Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
IKUSI-Angel Iglesias, S.A.      )     File No. EB-03-SE-214
                                )      
                                 
                            ORDER

Adopted:  June 8, 2004                  Released:   June  9, 
2004

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement 
Bureau:

     I.  INTRODUCTION

1.        In this Order, we deny in large part a request for 
   confidential treatment  of material  submitted by  IKUSI-
   Angel Iglesias, S.A. (``IKUSI'') in response  to a letter 
   of  inquiry  (``LOI'')   from  the   Enforcement  Bureau.  
   However, we grant confidential treatment  of one specific 
   item in IKUSI's response.

     II.  BACKGROUND

2.        On  March  29,   2004,  the  Spectrum  Enforcement 
   Division of  the  Enforcement Bureau  sent  IKUSI an  LOI 
   seeking  information   and   documents   concerning   the 
   compliance of IKUSI's Remote  Crane Transmitter (``RCT'') 
   Model TM60, FCC ID  # PVT-TM60, with the  requirements of 
   Part 15  of the  Commission's Rules  (``Rules'').1  IKUSI 
   submitted a  Response to  this  LOI on  April 26,  2004.2  
   IKUSI's Response included a  Confidentiality Request,3 in 
   which IKUSI  seeks confidential  treatment of  its entire 
   Response.  IKUSI asserts  that ``[t]he  Response contains 
   sensitive proprietary  commercial information  concerning 
   the number of  devices shipped by  IKUSI for sale  in the 
   United States.''4   IKUSI asserts  that ``[t]he  Response 
   also contains  information  relating  to  IKUSI's  future 
   product development and  marketing plans for  the U.S.''5  
   IKUSI submits  that ``[p]ublic  release  of the  Response 
   would result  in  competitive harm  to  IKUSI because  it 
   would provide competitors with information related to the 
   nature and extent  of IKUSI's relationship  with entities 
   purchasing its  products, including  total product  sales 
   data, which  could be  used to  approximate market  share 
   data.''6  IKUSI also  states that  ``[t]o date  there has 
   been no disclosure  to the public  of the  sensitive data 
   contained in the Response.''7

     III.  DISCUSSION

3.          Section   0.459  of  the  Rules   establishes  a 
   procedure by which  parties may request  that information 
   or materials that they  have submitted to  the Commission 
   not be routinely available for  public inspection.8  This 
   rule  requires  that  a   party  seeking  confidentiality 
   provide a statement  of the  reasons for  withholding the 
   materials in  question  from  public inspection  and  set 
   forth the specific categories of materials for which such 
   treatment is appropriate.9

4.        We  find  that  IKUSI's request  for  confidential 
   treatment of its  Response substantially fails  to comply 
   with the  standards set  forth  in Section  0.459 of  the 
   Rules.  The  Commission's rules  make  clear that  casual 
   requests for confidentiality that do not  comply with the 
   requirements of Section  0.459 will not  be considered.10  
   Further,  the  LOI  issued  to  IKUSI   by  the  Spectrum 
   Enforcement  Division   explicitly   warned  IKUSI   that 
   requests for confidential treatment must  comply with the 
   requirements of Section 0.459, including the standards of 
   specificity mandated  by Section  0.459(b), and  that the 
   Bureau will not consider confidentiality requests that do 
   not comply.11   However, IKUSI  has failed  to provide  a 
   statement of reasons for withholding its  Response in its 
   entirety.  For  example,  while  IKUSI generally  asserts 
   that the  Response  ``contains  information  relating  to 
   [its] future product development and  marketing plans for 
   the U.S.,'' it does  not identify the  specific ``product 
   development  and   marketing''   information  for   which 
   confidential treatment is  sought as required  by Section 
   0.459(b)(1), explain the degree to which such information 
   is commercial or financial or contains  a trade secret as 
   required  by   Section   0.459(b)(3),   or  explain   how 
   disclosure  of   such   information   could   result   in 
   substantial  competitive  harm  as  required  by  Section 
   0.459(b)(5).  Moreover, we find that  IKUSI's request for 
   confidential treatment of its Response  is overbroad.  In 
   this regard, IKUSI's  Response includes  information that 
   is clearly  not  commercial,  financial or  trade  secret 
   information.  For  example,  IKUSI's Response  references 
   and discusses  at length  its  application for  equipment 
   authorization  for  the  RCT  Model   TM60.12   We  note, 
   however, that this  application is publicly  available on 
   the FCC Office  of Engineering and  Technology's internet 
   site.  Accordingly, we conclude that IKUSI  has failed to 
   demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence a case for 
   nondisclosure of its entire Response.   We therefore deny 
   IKUSI's request that  we grant confidential  treatment of 
   its entire Response.  

5.        We nevertheless  find that IKUSI  has demonstrated 
   that  one  specific  item  in  its  Response  constitutes 
   commercial or  financial information,  the disclosure  of 
   which could  result  in  substantial competitive  harm.13  
   Specifically, we  find that  IKUSI has  demonstrated that 
   disclosure of the number of devices  shipped by IKUSI for 
   sale in the United  States, as set forth  in its response 
   to question (1), could result  in substantial competitive 
   harm.  Accordingly, we will accord confidential treatment 
   to this information.

     IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

6.        Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED, pursuant  to Sections 
   0.111, 0.311,  0.459(c) and  0.459(d)(2) of  the Rules,14 
   that the Confidentiality Request filed on  April 26, 2004 
   by IKUSI-Angel Iglesias, S.A.  IS GRANTED to  the limited 
   extent indicated herein and IS otherwise DENIED.

7.        IT  IS   FURTHER  ORDERED,  pursuant   to  Section 
   0.459(g) of  the Rules,  that IKUSI-Angel  Iglesias, S.A. 
   may file an  application for review  of this  denial with 
   the Commission  within  five  (5)  working days  of  this 
   Order.

8.        IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of  this Order 
   shall be sent  via first class  mail and  certified mail, 
   return receipt  requested,  to  counsel  for  IKUSI-Angel 
   Iglesias, S.A.,  Mace J.  Rosenstein, Esq.  and David  L. 
   Martin, Esq.,  Hogan &  Hartson,  L.L.P., 555  Thirteenth 
   Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004-1109.

         

                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         


                              Joseph P. Casey
                              Chief,   Spectrum  Enforcement 
Division
                              Enforcement Bureau




_________________________

1 Letter  from Joseph P. Casey,  Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, Enforcement Bureau,  to Miguel Portillo, Director, 
TLC Division,  IKUSI-Angel Igelsias,  S.A. (March  29, 2004) 
(``LOI'').

2 Letter from Mace J.  Rosenstein, Esq. and David L. Martin, 
Esq.,  Hogan  & Hartson,  L.L.P.,  to  Yasin Ozer,  Spectrum 
Enforcement  Division, Enforcement  Bureau (April  26, 2004) 
(``Response'').

3 Letter from Mace J.  Rosenstein, Esq. and David L. Martin, 
Esq.,  Hogan  & Hartson,  L.L.P.,  to  Yasin Ozer,  Spectrum 
Enforcement  Division, Enforcement  Bureau (April  26, 2004) 
(``Confidentiality Request'').

4 Confidentiality Request at 1.

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 2.

8 47 C.F.R.  0.459.

9 47 C.F.R.   0.459(b).  Section 0.457 sets forth the 
categories of records that are not routinely available for 
public inspection, i.e., accorded confidential treatment, 
and Section 0.459 sets forth the procedures for submitting 
requests that material or information be withheld from 
public inspection.  For instance, Section 0.459(b)(3) 
provides that a request for confidentiality shall, among 
other things, include an "explanation of the degree to which 
the information is commercial or financial, or contains a 
trade secret or is privileged." 47 C.F.R.   0.459(b)(3).

10 See 47 C.F.R.  0.459(c). 

11 LOI at 3.

12 Response at 4-6.

13  See  47 C.F.R.    0.459(b)(3).   See  also 5  U.S.C.   
552(b)(4); 47 C.F.R.  0.457(d).

14 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 0.459(c) and 0.459(d)(2).