Attachment erratum

erratum

ERRATA, ERRATUM OR ADDENDUM submitted by FCC,IB

erratum

2005-09-15

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20031119-00336 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2003111900336_454780

Federal Communications Commission Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Mater of EFreedom ofInformation Act Requestfor Satelite Construction Contract filed by Pegasus FOTA File No. 2005—512 Development Corporation IBFS File No. SAT—LOA—20031119—00336 Pegasus Development Corporation and Pegasus CallSign: $2603 Development Corporation 107 Request for Confidential Treatment ERRATOM Released: September 15, 2005 By the Acting Chief, Satellte Division, Itermational Bureau: On September 13, 2005, the Commission released an Order, DA 05—2450, in the above—captioned proceeding. This Erratum corrects the following: Footote 3 to read: * Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Submission of Executed Satelite Construction Contractand Request for Confidential Trestment, SAT—LOA—20031 119—00336, Call Sign 2603, filed January 31, 2005 ("Contract" and "Confidentiaity Request" respectively). The documents that Pegasus submited under request for confidentility are as follows: (1) Satellite Parchase Contract By and Between Pegasus Development Corporation and Space Systems/Loral, Ic., Terms and Conditions (including () Attachment A, i) Annex 1 to Attachment A, i) Schedule 1 to Annex I to Attachment A; (i) Schedule I to Annex I to Attachment A, () Attachment B); (2)Exhibit A, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation K—band FSS Satellite, Statement of Work, August9, 2002; (3) ExhibitB, Attachment 1, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Ka—Band. FSS Satelites,Specification, August9, 2002; (4) Exhibit C, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Ka—Band FSS Satelites, Program Test Plan, August 9, 2002; (5) Exhibit D, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Ka—band FSS Satelites, Program Quality Assurance Plan, August 9, 2002; (6) Exhibit E, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Ka—Band FSS Satelltes, Program Management Plan, August 9, 2002; and (7) Exhibit F, Payment Plan and Termination Linbilty Amounts, August 9, 202. We note that only the redacted capy of the firsdocument lsed above is included in the public file and uploaded o the Itermational Bureau Filing System (IBFS). See IBFS File No. SAT—LOA—20031 119—00336. The exhibits and attachmentslisted in this note as 2 — 7 were not included in the public version ofthe document. We assume here that Pegasus secks confidentiaity with respect to these documentsin their entirety. ®"

Federal Communications Commission Paragraph 8 to read: 8. Pegasus‘ Contract contained a number of Attachments and Exhibits" The majorty of these documents are the epitome ofinformation that that is losely held and customarily guarded from competitors, .eproprictary technicalinformation., For example, Exhibit B contains the satelite specifiation," Exhibit C contains thetest plan," and Exhibit D contains the qualty assurance plan."" Each of hese documents contains information thatis customarily closely held by satelite manufacturersand would be appropritely withheld from the public ile in their entirety. Exhibit F, etitled "Payment Plan and Termination Linbilty Amounts, August9, 2002," should not have been withheld from the public fili ts entirey. Paragraph 9 to read: 9. Pegasus‘ failure to submit a redacted version ofthe one page document entile, "Exhibit PR Payment Plan and Termination Linbility Amounts, August 9, 2002, Fist Satellte and Satellite Operations Equipment" stains th limits ofthe confidentialty protection, The payment schedule is a one—page document containing only 21 events (such as "Launch® or *CDR" short for criical design review, and "DELIVERY ON ORBIT*). As such, it appears to be a generic document containing well—known and obvious events in the construction ofa satelite. Thus, we do notfind the exhibititselfto be per se conidentil in ts entiety. The monetary amountsattached to the progress payments,termination ability, or both, however, would be considered contidential information. Accordingly, withrespect o Exhibit E, we find that the information contained in the columns with the following headings is not confidentia: (1) Payment Number;(2) Month Number; (3) Nominal Invoice Month (4) Payment Due; (5) Milestone Event;and (6) Completion Criteria. We do, however,find the information contained in the following columns to be confidentiaand protected from disclosure:(1) Payment ; (2)1" Satelite; (3)Sat. Oper. Equip; (4) Payment Amount; (5) Cum. Paymment; and (6) Cum. Term. Linbility. Paragraph 10 will be delted with subsequent paragraphs renumbered. New Paragraph 10 to read: 10. We,therefore, conclude that, other thanthe materil that we have just outlined in Exhibit F (columns 1—5),the information subjectt the request for confidentiaity fall squarely under Exemption 4 to the FOIA rules and meets the requirementsof Section 0.459° and may be withheld from public disclosure. " See foomote 3 above. "" See Exhibit B of the Contract entied "Atachment 1, Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Ka—Band FSS Sarlftes, Specification, August9,2002." "* See Exhibit C ofthe Contract, enitled *Pegasus Development 107 CorporationKa—Band FSS Satelites, Program Test Plan, August9, 2002." ® see Exhibit D of the Contract, enited "Pegasus Development 107 Corporation, Kacband FSStelits,Program Qualty Assurance Plan, August9,2002." "«CBR$0490).

Federal Communications Commission New Paragraph 11 toread: 11. TT 18 ORDERED that trequest for confidentility submitted by Pegasus on January 31, 2005 is Granted, in par, and Denied, in par to the extent provided herein. Accordingly, we will submita redacted copy of the "Exhibit : Payment Plan and Termination Linbility Amounts, August 9,2002," without redacting the information in the fllowing columns, for inclusion in the publicfile: (1) Payment Number:(2) Month Number; (3) Nominal Invoice Month; (4) Payment Dus; (5) Milestone Eventand (6) Completion Criteria."" Submission of the redacted materials to the Commission‘s public filasindicated here will not be carried out until the time period within which t file appliction for review has expired or Pegasus‘ application for review has been fully and finallyresolved by the Commission (or any appropriate court ofcompetentJurisdiction), whichever occurs later. Under 0.1610) ofthe Commission‘s rules, 47 CER. $ 0.4610), Pegasus may file an application for review of he Bureau‘s handling of partil denial of Pegasus‘s request for confidential tratment. Such an application for review must be filed with the Office of General Counsel within 10 days from the date ofthis order. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Cassandra C. Thomas Acting Chief, Satelite Division International Bureau *‘ Contemporaneouly withthe issuance of his order, Pegasus will be provided copies of the documents to be submited ithe public filto ensirthat thre is no confusion regardingthe documents, or portions thereo, that are determined notto be confidenial.


Document Created: 2005-09-15 16:15:27
Document Modified: 2005-09-15 16:15:27
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC