Attachment request

request

REQUEST submitted by Inmarsat

request

2006-02-07

This document pretains to SAT-MOD-20051104-00211 for Modification on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATMOD2005110400211_482342

rum nTERRALusE onty ) m Sroe 1 Sn ton Nowm whiegan05. meoersoe _ td qomesramo ree aonesraan weeincon LATHAMeWATKINS« Tess~—foott. CoNFIDENTIAL — NoT FOR PuBLic iNsPEctTION feoe Cepoes (XZ RR" * Heaiong Sirtm t prgies February 7, 2006 snmgam wanee Seghd sewes via Hanp petivery RECEIVED y fee Hemnay Wanrgenc Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Fes — 7 2006 Secretary Federal Communications Commission Fedeal Comnunrgiens n 445 12th Street, S.W. Seneh _ d Washington, DC 20554 Re: Request for Confidential Treatment In the matter ofApplication ofMobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC for Modification ofLicense to Operate an Ancillary Terrestrial Component File Nos: SAT—MOD—20051104—00212 SAT—MOD—20051 104—0021 1 SES—MOD—20051110—01561 SES—MOD—20051104—02556 Dear Ms. Dortch: Pursuant to Sections 0.457 and 0.459 of the Commission‘s rules,‘ Inmarsat Ventures Limited (‘Inmarsat") respectfully requests that the Commission withhold from public inspection, and accord confidential treatment to, the enclosed confidential version of the Reply of Inmarsat Ventures Limited (‘Reply®) in the above mater. Concurrently with the filing ofthis letter, Inmarsat has separately filed a redacted, public version ofthe Reply. Certain text in the Reply and Exhibits B and C to the Reply contain information that should be treated as confidential. Specifically, Exhibit B of the enclosed confidential version contains information regarding L—Band spectrum usage that Inmarsat and other parties to the 1996 Mexico City Memorandum of Understanding ("Mexico City MoU®) have agreed to maintain confidential, and it contains references to pleadings regarding the Mexico City MoU made by MSV for which MSV has sought confidential treatment under the Commission‘s Rules.. As the Commission has previously recognized, information pertaining to the Mexico City MoU and related coordination documents is entitled to confidential treatment* Additionally, Exhibit C contains calculations and technical analysis based on the 1992 bilateral ‘ 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.457 and 0.459. * See Comsat Order, 16 FCC Red 21661, 21710 at1 107 (2001).

th.atenet.doreh Eon tarm CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION LATHAM®WATKINS« agreement between Inmarsat and the United States, which the parties have agreed to maintain confidential ("1992 Bilateral Agreement®). This confidential commercial information falls squarely within Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")" Exemption 4 of FOIA provides that the public disclosure requirement of the statute "does not apply to matters that are . . . trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential."" This commercial information is "confidential" under Exemption 4 of FOIA because Inmarsat is voluntarily providing this information, which is "of a kind that would not customarily be released to the public by the person from whom it was obtained."" In support of this request and pursuant to Section 0.459(b) of the Commission‘s ules, Inmarsat provides the following information.® First, Inmarsat seeks confidential treatment of the information relating to the 1992 Bilateral Agreement, the Mexico City MoU and information relating to the MSS operations of Inmarsat and other L—Band operators contained within the Reply, attached hereto." Second, the Reply relates to the matter of the Application of Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC for Modification of License to Operate an Ancillary Terrestrial Component, File Nos. SAT—MOD—20051104—00212, SAT—MOD—2001104—00211, SES—MOD— 20051110—01561 and SES—MOD—20051104—02556." Third, the Reply contains confidential information about intemational spectrum coordination matters." The Commission has previously recognized that information pertaining to the Mexico City MoU and related coordination documents is entitled to confidential treatment." Fourth, the information provided in the Reply is directly related to a competitive service for which confidentiality is warranted."". Inmarsat is the operator of a mobile satellite * 5 U.S.C. $ 5520)0). * 14. * See, eg., Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 975 F. 24 871, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1992). +47 CR §0.4500). " See 47 CF.R. §0.459(b)(1) (identification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought). * See 47 C.FR. § 0.459(b)() (identification ofthe Commission proceeding in which the information was submitted or a description ofthe circumstances giving rise to the submission). * See 47 C.ER. § 0.459(b)G) (explanation ofthe degree to which the information is commercial or financial, or contains a trade secret oris privileged). ° See Comsat Order, 16 FCC Red 21661, 21710 at J 107 (2001).

th mareeent corch Ieinanyt.ioot Proes CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION LATHAMeWATKINS« system that is used throughout the world, including North America. Other entities have satellite systems that are competitive to Inmarsat‘s MSS system. Fifth, the information contained in the Response is not of the type released to the public by Inmarsat."® The confidential version of the Reply contains references to the interational coordination agreements and minutes of coordination meetings, which the Commission has previously recognized to be confidential." Further, disclosure of this information would violate the terms ofthe Mexico City MoU. Sixth, the confidential version of the Reply is marked "Confidential—Not For Public Inspection," and access to the document has been restricted to individuals with a need to know."* The Mexico City MoU is marked "Confidential to the Parties," and the ongoing L—Band frequency coordination process under the Mexico City MoU is confidential to the parties to that process. The 1992 Bilateral Agreement relates to an L—Band frequency coordination that predates the Mexico City MOU, which Inmarsat maintains as confidential. Seventh, the confidential version of the Reply and the confidential information contained therein have not previously been publicly disclosed.." Finally, Inmarsat requests that the confidential version of the Reply be treated as confidential for the longer of fiteen years or until such time as the Commission no longer maintains the confidentiality of the Mexico City MoU, the related operating agreements, or the intemational coordinations thereunder."" + > * + " See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(4) (explanation ofthe degree to which the information concems a service that is subject to competition). "* See 47 C.FR. § 0.459(b)(5)(explanation ofhow disclosure of the information could result in substantial competitive harm). ‘" See Comsat Order at 1 107. "* See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(6) (identification of any measures taken by the submitting party to prevent unauthorized disclosure). "*See 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(b)(7) (identification ofwhether the information is available to the public and the extent of any previous disclosure ofthe information to third parties). "*See 47 CF.R. § 0.459(b)(8) (justification ofthe period during which the submitting party asserts that material should not be available for public disclosure}.

t morement porch hom * CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION LATHAM®WATKINS« For these reasons, Inmarsat respectfully requests that the Commission withhold from public inspection, and accord confidential treatment to, the enclosed confidential version of the Reply. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth R. Park Enclosure


Document Created: 2006-02-09 10:55:07
Document Modified: 2006-02-09 10:55:07
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC