OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Barton:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Joe Barton
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
--------_... .
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13, 2010
The Honorable Cliff Steams
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2370 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Steams:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the argumentsan~options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Cliff Steams
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
---........-..._- .
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13, 2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Fred Upton
U.S. House of Representatives
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Upton:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title ill and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title ill of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Fred Upton
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
_................_- .
Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Marsha Blackburn
U.S. House of Representatives
217 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Blackburn:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Marsha Blackburn
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
· .c:=....-.-...-- 
Julius Genachowski
•
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
The Honorable Mary Bono Mack
U.S. House of Representatives
104 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Bono Mack:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
reVIew.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as CleaIwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Mary Bono Mack
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
----------- .
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13, 2010
The Honorable Phil Gingrey
U.S. House of Representatives
119 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Gingrey:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Phil Oingrey
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
... 'l'C::
O
h ki
u IUS enac ows
•
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
Ranking Member
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
394 Ford House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Hall:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authOlity to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Ralph M. Hall
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
·'c::=-----~­
Julius Genachowski
•
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Tim Murphy
U.S. House of Representatives
322 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Murphy:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
reVIew.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title ill of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the argumentsan~options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Tim Murphy
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
·.:e::~~­
Julius Genachowski
•
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13, 2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Steve Scalise
U.S. House of Representatives
429 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Scalise:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
reVIew.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the argumentsan~options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Steve Scalise
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
·'.c::------- 
Julius Genachowski
•
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13, 2010
The Honorable John Sullivan
U.S. House of Representatives
434 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Sullivan:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority :under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable John Sullivan
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
•
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
The Honorable Lee Terry
U.S. House of Representatives
2331 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Terry:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I and II of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Lee Terry
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
December 13,2010
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Ed Whitfield
U.S. House of Representatives
2411 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Whitfield:
Thank you for your letter expressing concern about the possible adoption of roaming
obligations in the wireless data roaming proceeding, and expressing special interest in the
Commission's statutory authority to adopt such obligations. Your views are very important and
will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's
review.
Earlier this year, the Commission sought comment on data roaming and the extent of its
authority to impose data roaming obligations on wireless service providers. In the Notice, the
Commission stated its belief that regardless of whether the services a subscriber would access
through roaming arrangements are telecommunications services or information services, the
Commission has statutory authority to require automatic roaming for them. The Notice stated
that if these services are telecommunications services, they could be subject to roaming
obligations pursuant to Commission authority under Title II and Title III, and if they are
information services, the Commission has the authority to promulgate roaming requirements
under Title III and other provisions.
The Commission received a substantial record with respect to its statutory authority.
Proponents of data roaming, such as Clearwire, SouthernLINC, T-Mobile USA, and U.S.
Cellular, assert that the Commission's legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act
to manage radio spectrum provides the Commission with a sufficient legal basis to require any
entity utilizing radio spectrum to make available data roaming to other wireless service
providers. Some proponents, including Cellular South, Leap Wireless, and MetroPCS, argue that
the Commission also has authority under Title I andI~of the Act. In contrast, AT&T and
Verizon Wireless argue that the Commission lacks the legal authority to require data roaming
under any provision of the Communications Act. There is also a dispute over the application of
Section 332 of the Communications Act to data roaming.
The data roaming proceeding remains pending, and the staff is still in the process of
reviewing the record and analyzing the arguments and options. I want to assure you that the
Page 2-The Honorable Ed Whitfield
Commission will weigh carefully the legal and policy issues raised in the record before issuing a
decision. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
--------- .