From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:13 PM To: Bruce Romano Cc: (6) Rashmi Doshi Subject: FW: FCC response on Intended Operations Hi Bruce, Just want to make you aware of the question below we received regarding the application for the Sting Fish. I know many of these questions are generated automatically but it sounds as if there is some confusion about the purpose of the equipment authorization application. As you may recali, the purpose is only to provide state/local iaw enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations. We plan on responding by providing a copy of one of briefings to GET outlining the history (4 years now) of the process and decision to have us submit an equipment authorization application. Also, we have slides outlining the operation of the equipment. ijust don?t want the application to be dismissed because someone may not be knowledgeable ofthe process. Hope this makes sense. Please let me know how you?d like to proceed. Best Regards, Tania Hanna Harris Corp Question from FCC: 1) Additional details about intended operations within FCC licensed radio services as follows are also needed to faciliate continued application review and processing. As we understand this device transmits in e.g. ther typical licensed seems unique an not typica . Given att purpose 0 Certi ication equipment authorization is to identify equipment acceptable for licensing, please explain how (4) icensing for this unique operation is intended to be handled applicable [47 CFR etc]. From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:07 PM Cc: ruce omano; ashmi Doshi Subject: FW: FCC response on Intended Operations Attachments: Submitted RayFish Intended Use and Operational Description Clarificationzip (6) i wanted to make sure you saw this. This was formally submitted through ULS as well. We addressed the two major issues that you raised?Ache labeling issue and the intended use/operations issue. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Regards, Tania Hanna Harris Corp 202-729?3712 office 703-472-6657 cell From: (6) Sent: Monday, June 28, 20101056 AM To: (6) Cc: Subject: grant condition(s) RE: FCC response on Intended Operations FYI I see at feast SL filing in cover tetter does show their requested suggested grant condition: Harris Corporation (?Harris?) requests that the Federal Communications Commission (?Commission?) condition the grant of the equipment authorization application identified as FCC if) NK73092523 based on the language cited below. Harris has agreed with the Federal Bureau of lnvesttgation to request that the Commission condition its equipment authorization for the StingRay? product in order to address concerns over the proliferation of surreptitious law enforcement surveitlance equipment. Requested Condition Language: ?State and local law enforcement agencies must advance coordinate with the FBI for the acquisition and use of the equipment authorized under this Certification. From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:13 PM To: Bruce Romano Cc: Rashmi Doshi Su . . response on Intended Operations Hi Bruce, Just want to make you aware of the question below we received regarding the application for the Sting Fish. I know many of these questions are generated automatically but it sounds as if there is some confusion about the purpose of the equipment authorization application. As you may recall, the purpose is only to provide state/locai iaw enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations. We plan on responding by providing a copy of one of briefings to GET outlining the history (4 years now) of the process and decision to have us submit an equipment authorization appiication. Also, we have slides outlining the operation of the equipment. ljust don?t want the application to be dismissed because someone may not be knowledgeable of the process. Hope this makes sense. Please iet me know how you?d like to proceed. Best Regards, Tania Hanna Harris Corp Question from FCC: 1) Additional details about intended operations within FCC iicensed radio services as follows are also needed to faciliate continued application review and rocessin. As we understand this device transmits in e.g. Other typical licensed seems unique and not typical. Given that the basic purpose 0 FCOOET Certification equipment authorization is to identify equipment acceptable for licensing, please explain how (4) icensing forthis unique operation is intended to be handled applicable {47 CFR etc.]. From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:54 AM To: Rashmi Doshi; Bruce Romano Subject: FW: Follow Up Importance: High Just a quick recap: 1 Ail the applications have been filed formaliy within ULS. 2 The outstanding issue is the status of the confidentiality requests. 3. We are working on revising the confidentiaiity requests pursuant to our last call in December. 4 The above documents represent Harris?s revisions of the requests pursuant to those calls. These documents will be filed for all of the applications once we ail agree that this comports with what we discussed. Please let us know ASAP if this is acceptable and we will move forward with revising the remaining confidentiality requests. Best Regards, Tania From: Morris, Evan Sent: Friday, Janua 28 2011 5:14 PM To: Hanna, Tweak Subject: RE: Follow Importance: High Dear (6) Attached are the modified unzipped exhibits and four lists containing the requested confidential treatment of documents that have been submitted to the FCC (both correspondence and exhibits). if you have any questions or problems opening the files please let me know. Regards, Evan Morris Evan S. Morris, Esq. Harris Corporation Counsel, Government Relations 600 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 8503 Washington, DC. 20024 O: (202) 7296702 (6) evan.morris@harris.com From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Wednesda Janua 26, 2011 10:18 AM Cc: Ol?i?iS, van Subject: Fw: Follow Up (6) lwili ask Evan Morris to emaii them to you in non?zip format. Thanks Tania From: Sent: I - To: Hanna, Tania; Rashmi Doshi Bruce Romano (6) (6) Subject: RE: Follow Up HiTama, We never received the exhibits. Can you please resend in nonwzip file format? Thanks, (6) From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Tuesday, Janua 25 2011 4:13 PM To: Rashmi Romano Subject: FW: Follow Importance: High Dear FCC Team, Please see below. We have resubmitted the exhibits for NK73100176. lfthis looks acceptable to you?we will re?le for the remaining applications. Many thanks, Tania From: Gutowski, Stanley Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 5:35 PM To: (6) Cc: Wendling, Kelie; Morris, Evan; Hanna, Tania Subject: RE: Follow Up Dear Bruce, (6) Dr. Doshi, Prior to the holidays, we submitted revised exhibits for NK73100176 incorporating the changes discussed in the December 9, 2010 conference call. Please let us know if you had any difficulty receiving the attachments to the email sent on December 21, 2010. We look forward to your response on these changes. This email is in response to the second action identified during the December 9th conference call. Specifically, the Commission requested a list of correspondence for Confidential treatment. Attached are four lists containing our request for confidential treatment for responses to Commission correspondence. For purposes of completeness we have also included in these lists our requested confidential treatment of all other submitted exhibits. Our requested confidential treatment of each document has been divided into three categories under the header "Action Requested?: 1. Return Document? Harris requests the document be returned as it will either be replaced in the near future revised RF Reports, Test Reports and ID Labels) or has already been replaced by a revised version. 2. Hold as Confidential? Harris requests the document, in its entirety, be retained by the Commission and withheld from public disclosure. 3. Needs to be Redacted- Harris requests permission to redact a portion of the document pursuant to the parameters outlined in our December 9th conference call. Specifically, removal of product names, protocol references, Harris Wireless Products Group references, and statements related to Confidentiality, and Title 18 restrictions. Following redaction the document can be made publicly available. Best Regards, Stan Gutowski From: Gutowski, Stanley Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:02 PM To: (6) Cc: Wendling, Kelle; Morris, Evan; Hanna, Tania Subject: RE: Follow Up Bruce (6) Dr. Doshi, In follow?up from the December 9th conference call, we revised the FCC Label, RF Exposure and Test Report exhibits for NK73100176 to provide a sample of the changes discussed. Please find the attached zip files containing the original exhibits and modified exhibits. lfyou agree with these changes, we will proceed with the exhibit modifications on the other applications (NK73092523, NK73166210, NK73186795) and submit according to your instructions. Here is a summary of the changes incorporated in the modified exhibits: All: Removed references to product names and protocols (GSM, CDMA) All: Removed Confidential, Title 18 and ITAR statements FCC Label Exhibit: Replaced equipment pictures with box diagrams. - Test Reports: Removed equipment photos. These are duplicates ofthe photos submitted in the Test Setup exhibit. Test Reports: Replaced Spectrum Analyzer plots with new plots utilizing additional averaging As requested, we generated a Confidential addendum to the Operational Description exhibit containing the original Spectrum Analyzer plots and several equipment photos removed from the Test Reports. We look forward to your response. Have a Happy Holidays. Best Regards, Stan Gutowski From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:44 AM To: 'Bruce.Romano@fcc.gov' Cc: Wendling, Kelle; Gutowski, Stanley; (6) Subject: Re: Follow Up Dr. Doshi: here is a summary. We need to discuss correspondence. 1) Test Reports Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC ID instead: Remove "Confidential - Not for Public Inspection? statements Remove product photos. These are duplicates of photos submitted in Test Setup Photo exhibit.- Remove spectrum analyzer plots 2) RF Exposure Reports Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC ID instead. Remove ?Confidential Not for Public Inspection? statements Remove Title 18 and statements 3) FCC Label Exhibit Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC ID instead.~ Remove "Confidential Not for Public Inspection? statements Remove Title 18 and statements Replace product pictures with generic box diagrams From: Rashmi Doshi Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 03:55 PM To: Hanna, Tania; Bruce Romano Cc: Wendlinii Kelie?i GutowskiI Stanley; Subject: RE: Follow Up Hanna, We can have a conference caIi around 10 AM tomorrow (Thursday). It would be useful if you can outiine your proposai prior to that so that we can have a chance to look at the filings. Thanks, Rashmi Doshi From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:19 PM To: Bruce Romano; Rashmi Doshi Cc: Wendling, Kelle; Gutowski, Stanley Subject: Follow Up Bruch and Dr. Doshi, Thank you so much for following up with us yesterday. My apologies about having to drop off the call. We have been having numerous discussions regarding the issues you raised and we believe we have a path by which to move the process forward. Is it possible to arrange another call at your convenience to discuss what we have in mind? Please let me knowwhat date/time work best for you and I?ll arrange something. Many thanks, Tania Hanna Harris Corp (6) 202-729-3712 direct (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) By requesting the emails that Timco received we were attempting to verify that Timco wasn?t erroneously getting automated emails. When an application is filed by a TCB the TCB gets automated notifications. For applications such as these which are submitted for FCC approval, the individual FCC reviewer makes a determination for each information request they send, which recipients they want to send it too. Any of the contacts listed on the Form 731 are eligible recipients. Timco provided one example of an email they received and it was not an automated FCC email but a manually generated email. Typically when there is a technical testing related question on an application, the information is requested from the testing lab. Other contacts are also sent the request to ensure it is received. If you are requesting that this procedure should not be followed for the pending applications on file, a cover letter needs to be submitted in the filings indicating that all information requests should go through the applicant and not the testing lab or other Form 731 contacts. The request needs to include how the technical questions will be answered. Please let 'us know when that is done. Thanks, (6) From: Morris, Evan Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 3:07 PM To (5) Subject: RE: Correspondence E-rnail List Dear (6) have been notified that Timco has provided you an example (or perhaps since I was notified several mere examples) of e?maiis that they have been receiving connected with our four equipment authorization applications. i wanted to follow?up to see it submitting an attachment amending Harris? FCC Form 731 is still necessary, or it this can be resolved through other means. Thank you for your help on this matter. Ali the best, Evan Morris From: Morris, Evan Sent: Thursda Ma 27, 2010 1:09 PM To: Subject: orrespondence Emmaii List Certainly. ~Evan Sent: ay 1 . 2 (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) Cc: Rashmi Doshi; Subject: RE: Corr -mai ES Hello Evan, Since the application?s are pending, you need to submit an attachment to the applications requesting that the changes be made. Regards, (6) From: Morris, Evan Sen ay 17, 2010 11:19 AM To: Subject: Correspondence E-mail List (6) Dear Below are the four FCC iDs in which the testing firm, Timco Engineering has requested that we remove their e-mail (info @timcoengr.com) from the correspondence list on these applications. These e-mails are going to Timoo?s generai inquiry mailbox and they do not want receive emails at that address every time documents are uploaded, modifications are made to the appiication, or information not related to the testing of the equipment is sent. Any assistance you can provide in resolving this matter wouid be greatly appreciated. All the best, Evan Morris FCC ID Form 731 Confirmation Number StingRay NK73092523 EA994680 KingFish NK73100176 EA504770 StingRay II NK73166210 EA580451 2100/1700 Converter NK731867 95 EA674946 Evan S. Morris, Esq. Harris Corporation Legal Analyst, Government Relations 600 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 85013 Washington, DC. 20024 O: (202) 729?3702 . om Harris is an international communications and information technoiogy company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, the company has annuai revenue of $5.4 billion and 16,000 employees including nearly 7,000 engineers and scientists. Harris is dedicated to developing best-in-ciass assured communications? products, systems, and services. (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) Sent: Tue Jul 13 09:23:09 2010 Subject: RE: FCC response on Intended Operations Hi Tania, Any status on the labeling issue? Thanks, (6) From: (6) Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:08 PM To: 'Hanna, Tania'; Bruce Romano; Rashmi Doshi; Subject: RE: FCC response on Intended Operations 6) Hello Tania, The rules require the label on the device. You can request to have it in the manual but you need to provide sufficient justification. Any confidentially held information will not be available even with someone with the FCC identifier so more justification would need to be considered if you still want to pursue that. With regard to letting the reviewer know the intended use of the device, you can submit that in the filing(s) as a separate exhibit. A short description on who will be using the device, in what type of operation(public safety, and basic description on how it works such as, it works like a base station but is not permanently fixed and will be placed at the location of the emergency. Or something like that. While some of this information has been discussed outside of the filing, ultimately they need to be submitted for the records. Thanks, (6) From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Tuesday, June 29 2010 12:30 PM To: Bruce Romano; b) (6) Subject: FW: FCC response on Intended Operations Bruce, Another issue has come up regarding the StingRay/Fish applications. We need your guidance: 1. We proposed putting the FCC label in the operations manuai?we were concerned that an FCC iD would enable bad guys to get access to the equipment authorization application. We are concerned about having it on the box because it may compromise the Title 18 applications. 2. The FCC inquiry is requesting information about intended operations and justification that it is acceptable for licensing. 1) Additional details about intended operations within FCC licensed radio services as follows are also needed to facilitate continued application review and processing. As we understand this device transmits in e.g. 2 (4) from (4) Other typical licensed opera Ions use (4) (4) (4) seems unique and not typical. Given that the basic purpose of Certification equipment authorization is to identify equipment acceptable for licensing, please expiain how (4) licensing for this unique operation is intended to be bandied applicable [47 CFR eth]. I plan to respond by providing the following: 1) A slide showing the history and timeline of meetings/discussions between Harris and the FCC, indicating that the FCC provided direction to complete the Equipment Authorization Appiication 2) Slides describing the intended operation ofthe equipment based on material previously provided to the FCC. We need guidance on how to proceed. With regard to the iabei issuew?can we request that it be included in the operations manual? Also, regarding the reasons we are seeking equipment authorization?~we need to iet the folks reviewing the application know that this equipment is only intended to:r public safety use. Please advise as to how to best proceed. Thank; Tania up Sent: Mon ay, January 31, 2011 4:10 PM To: 'Hanna, Tania?; ?Morris, Evan?; ?sgutowski@harrts.com' Cc: Rashmi Doshi; (6) Subject: RE: Harris FW: Foilow Up Hello Tania, Evan and Stan, The exhibits are acceptable. The below RT correspondence will be sent shortly for each filing. Please wait and use the appropriate correspondence number for each filing when you reply. Thanks, (6) RT correspondence. Please submit corrected exhibits as proposedan correspondence dated 1/28/2011. Please note that once the documents are in the system, we do not have means to ?return? them. However, we will supersede them and they will not be availabte to public. Do not submit the word document that requested to return specific exhibits. Finally, provide a ?clean? confidentiality letter. We will supersede previous ones and all other correspondences. From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:54 AM To: Rashmi Doshi; Bruce Romano Subject: FW: Follow Up Importance: High Just a quick recap: 1 All the applications have been filed formally within ULS. 2. The outstanding issue is the status of the confidentiality requests. 3. We are working on revising the confidentiality requests pursuant to our last call in December. 4 The above documents represent Harris?s revisions of the requests pursuant to those calls. These documents will be filed for all of the applications once we all agree that this comports with what we discussed. 1 Please let us know ASAP if this is acceptable and we will move forward with revising the remaining confidentiality requests. Best Regards, Tania From: Morris, Evan Sent: Friday, Janna 28 2011 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Foilow Importance: High Dear (6) Attached are the modified unzipped exhibits and four lists containing the requested confidential treatment of documents that have been submitted to the FCC (both correspondence and exhibits). If you have any questions or problems opening the files please iet me know. Regards, Evan Morris Evan S. Morris, Esq. Harris Corporation Counsel, Government Relations 600 Maryiand Avenue, SW Suite 850E Washington, DC. 20024 O: (202) 729-3702 (6) evan. morris @barriscom From: Hanna, Tania Sent:Wednesda Janua 25, 2011 10:18 AM Cc: orris, van Subject: Fw: Follow Up (6) i will ask Evan Morris to email them to you in non-zip format. Thanks, Tania From: (6) Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:13 AM WOW Bruce Romano (6) 3ec ow Hi Tania, We never received the exhibits. Can you please resend in non-zip file format? Thanks, (6) From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Tuesday, Janua 25 2011 4:13 PM To: Rashmi Doshi; Bruce Romano Subject: FW: Foilo Importance: High Dear FCC Team, Please see below. We have resubmitted the exhibits for NK73100176. if this looks acceptable to you?we will refile for the remaining applications. Many thanks, Tania From: Gutowski, Stanley Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 5:35 PM To: Cc: Wendiing, Keile; Morris, Evan; Hanna, Tania Subject: RE: Foliow Up (6) Dear Bruce, (6) Dr. Doshi, Prior to the holidays, we submitted revised exhibits for NK73100176 incorporating the changes discussed in the December 9, 2010 conference call. Please let us know ifyou had any difficulty receiving the attachments to the email sent on December 21, 2010. We look forward to your response on these changes. This email is in response to the second action identified during the December ?3th conference call. Specifically, the Commission requested a list of correspondence for Confidential treatment. Attached are four lists containing our request for confidential treatment for responses to Commission correspondence. For purposes of completeness we have also included in these lists our requested confidential treatment of all other submitted exhibits. Our requested confidential treatment of each document has been divided into three categories under the header ?Action Requested?: 1. Return Document? Harris requests the document be returned as it will either be replaced in the near future revised RF Reports, Test Reports and ID Labels) or has already been replaced by a revised version. 2. Hold as Confidential? Harris requests the document, in its entirety, be retained by the Commission and withheld from public disclosure. 3. Needs to be Redacted- Harris requests permission to redact a portion of the document pursuant to the parameters outlined in our December 9tin conference call. Specifically, removal of product names, protocoi references, Harris Wireless Products Group references, and statements related to Confidentiality, and Title 18 restrictions. Following redaction the document can be made publicly available. Best Regards, Stan Gutowski From: Gutowski, Stanley Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:02 PM (6) To: Cc: Wendling, Kelle; Morris, Evan; Hanna, Tania Subject: RE: Follow Up Bruce (6) Dr. Doshi, in followup from the December 9th conference cali, we revised the FCC Labei, RF Exposure and Test Report exhibits for NK73100176 to provide a sample of the changes discussed. Please find the attached zip fiies containing the original exhibits and modified exhibits. if you agree with these changes, we wiil proceed with the exhibit modifications on the other applications (NK73092523, NK73166210, NK73186795) and submit according to your instructions. Here is a summary of the changes incorporated in the modified exhibits: All: Removed references to product names and protocols (GSM, - All: Removed Confidential, Title 18 and statements FCC Label Exhibit: Replaced equipment pictures with box diagrams. Test Reports: Removed equipment photos. These are duplicates of the photos submitted in the Test Setup exhibit. Test Reports: Replaced Spectrum Analyzer plots with new plots utilizing additional averaging i As requested, we generated a Confidential addendum to the Operational Description exhibit containing the originai Spectrum Analyzer plots and severe! equipment photos removed from the Test Reports. We iook forward to your response. Have a Happy Holidays. Best Regards, Stan Gutowski From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 7:44 AM To: ?Bruce.Romano@fcc. ov' Subject: Re: Follow Up Dr. Doshi: here is a summary. We need to discuss correspondence. 1) Test Reports- Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC it) instead.- Remove "Confidential Not for Public inspection? statements- Remove product photos. These are dupiicates of photos submitted in Test Setup Photo exhibit.- Remove spectrum analyzer plots 2) RF Exposure Reports Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC ii) instead. Remove "Confidential Not for Pubiic inspection? statements;- Remove Title 18 and ITAR statements 3) FCC Label Exhibit Remove references to product names. Reference by FCC ID instead.- Remove "Confidential Not for Public 4 inspection? statements Remove Title 18 and statements Replace product pictures with generic box diagrams From: Rashmi Doshi Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 03:55 PM To: Hanna, Tania; Bruce Romano Je ow Hanna, We can have a conference call around 10 AM tomorrow (Thursday). it wooid be useful if you can outline your proposal prior to that so that we can have a chance to took at the filings. Thanks, Rashmi Doshi From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:19 PM To: Bruce Romano; Rashmi Doshi Cc: ,Wendling, Kelle; Gutowski, Stanley Subject: Follow Up Bruch and Dr. Doshi, Thank you so much for following up with us yesterday. My apologies about having to drop off the call. We have been having numerous discussions regarding the issues you raised and we believe we have a path by which to move the process forward. ls it possible to arrange another call at your convenience to discuss what we have in mind? Please let me know what date/time work best for you and l?ll arrange something. Many thanks, Tania Hanna Harris Corp (6) 202-729?3712 direct From: Bruce Romano Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:43 AM To: 'Morris, Evan' Cc: i?ianna, Tania; Rashmi Doshi Subject: RE: Questions Regarding Confidentiality Request Process Mr. Morris, believe that Tania has been in touch with Dr. Rashmi Doshi, chief at the lab, since your inquiry. Bruce Romano Assoc. Chief, Lega! Office of Engineering and Technology Federai Communications Commission 202?418-2124 bruce.romano@fcc.qov From: Morris, Evan Sent: Friday, Aprii 23, 2010 2:54 PM To: Bruce Romano Cc: Hanna, Tania Subject: Questions Regarding Confidentiality Request Process Dear Mr. Romano, i am following up on a phone message that ieit on your voicemail this afternoon. While we have never met, you may be familiar with my colleague in the Harris Corporation Government Relations Department Tania Hanna. am writing in regards to four equipment authorization appiications that Harris is currentiy working on submitting. The request involves a line of Harris products used by law enforcement officials as a geographic location and tracking device using ceii signais. The box acts as a base station and law enforcement officials use it to iocate suspects or find victims. As you may be familiar with, over the past two years my colieague Tania has had severai meetings with OET and the FCC regarding these products. When she came in for one of her visits lVir. Knapp asked that because of the numerous confidentiaiity and Title 18 issues, that we submit the application ourselves directly to the FCC instead of getting approval from the testing body. We have completed testing and as referenced have started our equipment authorization application online. Prior to filing our exhibits and artifacts wanted to discuss with you the best way to go about requesting that our apptication and all included exhibits be withheld from public disciosure. i am with the FCC's confidentiality process and i know that there are a number of items that we are requesting be withheld from public disciosure to which the FCC may not routinely grant confidentiality. As a result, I would like to take discuss with you our unique situation and determine the most appropriate way to make our confidentiality request. Sincerely, Evan 8. Morris Evan 8. Morris, Esq. Harris Corporation Legal Analyst, Government Relations 600 Maryland Avenue, SW Suite 850E Washington, DC. 20024 (202) 729-3702 evanmorris harriscom Harris is an international communications and information technology company serving government and commercial markets in more than 150 countries. Headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, the company has annuai revenue of $5.4 billion and 16,000 employees including nearly 7,000 engineers and scientists. Harris is dedicated to developing best-in- class assured communications? products, systems, and services. (6) From: (6) Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:07 AM To: Rashn? Dosht(b)(6) Subject: RE: Revised WPG Request for Confidentiality Hi Rashmi, Attched is a tble that reflects the confidentiality allowed for each exhibit type. The fields that indicate ?never allowed" or ?never avaitable? are enforced by the system programming. Ali other cases are enforced by application reviewers. if an exhibit is marked as ?superceded? it is not publicly availabie. if looking for exceptions to the chart and poiicies I found that LoJack regoiarly requests confidentiality on ?test setup photos? in their confidentiai request letters but haven?t been granted contidentiatity tor them. TCB46383 and T0994534 requests confidentiality for test setup photos but the T08 didn?t grant it or require the request letter to be conected. I'm not aware of any other exceptions that are not on the chart. (6) From: Rashmi Doshi Sen - To: Subject: FW: Revised WPG Request for Confidentiality Importance: High (6) You may know that we have some pending applications where the applicant, Harris, is asking to hold their application in "entirety". Can we go through the list of exhibits and make a table that indicates which ones we have held confidential - it would be good if you couid indicate if it is required by rule, or based on routine request or based on special justification? Thanks, Rashmi Non?Public: For Internal Use Only From: Bruce Romano Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 6:06 PM To: Rashmi Doshi Subject: FW: Revised WPG Request for Confidentiality Importance: High i looked at these. will try to call you on monday. send a text to my phone so I know when you've read them one of them they are all the same. (not urgent, though) 202? 744?7164. BAR ??-w?Original From: Hanna, Tania Sent: Thu 10/14/2010 5:27 PM To: Bruce Romano Subject: Revised WPG Request for Confidentiality Hi Bruce, Attached are revised copies of the Requests for Confidentially for the StingRay (FCC ID NK73092S23), KingFish (FCC73100176), StingRay IE (FCC ID NK73166210) and 1700/2100 Converter (FCC ID NK73186795). I have resubmitted them through the onnline fling system. <> <> Thanks for everythingi Tania Hanna Harris Corp (6) File: Request for Confidentiality of Harris Corporation FCC ID _Revised?.pdf File: Request for Confidentiality of Harris Corporation FCC ID 3100176 _Revised_.pdf File: Request for Confidentiality of Harris Corporation FCC ID _Revised_.pdf File: Request for Confidentiality of Harris Corporation FCC ID _Revisedm.pdf Exhibit Type Confidentiality Exhibit Type Con?dentiality- Permanent Confidentiality- Short Term ID Label/Location Info Never allowed Never allowed Attestation Never allowed Never allowed Statements External Photos With Extra justification Routine with justification Block Diagram Routine with justification Routine with justification Schematics Routine with justification Routine with justification Test Report Never allowed Never allowed Test Setup Photos Never allowed Routine with justification Users Manual With extra justification Routine with justification Internal Photos With extra justification Routine with justification Parts List/Tune Up Routine with justification Routine with Info justification RF Exposure Info Never allowed Never allowed Operational Routine with justification Routine with Description justification Cover Letters Never allowed Never allowed SDR Software/ Never available Never available Security Info Correspondence Never allowed Never allowed Short Term Never allowed Never allowed Confidential Requests?Post Grant