Attachment 1997Opposition to Re

1997Opposition to Re

OPPOSITION submitted by Leo One

Opposition to Request for Confidential Treatment

1997-06-19

This document pretains to SAT-AMD-19900529-00041 for Amended Filing on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATAMD1990052900041_1060212

Before the . Ca/y$0 ;‘/(//V FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIQ\I 7 Washington, D.C. 205534 C/o 9 /99) In re Application of nz y STARSYS GLOBAL File No. 33—DSS—P—90(24) S POSITIONING, INC. 42—DSS—AMEND—90 Ne N 7—DSS—AMEND—94 For Authority to Construct, Launch and 31—DSS—AMEND—94 /\ Operate a Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary 32—DSS—LA—94 Mobile Satellite System 135—SAT—AMEND—95 _2 OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT Leo One USA Corporation ("Leo One USA"), by its attorneys, hereby submits this Opposition to the request of Starsys Global Positioning, Inc. ("GE Starsys") for confidential treatment of the construction contract between GE Starsys and Alcatel Espace S.A. ("Alcatel")." GE Starsys has failed to provide any compelling justification for denying the public access to this documentation. Because disclosure of the construction contract is vital for a fair adjudication of the question of GE Starsys‘ compliance with its construction milestones, Leo One USA requests that the Commussion reject the request for confidential treatment and place the construction contract in the public record.* On February 12. 1997, Leo One USA filed with the Commuission a petition to declare null and void GE Starsys‘ license for failure to comply with the construction milestones in the GE Starsys license. GE Starsvs‘ formal opposition to that petition was filed on February 26, 1997. On May 13. See Letter from Philip V. Otero to Thomas S. Tycz dated June 3, 1997. = Leo One USA notes that it cannot provide meaningful comments on GE Starsys‘ response to the Commussion‘s May 13. 1997 information request absent access to the construction contract. Leo One USA requests an additional ten days atter release ofthe contract for comment on the substance of GE Starsys‘ showing.

«2 1997, the International Bureau instructed GE Starsys to file within 15 days an attested copy of its construction contract. Notwithstanding the fact that GE Starsys was required to execute the contract by November 30. 1996. GE Starsys requested an additional 6 days to file the contract.* GE Starsys‘ June 3. 1997 filing was accompanied by a cover letter stating: The enclosed contract contains confidential information that is competitively sensitive. The contract is being provided here with the understanding that it will be treated as proprietary, and that access to the contract will not be provided to any third parties without the consent of Starsys. GE Starsys‘ June 12. 1997 letter indicates it has held additional discussions with Commission staff about "the proprietary nature of the contract‘ but GE Starsys‘ arguments have not been publicly disclosed and do not appear to be part of the record. The GE Starsys request does not comply with even the minimal standards required for confidential treatment of submitted information. The request is both procedurally deficit and contrary to Commission standards for proprietary treatment of information and must be denied. Section 0.459 of the Commission rules* requires that requests for confidential treatment include a statement of reasons for withholding the material from public inspection. The Commussion‘s rules explicitly note that casual requests, such as the GE Starsys request. will not be considered.* i Leo One USA notes that GE Starsys did not provide notice ofits ex parte meetings with the Commission staff for 9 days, even though it directly addressed the merits of Leo One USA‘s petition. See Letter trom Peter A. Rohrbach to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission dated June 12. 1997. * 47 C.F.R. $0.459. 47 CF.R. 0. 459. See AT&T Corp.. 11 FCC Red 2425, 2426 (Int‘| Bur. 1996).

ts i i Any request for contidential treatment ofinformation "must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that nondisclosure is consistent with the provisions ofthe Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"}."* The Commission has found disclosure appropriate when "the information is a necessary link in a chain of evidence that will resolve a public interest issue."= The Commission has noted that when the material at issue is relevant to "a significant and material question of fact," disclosure is required "to assure a fair adjudication ofthe open factual issue and a just resolution of the public interest question.® Here. the construction contract is a relevant item that may resolve the issues raised in Leo One USA‘s petition. Resolution ofthe factual question of whether GE Starsys entered into a binding construction contract by November 30. 1996 is an important public interest issue which may affect licensing of new Non—Voice, Non—Geostationary Mobile Satellite Service systems. Disclosure ofthe GE Starsys contract is consistent with the International Bureau‘s recent handling ofconfidentiality requests. In the Big LEO proceeding, the International Bureau rejected Mobile Communications Holdings. Inc.‘s ("MCHI") broad requests to withhold from public ‘nspection entire agreements. The Bureau found in that instance that withholding entire documents which contain relevant factual information would be inappropriate. Where MCHI requested — V ¥. Telephone Co.. S FCC Red 874 (1990). — _lussical Radio ror Connectieut, Inc., 69 FCC 24 1517, 1520 n. 4 (1978). ~ Snoxville Broadcastng Corn.. $7 FCC 2d 1103. 1105 (1981). — ~2e Letter from Donald H. Gios. Chief,. International Bureau to Jill Abeshouse Stern dated Oct. 29. ©1206,

protection for limited portions of documents pertaining to cost and pricing information. the Bureau found confidential treatment to be acceptable. Leo One USA recognizes that the GE Starsys—Alcatel contract may contain limited amounts of proprietary cost and price information and would not oppose a narrowly tailored request to redact very limited portions of the document. GE Starsys‘ unsupported generalized request for non— disclosure. however. flies in the face of the Commission‘s interest in seeking public comment. The need to include the contract in the public record is particularly important where, as in this case, the document may resoive a factual question and where the party raising the question would be denied access to the information. For the foregoing reasons. Leo One USA Corporation requests that the Commission reject GE Starsys‘ request for confidential treatment, place the GE Starsys—Alcatel contract in the public record and provide an additional 10 days tfrom release ofthe contract for public comment. Respectfully submitted, \ Robert A. Mazer d Albert Shuldiner Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington. D.C. 20004 (202) 639—6500 Counsel for Leo One USA Corporation Dated: June 19. 1997 — Aopucation of Mobile Communicatuons Holding, Inc.. 10 FCC Red 1547. Order on Reconsiuteration 1| 9941

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition to Request for Confidential Treatment of Leo One USA Corporation was sent by first—class mail. postage prepaid. this 19th day of June. 1997. to each of the following: * Chairman Reed E. Hundt * Ms. Fern Jarmulnek Federal Communications Commussion Chief. Satellite Policy Branch 1919 M Street. N.W.. Room 814 Satellite Radio Communication Division Washington. D.C. 20554 International Bureau Federal Communications Commission * Commissioner James H. Quello 2000 M Street, NW., Room 518 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 1919 M Street, NW.. Room 802 Washington. D.C. 20554 * Ms. Ruth Milkman Assistant Bureau Chief * Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong International Chief Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street. N.W.. Room 844 2000 M Street, N.W. Ste 821 Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 * Commussioner Susan Ness * Mr. Daniel Connors Federal Communications Commussion International Bureau 1919 M Street., NW.. Room 832 Federal Communications Commission Washington. D.C. 20554 2000 M Street, NW.. Room 506—A Washington, D.C. 20554 * Mr. Peter Cowhevy Chief. International Bureau * Mr. Harold Ng Federal Communications Commussion Engineering Advisor 2000 M Street. N.W.. Room 830 Satellite & Radiocommunications Division Washington. D.C. 20554 International Bureau Federal Communications Commission * Mr. Thomas S. Tyez 2000 M Street, Room 801 Division Chietf. Satellite & Washington, D.C. 20554 Radiocommunication Division International Bureau *Ms. Cassandra Thomas Federal Communications Commission International Bureau 2000 M Street. N.W.. Room 520 Federal Communications Commission Washington. D.C. 2053534 000 M Street, N.W.. Room 810 Washington. D.C. 20554 <Byv Hand Delivery

bJ Peter Rohrbach, Esq. Hogan & Hartson 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel for GE/Starsys Pte & laus *By Hand Delivery


Document Created: 2014-08-27 15:39:59
Document Modified: 2014-08-27 15:39:59
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC