Mandatory Reimbursement Rules for                             )
Frequency Band or Geographic                                     )                     Docket No. 001206341-0341-01
Relocation of Spectrum-Dependent                               )
Systems                                                                        )
 
 

Howard J. Symons                                                     Douglas I. Brandon
Sara F. Leibman                                                         Vice President-External Affairs
Catherine Carroll                                                        David P. Wye
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky                            Director, Spectrum Policy
    and Popeo, P.C.                                                    1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                                Washington, D.C. 20036
Suite 900                                                                   (202) 223-9222
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 434-7300

Of Counsel

Dated: March 19, 2001
 
 

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................1
I.     A FLEXIBLE REGULATORY APPROACH TO RELOCATION AND REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED…….........................................................................................................................................................….….3

CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................................18
 
 

Mandatory Reimbursement Rules for                                   )
Frequency Band or Geographic                                           )                 Docket No. 001206341-0341-01
Relocation of Spectrum-Dependent                                     )
Systems                                                                              )
 
 

Pursuant to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s ("NTIA’s") Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released January 18, 2001, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. ("AT&T") hereby submits its comments in the above-captioned proceeding.^1/ AT&T filed comments on March 8, 2001, in a related proceeding commenced by the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission").^2/ The comments submitted today provide a general overview of issues surrounding the reimbursement of federal entities for spectrum relocation costs and reflect the positions asserted in AT&T’s comments to the Commission.

NTIA should maximize the substantial benefits that spectrum reallocation offers both to commercial and government users by implementing efficient and just relocation and reimbursement policies. It should permit commercial users to share spectrum with existing users or to retune or modify existing users’ equipment or facilities when new licensees determine that such options would be more efficient than engaging in the expensive and time-consuming alternative of full relocation. In addition, reimbursement should be provided not only to those government entities required by statute or regulation to release spectrum, but also to those that do so voluntarily. Such a policy would increase the amount of spectrum for commercial auction by giving government users an incentive to relocate.

More generally, clear, fair, and flexible reimbursement and relocation rules would speed the availability, and increase the affordability, of new spectrum to commercial users (and ultimately to consumers), as well as ease disruption to government users currently occupying the bands. To the extent that relocation is not necessary, both sides benefit. And, if spectrum cannot be shared, relocation resources are likely to provide substantial aid to the ongoing modernization efforts of numerous federal entities, including the Department of Defense. The costs of such relocation need not unduly strain the commercial industry’s resources if, as some parties suggest, they were to be funded through the proceeds of the auction itself.

To employ these alternatives effectively, adequate information regarding a variety of issues (such as the nature, location, and use of the affected facilities or frequencies) must be disclosed prior to auction so that industry may fully evaluate the feasibility and cost of those plans. The provision of such information would not only help ensure the fair treatment of potential bidders and new licensees, it would also help ensure the viability of the auctions themselves by encouraging the participation of qualified and well-informed bidders, some of whom would not otherwise participate. In addition, participation by bidders with a clear understanding of the scope of their potential obligations would provide government entities with increased certainty that they would be fully reimbursed for relocation while also lessening the likelihood of unexpected disruption stemming from relocation disputes and other problems. Properly-structured rules would thus benefit both industry and the affected federal agencies, and should therefore be expeditiously adopted in light of the fast-approaching statutory deadlines for auction.

To the extent that commercial users could reap substantially the same benefit from shared use of the spectrum as they would from exclusive use, spectrum sharing would be a far superior option to full relocation in terms of cost, time, and convenience. Sharing might be appropriate, for instance, in situations in which the government use is restricted to a small geographical area or an off-use time period. Avoiding relocation whenever possible would also result in far less disruption to government users than a policy that requires relocation in all circumstances.

AT&T similarly supports NTIA’s proposed limitation of reimbursement to retuning or modification costs when such action is a technically feasible alternative to relocation.^4/ NTIA suggests that "to the extent that a Federal entity that is required to relocate is able to modify its equipment" so that "the retuned equipment provides operational capabilities comparable with its original system," reimbursement costs would be limited to the cost of retuning.^5/ Similarly, when only a portion of a federal entity’s pathways, facilities, or uses cause interference, reimbursement costs should be limited to the relocation of those specific pathways, facilities, or uses. As with the sharing proposal discussed above, limiting reimbursable costs only to the costs that are truly necessary is economically efficient, practical, and fair.

Providing licensees with the flexibility to choose the best available option for each particular circumstance -- whether it is sharing, retuning, or full relocation -- should help ensure that the relocation process proceeds smoothly, cost-effectively, and efficiently. To make such tailored, rational decisions, however, licensees must have adequate information about a variety of issues, including the nature, location, and uses of the affected facilities or frequencies. As discussed more fully below, the informational requirements currently proposed by NTIA are inadequate and should be expanded to provide substantially more detail.^6/ Even assuming the adoption of more robust informational requirements, however, the government would retain a strong informational advantage over auction winners. The licensee’s choice between relocation and sharing, retuning, or modification should therefore govern unless the government demonstrates that the licensee’s choice is impracticable.

As NTIA correctly concludes, reimbursement for voluntary relocation is authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A).^9/ That provision states that "any federal entity which operates a Federal Government station may accept from any person payment of the expenses of relocat[ion]" undertaken to "expedit[e] the commercial use of the electromagnetic spectrum."¹⁰/ This express recognition by Congress further supports the adoption of a policy of reimbursement of voluntarily relocating government users. As demonstrated above, such a policy is also consistent with other statutory and regulatory goals and economically beneficial to both government and commercial users. Accordingly, NTIA should clearly recognize voluntary relocation and reimbursement as a permissible option.

To ensure that relocation and reimbursement proceed fairly and efficiently, NTIA should apply the procedural reimbursement mechanisms (such as spending caps and cost sharing) that it adopts as a part of this rulemaking to reimbursement of voluntarily relocating federal entities. Relying on an established and clear set of rules, rather than on a cumbersome process of independent negotiation involving constantly shifting parties, would help provide certainty to both government and private parties. This, in turn, would improve the ability of both industry and government entities to make accurate financial, scheduling, and operational decisions and would speed the resolution of relocation and reimbursement.

II. BIDDERS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO

MAKE RATIONAL ECONOMIC CHOICES.

Although AT&T supports many aspects of the NPRM, NTIA’s proposed rules do not adequately recognize potential bidders’ need for specific information regarding reimbursement costs prior to auction. The information to be disclosed varies depending on the security classification of the affected facilities or frequency uses. Although AT&T, of course, does not object to reasonable differentiation based upon national security needs, it does object to the lack of specificity regarding the information to be provided in the unclassified context and to the overly restrictive treatment of information relating to sensitive and classified facilities or frequency uses. Further disclosure of specific information is essential in both instances so that potential bidders can formulate bidding strategies that take into account likely reimbursement costs or decide whether to participate in the auction at all.

In addition, NTIA’s proposed requirement that it provide information about whether the facility can be retuned or modified rather than being relocated is overly vague.^15/ A simple yes or no would do little to help a potential bidder evaluate its potential expenses. Without detailed information regarding the agency’s analysis of this question, the bidder would be unable to determine whether the affected entity’s plan is viable or cost-efficient or whether it should propose a possibly superior plan of its own. Moreover, NTIA’s proposal that bidders be told the expected total cost of relocation is inadequate if the underlying information is not also provided.^16/

The need for the disclosure of information supporting estimated costs and verification of such costs has been recognized in several other contexts, including relocation of fixed microwave providers and 800 MHz band licensees, and should be here.^17/ NTIA’s anemic disclosure requirements in the unclassified context would hinder the ability of bidders to evaluate the true costs of their participation in the auction while serving no compelling countervailing purpose such as the protection of important national security information. Accordingly, the disclosure requirements should be particularly rigorous in the unclassified context.

B. NTIA’s Proposed Disclosure Requirements for Classified and Sensitive

Facilities and Services Are Unnecessarily Strict

Even when legitimate national security concerns exist, disclosure should be as complete as possible. NTIA proposes that, prior to auction, potential bidders would be entitled only to a "single, consolidated, and unclassified" figure for the cost of relocating, retuning or modifying classified systems and frequency users.^18/ Slightly more information might be available if the Commission were to determine that the information submitted to it by NTIA could be broken down by license service area and spectrum block, consistent with national security concerns. Otherwise, all information relevant to the bidding process would be withheld until after an auction winner is declared. Such a procedure would place the bidders in an untenable position -- relying entirely on an unverifiable estimate of costs created by an unknown methodology by a financially-interested government entity with no real-world cost pressures informing its calculations.

Although national security concerns may support some lesser standard of disclosure than in the unclassified context, far less restrictive methods are available. For instance, essential bidding information could be disclosed to company representatives who have the proper security clearances. In addition, a neutral panel, mutually agreed upon by the affected government and industry parties and having the proper security clearances, could be established to review the submitted information.^19/ Similarly, an independent consultant with necessary clearances could evaluate the government’s estimate.

Increasing bidder access to essential cost-related information would benefit both bidders and the government. Fundamental fairness requires that, before any auction, potential bidders be provided with the information necessary to evaluate the obligations to which their bids might subject them. Failure to provide such information would deter bidder participation and threaten the viability of the auction. A lack of access to necessary information may also have the opposite -- and equally destructive -- consequence of luring bidders into auctions that they might not otherwise have entered had they fully realized the costs of relocation or the exact nature or limitations of the spectrum for which they were bidding. Such uninformed participation in the auction could have devastating commercial consequences for the bidder (such as bankruptcy) and to the government (such as bidders’ default on awarded licenses and unused or underutilized spectrum). Accordingly, proper protection of both bidders and the auction process requires NTIA to consider carefully all options for ensuring full and fair disclosure, pre-auction, of the costs to which bidders might be subjected should they win.

If Congress does not authorize the use of proceeds for funding relocation, AT&T agrees with NTIA that a cost-sharing plan should be adopted. One option would be to model any cost-sharing plan on the rules applied to the relocation of microwave users. Although the cost-sharing rules in that context have generally worked well, more detailed guidance regarding certain problem areas and some modification to the rules, including but not limited to the changes discussed below, would speed relocation, increase the fairness and efficiency of reimbursement, and reduce conflict.

For instance, a specific list of excluded costs and a more detailed definition of the meaning of comparability (e.g., analog-to-analog, static number of channels) under the plan would decrease disputes over the wide variety of costs that may legitimately be claimed under any cost-sharing plan. In addition, the caps for tower replacement, $150,000, and for equipment, $200,000, are outdated and should be raised, respectively, to $200,000 and $350,000 to reflect higher labor and other costs. Furthermore, there should be no investigation into whether a premium was paid by the initial licensee so long as the relocation costs fall within the caps set under the cost-sharing rules.^24/

NTIA should also clarify what cost-sharing obligations are triggered when a company wins multiple licenses, all of which are within the "proximity" of a relocated facility. In particular, it should specify that licensees that hold multiple licenses must bear the same cost-sharing burden that would be imposed were those licenses held by separate owners.^25/

Moreover, NTIA should clearly define the clearinghouse’s obligations following any sunset of the cost-sharing plan by expressly providing that the clearinghouse has no duty to consider prior coordination notices filed after the sunset date, clarifying the fate of pathways in limbo at the time of sunset, and explaining how the clearinghouse should fund any costs of wrapping up pending claims. Regardless of the precise details of the cost-sharing plan ultimately adopted by NTIA, however, any clearinghouse established to implement cost-sharing procedures should be industry-run and funded by auction proceeds throughout the life cycle of the clearinghouse, which could last beyond the sunset date.

In addition, NTIA should clarify the limited role of auction winners in the implementation of the actual relocation process. The licensee’s responsibility is merely to reimburse federal entities for costs that such entities incur from relocating, and not to plan, run, or supervise the relocation process.^26/ NTIA should therefore specify, that the federal entity -- rather than the licensee -- would actually implement the relocation, taking care of all related matters such as negotiating and contracting for supplies and services, supervising any construction or equipment installation, and inspecting completed work. Moreover, because of the control exercised by the federal entity over both the planning and the implementation of the relocation, it should have no reimbursement rights to cost overruns ten percent or more over its initial pre-auction estimate (relied upon by bidders) or any other number negotiated following auction.^27/ When smaller overruns occur, auction winners should be required only to negotiate in good faith regarding payment of such costs. Similarly, should the government fail to complete relocation within the time frame as estimated pre-auction (and relied upon by bidders) or a subsequently negotiated schedule, the auction winner should be allowed to move into the spectrum, with the government user assuming secondary status, until relocation can be completed.^28/ Clarification that responsibility for the actual process of relocation falls upon the federal entity and adoption of rules enforcing cost and scheduling agreements should speed the completion of relocation, increase its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and provide both licensees and federal entities with increased certainty regarding the manner in which the process will proceed.

V. REASONABLE BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE SET FOR REIMBURSEMENT

RIGHTS.

AT&T agrees with NTIA’s proposed limitation of reimbursement to assignments within the designated bands authorized before October 17, 1998, when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 was signed into law. The costs of relocation of assignments requested by federal entities after they knew of the plans for reallocation should be borne by those entities rather than commercial entities. Any other policy would unjustly enrich the federal entities.^29/

AT&T believes that NTIA should adopt a similar sunset provision limiting the availability of reimbursement when no claim has been made after a reasonable period of time. Although, as NTIA notes, the Defense Authorization Act of 1999 does not expressly provide a sunset provision, neither does it preclude the adoption of one.^30/ Indeed, regulatory adoption of a sunset provision would be consistent with previous actions addressing reimbursement obligations in other relocation contexts. The rules governing microwave relocation from the 1850-1990 MHz and 2110-2160 MHz bands, fixed microwave services relocation from the 18.58-19.30 GHz band, private land mobile radio services relocation from the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz band to EA licensing, for example, all contain sunset provisions despite the absence of any statutory language expressly providing for the termination of reimbursement rights relating to relocation.^31/ The adoption of such a requirement here would further the general legislative and regulatory goal of increasing commercial access to spectrum, which underlies recent efforts to increase the efficiency of spectrum allocation and use.^32/ In addition, adoption of a sunset provision would increase industry certainty regarding the scope of potential reimbursement costs, thus permitting industry members to estimate their budgets accurately and free capital for future auctions. Certainty regarding the scope of potential financial restraints also would permit industry members to allocate their limited funds more rationally in bidding for particular blocks of spectrum.

In addition, NTIA should narrowly construe the government’s right to reclamation under 47 USC § 923(g)(3), which requires commercial users to take reasonable steps to remedy defects or move federal entities back to their original spectrum once such entities establish that the new facilities are not comparable to their original facilities. Once dismantled, radio equipment would not be retained by either the new or old licensee, and relocating federal government stations to the original spectrum thus would be very costly. The imposition of such burdens on licensees is particularly inappropriate when federal entities have failed to promptly raise such comparability issues promptly with the responsible licensees. Given the costs, federal entities should have to meet a high standard to establish that their current facilities are not comparable to their original facilities and, in any event, NTIA should establish a method for quick and fair resolution of any disputes arising during implementation of the relocation process.

VI. PROMPT ACTION IS ESSENTIAL.

In light of the fast-approaching deadline of the mandated auctions, expeditious action in promulgating effective and fair reimbursement rules is essential. By statutory mandate, assignment of the licenses or permits that are the subject of this proceeding must be completed by September 30, 2002.^33/ Thus, within just under nineteen months from the date of this filing, both the NTIA and Commission rulemakings must be completed, the relevant auctions must be scheduled, the proper information regarding marginal costs must be compiled by the affected federal entities and forwarded to NTIA and then to the Commission and potential bidders, and the auctions must be completed.

Assuming that the deadlines regarding cost notification proposed by the NTIA NPRM are adopted, as they should be, the reallocation schedule will be particularly compressed. Specifically, under NTIA’s proposed rules, affected federal entities must notify NTIA of their expected relocation costs by February 4, 2002. Thus, in less than a year, NTIA and the Commission must complete their rulemaking proceedings and issue final rules, and the affected federal agencies must -- in accordance with those newly issued rules -- develop relocation, modification, or sharing plans and cost estimates for submission to NTIA. Because potential bidders should have access to expected relocation costs as far in advance of the auction as possible to permit full evaluation of the data and the development of accurate bidding strategies, AT&T urges NTIA and the Commission to conclude these proceedings expeditiously.

For the foregoing reasons, NTIA should act expeditiously to promulgate fair rules, consistent with these comments, for the reimbursement of government entities that vacate reallocated spectrum.
 
 
 

Respectfully submitted,

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
 
 

s/s Douglas I. Brandon

Howard J. Symons                                                          Douglas I. Brandon
Sara F. Leibman                                                              Vice President-External Affairs
Catherine Carroll                                                             David P. Wye
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky                                 Director, Spectrum Policy
    and Popeo, P.C.                                                         1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                                     Washington, D.C. 20036
Suite 900                                                                         (202) 223-9222
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 434-7300

Of Counsel

Dated: March 19, 2001
 

2 / In the Matter of Reallocation of the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, Federal Communications Commission, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket Nos. 00-221, RM-9267, RM-9692, RM-9797, RM-9854 (rel. Nov. 20, 2000).

3 / NTIA NPRM  13.

 4/ Id. at  24.

 5/ Id.

 6/ NTIA’s proposals focus on the information that must be disclosed prior to bidding.  Although the choice regarding the precise option to be pursued would be made by the auction winner following the auction, potential bidders must be provided with the same information prior to auction so that they can make informed decisions regarding their participation in the auction and their bidding strategy.  Should NTIA deem spectrum sharing at the licensee’s option to be a permissible alternative to relocation, NTIA’s proposed rules would have to be amended tspecifically require disclosure of information relevant to the feasibility and cost of spectrum sharing.
 
 7/ See 47 U.S.C. § 922(4) (requiring that spectrum planning efforts consider “actions necessary to promote the efficient use of the spectrum, including spectrum management techniques to promote increased shared use of the spectrum that does not cause harmful interference as a means of increasing commercial access”); 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(3)(a), (b), (d) (listing among criteria to be used by Commission in determining licenses and permits to be issued by competitive bidding and the factors on which such awards should be based, the development of new technologies, products, and services for use of public, promotion of economic opportunity and competition, and efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum); 47 U.S.C. § 303(g) (requiring the Commission, consistent with its other obligations, to “generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest”); 47 U.S.C. § 923(h) (directing any federal entity required to relocate to complete such relocation or consolidate its spectrum in a manner that maximizes the spectrum available for non-Federal use to “the maximum extent practicable”); In the Matter of Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the New Millenium, Federal Communications Commission, Policy Statement, FCC 99-354, 14 FCC Rcd. 19,868 (rel. Nov. 22, 1999) (“Spectrum Allocation Principles”) (emphasizing the importance of increasing the amount of spectrum available for commercial purposes and improving the efficiency of spectrum use); In the Matter of Principles for Promoting the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Encouraging the Development of Secondary Markets, Federal Communications Commission,  FCC 00-401 (rel. Dec. 1, 2000) (“Efficient Use of Spectrum”) (explaining that the Commission’s current policies regarding transfer, assignment, disaggregation, and partitioning of licenses are intended to increase the flow of spectrum among users and uses in order to meet increasing economic demand for spectrum-based services).

 8/ See 47 U.S.C. § 901(c).

 9/ NTIA NPRM  26.

 10/ See 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A).

 11/ NTIA proposes that the following information be provided to the Commission prior to auction: the list of affected government facilities; the identity of the government agency operating each facility; the location of each facility; the general type of operation and equipment (e.g., fixed microwave, tactical mobile radio, etc.); whether the facility can be retuned, modified, or must be relocated; the estimated marginal cost of retuning, modification, or relocation; whether the facility overlaps to one or more license areas or spectrum blocks; and the total estimated costs of relocation for all assignments.  NTIA NPRM  42.

 12/  Id.

 13/ For example, if the Commission chooses to auction reallocated spectrum by BTAs, then prospective auction participants would have to know the number and nature of all government facilities on a BTA-by-BTA basis.

 14/ NTIA NPRM  42.

 15/ Id.

 16/ Id.

 17/ See 47 C.F.R. § 24.245(b) (requiring submission of documentation itemizing the amount spent for certain costs subject to reimbursement and, in some instances, an appraisal of compensable relocation costs by an independent third party); 47 C.F.R. § 101.89(b) (requiring good faith negotiation regarding terms of relocation including the provision of information “reasonably necessary to facilitate the relocation process”); 47 C.F.R. § 101.71 (requiring incumbent to provide access, upon request, to an independent third party to examine and prepare estimate of cost and time for relocation when voluntary negotiations have failed); 47 C.F.R. § 101.73(b) (imposing good faith obligation during involuntary negotiations which requires provision of information “necessary to estimate relocation costs”).

 18/ NTIA NPRM  44-45.

 19/ See In the Matter of Reallocation of the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, Federal Communications Commission, Comments of Motorola, Inc., at 8, ET Docket Nos. 00-221, at 9 (filed Mar. 8, 2001) (“Motorola FCC Reimbursement Rules Comments”) (proposing that OMB and NTIA work with the affected federal entity to provide an accurate estimate of relocation costs prior to auction).

 20/ NPRM NTIA at  31.

21/ Id.

22/ Id. at  29-30.

23/ See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, Federal Communications Commission Comments of Motorola, Inc., at 15-16, ET Docket No. 00-258 (filed Feb. 22, 2001); Motorola FCC Reimbursement Rules Comments at 9-10.

 24/ In AT&T’s experience, attempting to determine for cost-sharing purposes what the comparable costs of new facilities would have been five years after the relocation took place causes unnecessary contention and requires time-consuming documentation efforts.

 25/ Thus, if one company holds a single license and another holds four, all within the proximity of the relocated facility, the companies would owe, respectively, one fifth and four fifths of the relocation costs.

 26/ See 47 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(B).

 27/ See In the Matter of Reallocation of the 216-220 MHz, 1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, Federal Communications Commission, Comments of Mobex Communications, Inc., at 9 ET Docket No. 00-221 (Mar. 8, 2001) (arguing that affected federal entities should be required to provide relocation and reclamation cost caps prior to auction and to certify that the replacement facilities that they have accepted appear to be comparable to the old facilities).

 28/ Id. at 10 (contending that federal entities should be required to submit their cost estimates to NTIA within 30 days after NTIA’s rules become effective or permanently forgo relocation at the licensee’s expense).

 29/ NTIA NPRM at  25.

 30/ Id. at  32 (proposing the rejection of a sunset provision because the Defense Authorization Act of 1999, which mandates reimbursement, does not include statutory language limiting the time period for reimbursement).

 31/ See 47 C.F.R. § 24.253 (authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 301, 302, 303, 309, 332); 47 C.F.R. § 101.79 (authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303); 47 C.F.R. § 101.95 (authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303); 47 C.F.R. § 90.699(f)(5) (authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7)); 47 C.F.R. § 90.699(f)(5) (authorized by 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7)).

 32/ See 47 U.S.C. § 922(4); see generally Spectrum Allocation Principles; Efficient Use of Spectrum.

 33/ See 47 U.S.C. § 923(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 925(c)(2).
 
 

I, Maria RichmondCatherine Carroll hereby certify that on this 19th day of March, 2001, a copy of the foregoing Comments of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. were hand delivered to the following:
 
 
 

Milton Brown Office of the General Counsel National Telecommunications and Information   Administration Room 4713 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230	Honorable Michael K. Powell Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8 A204 Washington, DC 20554 Attn: Peter A. Tenhula
Frederick Wentland Director, Spectrum Plans and Policies Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information   Administration Room 4009 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230	Honorable Gloria Tristani Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8 C302 Washington, DC 20554 Attn: Adam Krinsky
Thomas Sugrue, Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 3-C252 Washington, DC 20554	Bruce Franca Acting Chief Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW Washington, DC 20554
Honorable Susan Ness Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8 B115 Washington, DC 20554 Attn: Mark Schneider	Diane Cornell Associate Chief Wireless Communications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW  Washington, DC 20554
Honorable Harold Furchtgott-Roth Commissioner Federal Communications Commission  445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8 A302 Washington, DC 20554 Attn: Bryan Tramont	Rodney Small Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554
Donald Abelson, Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW Washington, DC 20554	James D. Schlichting Deputy Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 3-C252 Washington, DC 20554
Kathleen Ham Deputy Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 3-C252 Washington, DC 20554	Russell W. Slye  Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information     Administration Room 4009 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230
John F. Sopko, Acting  Assistant Secretary for Communications    and Information National Telecommunications and     Information Administration Room 4898 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230	Ira Keltz Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554   International Transcription Service (ITS) 1231 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
William T. Hatch  Associate Administrator Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information     Administration Room 4009 U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230
Tom Mooring Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554