substantial competitive harm.”17 Notably, just because the NSA
wants to keep the information confidential does not allow it to override the
requirements of FOIA.18
Finally, the exceptions for law enforcement under FOIA are narrow. In particular,
FOIA’s Exemption 7 applies to “records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information” would cause one of six enumerated types of risks to the government.19 The
NSA has not attempted to explain how disclosure would implicate any of the harms
12 Id. at ¶ 2 (definition of Confidential Information). Under the IPCS Protective Order,

“By designating documents and information as Confidential under this Protective Order,
a Submitting Party will be deemed to have submitted a request that the material not be
made routinely available for public inspection under the Commission’s rules.” Id. at ¶ 3.
13 See Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 93 F.Supp.2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2000) (for purposes
of FOIA, “trade secret” is given the narrow common law definition of “a secret,
commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making,
preparing, compounding, or processing of trade commodities and that can be said to be
the end product of either innovation or substantial effort.” (quoting Pub. Citizen Health
Research Grp. v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
14
See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 58 F.4th
1255, 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (other than trade secrets, FOIA Exemption 4 applies to
information that is “(1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person, and (3)
privileged or confidential.”).
15 Id. at 1263 (alteration by court).
16 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(4).
17 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(5).
18 Getman v. NLRB, 450 F.2d 670, 673 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (FOIA Exemption 4 does not
apply to all information given to the government in confidence).
19 47 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) (emphasis added).
3

noted in the statute, nor does it seem that the organization could make such a showing,
since generalized jail salary data do not implicate the merits of enforcement proceedings
(Exemption 7(A)), the right to a fair trial (Exemption 7(B)), personal privacy
(Exemption 7(C)), confidential sources (Exemption 7(D)), investigative techniques
(Exemption 7(E)), or life safety (Exemption 7(F)).
Allowing the NSA to influence public policy through the submission of secret
information will frustrate public comment by impacted organizations and individuals.
The undersigned organizations have an interest in ensuring the Commission’s rules are
not used to frustrate public participation. Interested parties should not be forced to sign
a protective order to submit comments or file ex partes in this docket. Signing a
protective order is a serious commitment and not all organizations or individuals
impacted by the requested waiver are able to maintain the specific requirements of such
an order. That limitation should not bar impacted individuals and organizations from
understanding NSA’s data and evaluating its flaws or merits on the record. In the
unlikely event that the survey documentation contains any information that could
properly be withheld under FOIA, that information should be subject to pinpoint
redactions and the Commission should not endorse the wholesale opacity that the NSA
seeks by withholding entire documents.
The Commission has, in the past, ordered disclosures of data claimed to be confidential
by providers of IPCS,20 and those providers have at least established that they do
conduct commercial businesses—a threshold requirement that the NSA cannot meet.
The Commission should reject the NSA’s claim of confidentiality and order the entity to
withdraw the redacted survey documents or file them on the public docket.
If you have any questions regarding the above request, do not hesitate to contact Cheryl
A. Leanza, on behalf of UCC Media Justice, at 202-904-2168 or cleanza@alhmail.com.
Sincerely,
United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
Human Rights Defense Center
Pennsylvania Prison Society
Prison Policy Initiative

20 Order, WC Docket No. 12-375, DA 20-1006 (Wireline Bur. Sept. 1, 2020) (partially

denying confidential treatment); see also AT&T, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, File
No.: EB-TCD-18-00027704, FCC 20-26 (rel. Feb. 28, 2020) (Starks approving in part
dissenting in part) (Enforcement Bureau has long faced parties asserting overbroad
designations of confidentiality).
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cheryl A. Leanza, hereby certify that on March 18, 2026, I served a copy of the
forgoing CHALLENGE TO CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT on the following via
electronic mail:
Salvatore Taillefer, Jr.
Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens & Prendergast, LLP
2120 L Street, N.W., STE 825
Washington, D.C., 20037
sta@bloostonlaw.com
Counsel to the National Sheriffs’ Association
And provided a courtesy copy of the same to the following via electronic mail:
Joel Rabinovitz
Office of General Counsel
Stephen Meil
Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, NE
Washington DC 20554
Joel.Rabinovitz@fcc.gov
Stephen.Meil@fcc.gov

5