Attachment 115 License -req for

This document pretains to SAT-LOA-20060412-00044 for Application to Launch and Operate on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATLOA2006041200044_793947

ORLIGINAL pillsbury CONFIDENTIAL Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037—1122 | tel 202.663.8000 | fax 202.663.8007 ' FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 1B2006001030 | i Tony Lin NON—PUBLIC ' tel 202.663.8452 tony.lin@pillsburylaw.com Pegasus Development DBS Corporation December 17, 2009 SAT—LOA—20060412—00044 Via Courier FILED/ACCEPTED Marlene H. Dortch DEC 1 7 2009 Office of the Secretary 1B2008000114 Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Gommission PEGASUS 110W Office of the Secretary 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 $2700 Re: 115 License Subsidiary, LLC Pegasus Development DBS Cor, poration SAT—AMD—20080114—00023 Call Sign $2700 Submission of Executed Satellite Construction Contract 1B2009004623 Dear Ms. Dortch: Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 25.164(c), 115 License Subsidiary, LLC PEGASUS 115 w ("LicenseSub") hereby submits a non—redacted copy of the satellite construction contract and accompanying exhibits executed between LicenseSub and Space Corporation Systems/Loral, Inc. ("SS/L") on December 16, 2009.‘ The submitted documents SAT—ASG—20090921—00098 (hereafter "Contractual Documents") demonstrate that LicenseSub has executed a $2700 binding, non—contingent satellite construction contract and, therefore, met its first Pegasus Development DBS license milestone." Consistent with Commission policy, LicenseSub is submitting via IBFS a redacted version of the Contractual Documents with a copy of this transmittal ‘ On December 8, 2009, Pegasus Development DBS Corporation consummated the $2700 pro forma assignment of the license to LicenseSub. See Letter to Marlene H. Dortch from Tony Lin, File No. SAT—ASG—20090921—00098 (December 8, 2009). > For the Commission‘s convenience, the Contractual Documents filed with the Secretary are provided on CD—ROM, and the courtesy copies to Stephen Duall are provided on paper. | FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY | www.pillsburylaw.com j NON—PUBLIC 401597769v2

December 17, 2009 Page 2 letter for the public record" and requests confidential treatment of the non—redacted version of this filing, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).4 The Contractual Documents should be withheld from public inspection and should not be placed in the public files, consistent with Commission policy.5 The Contractual Documents contain information of which the disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive and financial harm to LicenseSub (and SS/L), and therefore, this information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4 and the Commission‘s implementing regulations.® In conformity with Section 0.459(b) of the Commussion‘s rules, LicenseSub submits the following: (1) LicenseSub requests confidential treatment of the Contractual Documents. (2) The Contractual Documents are being submitted, as required under 47 CER. § 25.164(c), to demonstrate the completion of LicenseSub‘s first license milestone, the execution of a binding, non—contingent satellite construction contract. (3) The Contractual Documents contain highly sensitive commercial and financial information, including details regarding costs, schedules regarding delivery and construction, technical specifications, price and payment terms, unique commercial terms and conditions, and implicit assumptions about LicenseSub‘s business plans. The documents also include information regarding the distribution of risk and liability, indemnification, intellectual property rights, and other commercial arrangements, which are customarily guarded from competitors and other satellite vendors. 3 See Amendment ofthe Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 18 FCC Red 10760, at [ 187 (2003). * 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.; 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457, 0.459. * See Amendment of the Commission‘s Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies, 18 FCC Red 10760, at «[ 187 (2003). 6 See 5 U.S.C. § 522(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 0.457(d); see also Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F.2d 871, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1992); National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770 (D.C. Cir. 1974). www.pillsburylaw.com | 401597769v2

December 17, 2009 Page 3 (4) LicenseSub faces potential competition from a number of companies proposing to develop satellites in the same frequency bands, as well as operators currently providing comparable services using other satellite frequency bands. Additionally, other companies provide similar services using other technologies. (5) Disclosure of the redacted information contained in the Contractual Documents would result in substantial competitive harm to LicenseSub (and SS/L). Competitors could use this information to market services to target LicenseSub‘s intended customers or to obtain more favorable terms in their negotiations with satellite vendors." Public disclosure would also allow competitors to obtain, at no charge, detailed proprietary technical information regarding system characteristics and performance requirements developed and paid for by LicenseSub. Additionally, public disclosure of the unique terms of the agreement would give satellite vendors an advantage in any future negotiations with LicenseSub. (6) LicenseSub has taken protective measures to ensure that the redacted information contained in the Contractual Documents is not disclosed to the public. The documents have been provided only to a limited number of employees or agents and are not generally available internally. Further, Article 30 of the contract with SS/L requires that the parties maintain the confidentiality of financial details and proprietary information associated with the contract. (7) The redacted information contained in the Contractual Documents has not been made available to the public, and there has been no unintended disclosure of this information to third parties. As noted above, the parties are required by the contract to maintain the confidentiality of financial details and proprietary information associated with the contract. (8) The redacted information contained in the Contractual Documents should be withheld from disclosure for an indefinite period of time. During the operational life of the satellite, satellite vendors and competitors could use the information to their competitive advantage and to LicenseSub‘s detriment, as " See, eg., In re Application ofMobile Communications Holding, Inc., 10 FCC Red 1547 (1994) ("[Bljuyers receive a clear competitive advantage if they know the prices that other buyers have been charged as a result of individual negotiations."). 8 See In re American Satellite Company, 1985 FCC LEXIS 3117 (1985) (public disclosure of technical information would result in competitive injury). www.pillsburylaw.com 401597769v2

December 17, 2009 Page 4 explained above. Moreover, there is no public benefit to be derived from disclosure of the redacted information. In the alternative, LicenseSub requests that the redacted information contained in the Contractual Documents be withheld from disclosure until after the operational life of the satellite. Please contact the undersigned if you should have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, ruZ;cobs Tony Lin Counselfor 115 License Subsidiary, LLC Attachment gc: Stephen Duall (non—redacted version) www.pillsburylaw.com 401597769v2


Document Created: 2019-04-12 19:19:12
Document Modified: 2019-04-12 19:19:12
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC