FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
October 28, 20 II
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Committce on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Grassley:
I rcceived your letter of September 8, 20 I I, and hope that this response clears up some
apparent misconceptions about Commission policy regarding information requests coming from
individual mcmbers ofCongrcss rather than from Congressional committees.
Thc Commission's policy, as described in my letter to you ofJuly 26, 20 I0, is not unique
to the Commission or ofrecent vintage. Over a quarter ccntury ago, in 1984, the Justice
Department noted that congressional access to agency documents is traditionally limited
precisely along the lines ofthe FCC's policy - differentiating between requests from
congressional committees and requests from individual members. I Both before and since the
Justice Department issued its guidance, courts have consistently distinguished between
information requests from Congressional committees and requests made by individual members
2
The FCC is following this time-honored approach.
I share your concerns regarding national security. public safety and good government.
More specifically hcre. I reiterate to you my previous assurances that the Commission will not
make any dccisions regarding LightSquared that jeopardize national security. public safety or the
important services the GPS industry provides the American public. I have provided the same
assurances on the record to the Housc Armed Services Committee'S Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces. I am attaching a copy ofthe letter that was cntercd into the record at that hearing. That
I U.S. Dep't ofJustice, Office of Information Policy, FOIA Update, vol. V, no. I (1984) (available at
http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updatesNoIV_I/page3.htm).
2 See. e.g.. COlllllli(/ee on/he Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 67·68 (D.D.C. 2008) (House Judiciary
Comrninee had power to enforce congressional subpoena; case distinguished from suils brought by individual
members ofCongress); Walker v. Chaney. 230 F. Supp.2d 51, 68 (D.D.C. 2002) (Comptroller General denied access
to Energy Task Force records. "The record reflecls that Congress as a whole has undertaken no effort to obtain the
documents at issue, that no committee has requested the documents, and that no subpoena has been issued. Thus, an
injury with respect to any congressional right to infonnation remains wholly conjectural or hypothetical."); Leach v.
RTC, 860 F. upp. 868, 874 (D.D.C. 1984) (Ranking Member of House Banking Commillee denied access to
requested Resolution Trust Corporation flies); Lee v. Kelley, 99 F.R.D. 340, 342 (D.D.C. 1983) (Senator Helms
denied access to FBI's lile on Martin Luther King). See also Raines v. Byrd. 521 U.S. 811,829-30 (individual
members ofCongress do not have standing to bring an action to challenge constitutionality of Line Item VelO Act).
445 12TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON. 0 C 20554 • 202·418·1000
Page 2-The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
letter provides extensive background information and addresses scveral of the procedural
questions that you have raised, including FCC coordination with other government agencies
throughout the process.
In addition, as outlined in thc attached lener for the record, the FCC has coordinated with
other fedcral agencies throughout this process, pursuant to the terms ofa memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the TIA, which represents federal spectrum users, including the
Departmcnt of Defense, Department ofTransportation, Department of Energy. and ASA. Such
coordination with other agencies has been FCC policy since the inception ofthe FCC under the
Communications Act of 1934. This coordination permits technical experts to review engineering
issues and resolve spectrum interference problems in a collaborative. inclusive and fact-based
manncr. That is cxactly the process that is bcing run in the LightSquared matter.
Finally, I would like to note that I answered qucstions about LightSquared during the
hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommit1ee on Financial Services on the FCC's
appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and I later responded to several written questions for the
record on this matter. Morcover, Julius Knapp, Chiefof the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology, testified before the House Armed Services Strategic Forccs
Subcommittee on September 15,20 I I, and reitcrated the fCC's commitmcnt that the agency
will not make any decisions regarding LightSquared that jeopardize national security, public
safety, or the important services the GPS industry provides to the public.
These hearings and written cxchanges have provided ample opportunity to address the
national security, public safety and good government issues you have raiscd directly with me in
your letters and through our staff-to-staff contacts. Thcy also have afforded Congress the
opportunity to hear from a broad cross-section of interested partics and stakeholders.
I appreciate the concerns you have raised, and cmphasize that the FCC has worked hard  
both through coordination with our federal partners and with all interestcd stakeholders - to
assure that those concerns are taken into account through a fact-based and engineering-driven
process. I am committed to ensuring that is how this process continues to be structured moving
forward. I will continue to make staff' availablc to discuss this matter further with you and your
staffat your conveniencc.
Enclosure