Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. ) File No. EB-02-TS-624
Washington, D.C. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200332100002
) FRN 0006-9459-50
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 4, 2003 Released: March 5, 2003
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(``NAL''), we find that T-Mobile USA, Inc. (``T-Mobile'')1
apparently failed to provide Enhanced 911 (``E911'') Phase I
services within six months of over 450 valid requests by the
designated Public Safety Answering Point (``PSAP'') in willful
and repeated violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Commission's
Rules (``Rules'').2 For the reasons discussed below, we find
T-Mobile apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000).
II. BACKGROUND
2. Under Phase I of the E911 rules, wireless carriers are
required to provide to the designated PSAP the telephone
number of the originator of a 911 call and the location of the
cell site or base station receiving a 911 call from any mobile
handset accessing their systems by April 1, 1998, or within
six months of a valid request by the designated PSAP,
whichever is later.3 A PSAP request for service is deemed
valid if the PSAP can demonstrate that (1) a mechanism is in
place for recovering the PSAP's costs; (2) the PSAP has
ordered the equipment necessary to receive and use the E911
data to be installed no later than six months following the
PSAP's request; and (3) the PSAP has made a timely request to
the appropriate LEC for the necessary trunking and other
facilities, including any necessary Automatic Location
Information (``ALI'') database upgrades.4
3. In May 2002, T-Mobile met with Commission staff and
disclosed that it was out of compliance with the Phase I E911
rule. The Enforcement Bureau subsequently began an
investigation and, on October 11, 2002, sent a letter of
inquiry (``LOI'') to T-Mobile seeking additional information
concerning T-Mobile's compliance with the Phase I E911 rule.5
T-Mobile responded to the LOI on November 1, 2002.6
4. In its LOI response, T-Mobile reported that it had 531
unmet PSAP requests for Phase I service that were at least six
months old during the period from May 1, 2002 through October
1, 2002. Of these 531 requests, 50 requests were for areas in
which T-Mobile was not providing coverage. In addition, T-
Mobile stated that 120 of the 531 requests have been fulfilled
since May 1, 2002, although it does not provide any
explanation for the delay in fulfilling these requests. With
respect to 170 of the 531 PSAP requests, T-Mobile indicated
that the PSAPs are not currently ready to receive and utilize
the Phase I location information due to PSAP funding issues
and implementation problems on the PSAP side of the
demarcation point.7 Specifically, T-Mobile asserted that 116
requests have been delayed by the LEC's unwillingness to
activate the PSAP's Non-Call Path Associated Signaling
(``NCAS'') connections due to insistence on a ``valid
request'' from or contract with the PSAP and/or the LEC's
inability or unwillingness to implement the E-2 interface8 or
turn up service using that interface; that 45 requests involve
instances in which the PSAP requested that T-Mobile delay
implementation or place the request on hold9 or in which the
PSAP reported technical problems on its side of the
demarcation point; and that five requests have been delayed
because of problems with the PSAP's funding. T-Mobile also
indicated that there are 191 other valid PSAP requests for
Phase I service which remain pending. T-Mobile asserted that
some of these 191 requests have been subject to delays outside
of its control, such as delays in executing service agreements
and non-disclosure agreements with PSAPs, disagreements
between T-Mobile and PSAPs over whether the NCAS, Call
Associated Signaling (``CAS''), or hybrid CAS (``HCAS'')
transmission technology would be used, delays in the provision
of trunks by LECs, PSAP non-responsiveness to T-Mobile's
requests for information, and delays where the Phase I request
is superceded by a Phase II request. T-Mobile acknowledged,
however, that it has some responsibility for the
implementation delays with respect to its unfulfilled PSAP
requests.10
III. DISCUSSION
5. Section 20.18(d) of the Rules requires wireless
carriers to provide to the designated PSAP the telephone
number of the originator of a 911 call and the location of the
cell site or base station receiving a 911 call from any mobile
handset accessing their systems by April 1, 1998, or within
six months of a valid request by the designated PSAP,
whichever is later. The record indicates that T-Mobile had
481 PSAP requests for Phase I service that were at least six
months old during the period from May 1, 2002 through October
1, 2002.11 T-Mobile stated that 120 of these requests have
been fulfilled since May 1, 2002. Notwithstanding the fact
that these 120 PSAP requests had been completed by the time T-
Mobile submitted its LOI response, T-Mobile clearly failed to
fulfill these PSAP requests within six months of the date of
the request. T-Mobile indicated that 170 PSAP requests
involve PSAPs that are not currently ready to receive and
utilize Phase I location information due to PSAP funding
issues and implementation problems on the PSAP side of the
demarcation point. We are not convinced, based on the sketchy
and conclusory information provided by T-Mobile,12 that all of
these 170 PSAPs are not currently ready to receive and utilize
Phase I location information. Further, although T-Mobile
asserted that some of the remaining 191 PSAP requests have
been subject to delays outside of its control, based on the
sketchy and conclusory evidence provided by T-Mobile, we are
likewise not convinced that all of the delays cited by T-
Mobile are in fact outside of its control. We need not decide
these issues, however, because T-Mobile acknowledged that it
is responsible for some of the implementation delays with
respect to its unfulfilled PSAP requests. Moreover, and
significantly, while T-Mobile received a waiver of the E911
Phase II rules,13 it never received, and indeed never even
requested, a waiver or other relief from the Phase I
requirements. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us,
we conclude that T-Mobile apparently willfully14 and
repeatedly15 violated Section 20.18(d) of the Rules by failing
to fulfill these 481 PSAP requests within six months of the
date of the request.
6. In light of T-Mobile's apparent willful and repeated
violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules, we find that a
forfeiture is warranted. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') states that
any person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with
any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission, shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty.16 Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the
Commission to assess a forfeiture of up to $120,000 for each
violation by a common carrier, or each day of a continuing
violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,200,000 for a
single act or failure to act.17 In determining the
appropriate forfeiture amount, we must consider the factors
enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including ``the
nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability,
any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other
matters as justice may require.''18
7. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
Section 1.80 of the Rules do not establish a base forfeiture
amount for violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.19
However, we think that a substantial proposed forfeiture for
this violation is warranted. Violation of the E911 rules is
extremely serious because these rules are intended to promote
safety of life. The Phase I requirements set forth in Section
20.18(d) have been in effect for almost five years. Each
unsatisfied PSAP request is a separate, continuing violation
of Section 20.18(d), and T-Mobile's numerous, continuing
violations have been ongoing for as long as four years.
8. In addition, in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the
Commission made clear that companies with higher revenues,
such as T-Mobile,20 could expect forfeitures higher than those
reflected in the base amounts:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential
violations, we recognize that for large or highly
profitable communication entities, the base forfeiture
amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are
mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture
to be an effective deterrent against these entities,
the forfeiture must be issued at a high level.... For
this reason, we caution all entities and individuals
that, independent from the uniform base forfeiture
amounts ..., we intend to take into account the
subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining the
amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures
issued against large or highly profitable entities are
not considered merely an affordable cost of doing
business. Such large or highly profitable entities
should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount
set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them
may in many cases be above, or even well above, the
relevant base amount.21
9. We believe that the factors cited above, particularly,
the very large number of unfulfilled Phase I requests, the
fact that each unfulfilled Phase I request is a separate,
continuing violation, the public safety nature of the
violations, and the fact that T-Mobile is a large company with
substantial revenues, justify a substantial proposed
forfeiture. We also believe, however, that the proposed
forfeiture amount should take into account the fact that T-
Mobile brought its violations of the Phase I rules to the
Commission's attention in May 2002. Voluntary disclosure is a
downward adjustment factor under the Forfeiture Policy
Statement, and we think that T-Mobile's voluntary disclosure
in this case should be accorded weight in mitigating the
forfeiture amount.22 Considering all of the enumerated
factors and the particular circumstances of this case, we
conclude that T-Mobile is apparently liable for a forfeiture
in the amount of $1.25 million for its apparent willful and
repeated violations of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.23
IV. CONCLUSION
10. We find that T-Mobile apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated Section 20.18(d) by failing to fulfill 481
PSAP requests for Phase I service within six months of the
date of the request. We also find that T-Mobile is apparently
liable for a $1.25 million forfeiture for these violations.24
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, T-Mobile
USA, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
FORFEITURE in the amount of One Million Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000) for willful and repeated
violations of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this
Notice of Apparent Liability, T-Mobile USA, Inc. SHALL PAY the
full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
forfeiture.
13. Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing a
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the
Federal Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture
Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The
payment should note NAL/Acct. No. 200332100002 and FRN 0006-
9459-50. Requests for payment of the full amount of this
Notice of Apparent Liability under an installment plan should
be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables Operation Group,
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554.25
14. The response if any must be mailed to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
S.W., Washington, DC 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -
Technical and Public Safety Division, and must include
NAL/Acct. No. 200332100002.
15. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling
a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay unless
the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most
recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared
according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3)
some other reliable and objective documentation that
accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status.
Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the
basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of
Apparent Liability shall be sent by first class mail and
certified mail return receipt requested to Robert A. Calaff,
Esq., Senior Corporate Counsel, Governmental and Industry
Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc., 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 550,
Washington, D.C. 20004, and to John T. Nakahata, Esq., Harris,
Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP, 1200 18th Street, N.W., Suite 1200,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX A
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
AL Baldwin Baldwin County Emergency Communications District
4/30/01
AL Bullock Bullock County E911 11/23/99
AL Butler Butler County Emergency Communications District
12/12/00
AL Coffee City of Enterprise 2/2/01
AL Houston Dothan-Houston County Communications District
4/9/01
AL Jefferson City of Hoover Police Department 9/27/01
AL Jefferson City of Hueytown 5/8/01
AL Jefferson City of Irondale Police Department 11/16/01
AL Macon Macon County 9-1-1 Board 10/1/01
AL Marion Marion County E9-1-1 11/14/00
AL Mobile Mobile County Communications District 3/30/01
AL Morgan Morgan County Emergency Management Communications
District 12/14/99
AL Sumter Sumter County EMA/E911 2/28/01
AR Garland Garland County Department of Emergency Management
2/15/02
AR Pulaski Pulaski County Sheriff's Office 2/14/02
AR WashingtonWashington County Department of Emergency
Management 1/16/02
AZ Maricopa Maricopa County E9-1-1 System 5/31/00
CO Adams Adams County E-911 3/15/98
CO Arapahoe Arapahoe County E-911 Authority Board 9/1/98
CO Arapahoe City of Aurora 9/1/98
CO Boulder Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service
Authority 3/28/00
CO Denver City and County of Denver 6/23/97
CO Douglas Douglas County Emergency Telephone Service
Authority 3/1/98
CO Eagle Eagle County Telephone Service Authority 4/5/99
CO Gilpin Gilpin County 911 Authority Board 1/15/99
CO Jefferson Jefferson County E911 ESTAB 6/23/99
CO Larimer Larimer County Telephone Authority 5/4/99
CO Pitkin Aspen-Pitkin County Communications Center 8/29/01
CO Summit Summit County Communications Center 2/2/99
CO Weld Weld County E-911 3/3/98
DE DE-Multiple State of
Delaware 10/11/01
DE Kent Kent County 10/11/01
FL Alachua Alachua County Department of Fire/Rescue Services
6/5/00
FL Bay Bay County 3/21/01
FL Brevard Brevard County 4/27/00
FL Citrus Citrus County 10/31/00
FL Duval Duval County 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone System
10/9/01
FL Escambia Escambia County Department of Public Safety 9/29/00
FL Flagler Flagler County 9/22/01
FL Hamilton Hamilton County 3/17/97
FL Hernando Hernando County 10/24/00
FL Hillsborough
Hillsborough County 10/3/00
FL Holmes Holmes County 911 3/2/01
FL Lake Lake County 911 5/1/99
FL Leon Leon County Sheriff's Office 10/27/00
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
FL Manatee Manatee County 12/8/00
FL Marion Marion County 911 System Support Department 7/25/00
FL Okaloosa Okaloosa County 911 6/22/01
FL Orange Orange County 5/3/00
FL Osceola Osceola County 9/21/00
FL Pasco Pasco County 10/9/00
FL Pinellas Pinellas County 6/28/00
FL Polk Polk County 8/11/99
FL Santa RosaSanta Rosa County E9-1-1 11/30/00
FL Sarasota Sarasota County 6/30/99
FL Seminole Seminole County 5/1/00
FL St. Johns St. Johns County Sheriff's Office 7/5/01
FL Sumter Sumter County 4/12/00
FL Taylor Taylor County Sheriff's Office 3/19/01
FL Volusia Volusia County 1/31/01
GA Bibb Macon-Bibb County 911 Center 1/13/99
GA Chatham Chatham County Finance Department 1/9/02
GA Clarke Athens-Clarke County 911 12/22/98
GA Clayton City of Morrow Emergency Communications 9/22/00
GA Fulton Alpharetta 7/8/99
GA Fulton Atlanta Police Department 1/5/00
GA Houston Houston County Commissioners 7/7/00
GA Jackson Jackson County E-911 8/19/98
GA Lamar Lamar County 9-1-1 District 7/31/98
GA McDuffie McDuffie County E9-1-1 Communications Center 12/7/98
GA Rockdale Rockdale County 7/30/98
ID Ada Ada County Sheriff's Office 4/3/01
IL Boone Boone County Emergency Telephone System Board
5/22/01
IL Bureau Bureau County E 9-1-1 11/29/01
IL Cook Alsip Police Department 11/15/00
IL Cook Barrington Hills 9-1-1 7/7/00
IL Cook Bellwood ETSB 3/29/01
IL Cook Berkeley ETSB 7/18/01
IL Cook Blue Island 9-1-1 8/15/01
IL Cook Broadview ETSB 11/21/00
IL Cook Chicago Heights 1/31/01
IL Cook Cicero 9-1-1 ETSB 1/24/01
IL Cook City of Chicago 7/31/00
IL Cook Country Club Hills Police Department 12/5/00
IL Cook Countryside Police Department 3/22/01
IL Cook Des Plaines-Park Ridge Emergency Communications
10/28/00
IL Cook Elmwood Park Public Safety 8/27/01
IL Cook Evergreen Park Police Department 11/17/00
IL Cook Forest Park ETSB 11/1/01
IL Cook Franklin Park ETSB 8/22/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
IL Cook Glencoe 9-1-1 8/22/01
IL Cook Glenwood Police Department 12/5/00
IL Cook Indian Head Park Police Department 11/8/00
IL Cook Kenilworth Police Department 4/2/01
IL Cook La Grange Police Department 11/13/00
IL Cook Lincolnwood ETSB 11/8/00
IL Cook Lynwood & Thorton's ETSB 11/13/00
IL Cook McCook ETSB 1/10/01
IL Cook Midlothian Police Department 11/28/00
IL Cook Morton Grove Police Department 1/9/01
IL Cook Niles ETSB 4/18/01
IL Cook Norridge 9-1-1 1/2/01
IL Cook Oak Lawn Emergency Communications 11/28/00
IL Cook Orland Joint Emergency Telephone System Board
8/28/00
IL Cook Park Forest ETSB 10/30/00
IL Cook River Grove Police Department 4/12/01
IL Cook Riverdale ETSB 10/25/00
IL Cook Rolling Meadows Police Department 8/31/00
IL Cook Schaumburg Police Department 11/13/00
IL Cook Schiller Park 9-1-1 Board 10/17/00
IL Cook Skokie Police/Fire Communication Center 6/1/01
IL Cook South Holland ETSB 11/27/00
IL Cook SOUTHCOM 9/14/01
IL Cook Southwest Central 9-1-1 System 9/6/00
IL Cook Tinley Park ETSB 11/27/00
IL Cook Western Suburban Consolidated Dispatch 1/3/01
IL Cook Willow Springs 9-1-1 System 2/21/01
IL Cook Wilmette Police Department 10/30/00
IL Cook Winnetka Police Department 4/5/01
IL DuPage DuPage County Emergency Telephone System Board
8/1/00
IL Effingham Effingham County ETSB 11/17/00
IL Ford Ford County ETSB 11/8/00
IL Jefferson Jefferson County ETSB 12/17/01
IL Kane Elgin ETSB 5/26/00
IL Kane Kane County ETSB 5/19/00
IL Kane QuadCom Joint Telephone System Board 5/22/00
IL Kankakee Kankakee ETSB 7/28/00
IL Kendall Kendall County ETSB-KENCOM Public Safety Dispatch
5/25/00
IL Lake CenCom E911 9/19/01
IL Lake Deerfield Police Department 9-1-1 3/6/01
IL Lake Gurnee Police Department 10/5/00
IL Lake Highland Park E9-1-1 3/7/01
IL Lake Lake Bluff 9-1-1 5/7/01
IL Lake Lake County ETSB 3/6/01
IL Lake Libertyville Police Department 8/14/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
IL Lake Mundelein Police Department 11/6/00
IL Lake Vernon Hills Police Department 6/12/01
IL Lake Winthrop Harbor ETSB 3/14/01
IL Lake Zion E911 ETSB 2/16/01
IL Lee Lee County ETSB 10/14/00
IL Madison Madison County ETSB 10/2/00
IL McHenry McHenry County ETSB 2/26/02
IL Morgan Morgan County E911 2/27/01
IL Ogle Ogle County ETSB 12/14/00
IL Peoria Peoria County ETSB 7/28/00
IL Piatt Piatt County ETSB 10/12/00
IL Sangamon Sangamon County ETSB 9/5/00
IL Tazewell Tazewell County ETSB 10/2/00
IL Vermilion Vermilion County ETSB 9/19/00
IL Will Bolingbrook Police Department 12/4/00
IL Will Will County 9-1-1 Emergency Telephone System 7/6/00
IL WilliamsonWilliamson County 9-1-1 2/20/02
IL Winnebago Winnebago County ETSB 10/18/00
IN Adams Adams County 1/14/02
IN Allen Allen County 2/2/01
IN Bartholomew
Bartholomew County 4/23/99
IN Carroll Carroll County 4/9/01
IN Cass Cass County Enhanced 911 11/2/01
IN Clark Clark County Public Safety 9/30/97
IN Clay Clay County E-911 Office 2/6/00
IN Clinton Clinton County 911 10/2/01
IN Daviess Daviess County 8/31/01
IN DeKalb DeKalb County Sheriff Department 11/12/98
IN Dearborn Dearborn County Communications 11/7/01
IN Decatur Decatur County 2/1/99
IN Delaware Delaware County 6/21/01
IN Elkhart Elkhart County 3/11/99
IN Floyd New Albany Police Department 9/29/97
IN Grant Grant County 1/10/01
IN Hamilton Carmel Communications 2/3/99
IN Hamilton Hamilton County 2/3/99
IN Hamilton Noblesville Communications 2/3/99
IN Hancock Hancock County 1/31/01
IN Hendricks Hendricks County 6/18/01
IN Henry Henry County Sheriff's Department 12/10/01
IN Howard Howard County 3/25/99
IN HuntingtonHuntington County Communications 1/23/01
IN Jefferson Jefferson County 4/20/01
IN Johnson Johnson County Sheriff's Department 1/2/02
IN Knox Knox County Dispatch 10/23/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
IN Kosciusko Kosciusko County 7/13/00
IN LaGrange LaGrange County 1/18/01
IN Lake Lake County 11/9/00
IN LaPorte LaPorte County 12/4/00
IN Madison Madison County 4/17/01
IN Marion Metropolitan Emergency Communications Agency 3/8/02
IN Miami Miami County 7/12/00
IN Monroe Bloomington/Monroe County Indiana Central Emergency
8/23/01
IN MontgomeryMontgomery County 9/13/01
IN Perry Perry County 911 Communications 2/7/02
IN Porter Porter County 11/5/01
IN Posey Posey County E911 Unknown
IN Putnam Putnam County 911 11/7/01
IN Ripley Ripley County Communications 4/11/01
IN Scott Scott County Emergency Management Agency 1/22/01
IN Spencer Spencer County Sheriff's Department 12/14/01
IN St. JosephSt. Joseph County Police 2/25/02
IN Starke Starke County 1/18/01
IN Steuben Steuben County Communications 3/22/99
IN TippecanoeTippecanoe County Sheriff's Department 3/25/02
IN Tipton Tipton County E 9-1-1 Communications Center
10/19/01
IN Vanderburgh EVCC
Central Dispatch 1/16/02
IN Vigo Vigo County 9/21/00
IN Warrick Warrick County 1/4/01
IN Wayne Wayne County Emergency Communications Department
11/2/01
IN Wells City of Bluffton 11/2/01
IN Whitley Whitley County Enhanced 9-1-1 10/10/00
KS Johnson Johnson County Sheriff's Office 11/9/01
KS Johnson Leawood Police Department 11/9/01
KS Johnson Lenexa Police Department 11/9/01
KS Johnson Olathe Police Department 11/9/01
KS Johnson Overland Park Police Department 11/9/01
KS Johnson Prairie Village Police Department 11/9/01
KS Johnson Shawnee Police Department 11/9/01
KS Leavenworth Ft.
Leavenworth Provost Marshall 11/9/01
KS Leavenworth
Leavenworth County Sheriff's Office 11/9/01
KS Leavenworth
Leavenworth Police Department 11/9/01
KS Riley Riley County Emergency Management 10/1/01
KS Sedgwick Sedgwick County Department of Emergency
Communications 7/25/01
KS Wyandotte Wyandotte Public Safety Communications Center
11/9/01
KY Anderson Anderson County/Lawrenceburg Police Department
2/28/01
KY Barren Barren/Metcalfe County Emergency Communications
Center 6/20/01
KY Bourbon Paris, Bourbon County E-911 and Central
Communications 12/1/00
KY Boyle Danville-Boyle County Enhanced 911 3/30/01
KY Campbell Campbell County 11/7/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
KY Clark Clark County 11/14/00
KY Fayette Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government 11/14/00
KY Hardin Hardin County 7/6/00
KY Harrison Cynthiana/Harrison County E911 12/8/00
KY Kenton Kenton County 11/29/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
1 Mayfield 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
2 Madisonville 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
3 Bowling Green5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
4 Elizabethtown5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
5 Lagrange 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
7 Richmond 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
11 London 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
12 Frankfurt 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
14 Ashland 5/1/01
KY KY-Multiple KSP-Post
16 Henderson 5/1/01
KY Laurel London-Laurel County Communications Center
11/16/00
KY Madison Madison County 911 2/28/01
KY McCracken Paducah-McCracken County E-911 Communications
Services 3/20/02
KY Mercer Mercer County 911 4/30/01
KY Shelby Shelby County E-911 Board 12/11/00
KY Warren Bowling Green Police 6/14/00
KY WashingtonWashington County/City of Springfield PSAP Board
11/21/00
KY Woodford Woodford County 12/3/01
MA MA-Multiple State of
Massachusetts 9/26/01
MD Anne Arundel Anne
Arundel County 5/15/00
MI Allegan Allegan County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Bay Bay County 911 Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Branch Branch County Central Dispatch 4/30/01
MI Calhoun Calhoun County Sheriff's Department 1/23/01
MI Clinton Clinton 5/19/00
MI Eaton Eaton County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Genesee Genesee County 911 Authority 9/1/00
MI Hillsdale Hillsdale County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Ingham East Lansing Police Department 4/13/01
MI Ingham Ingham County 4/26/01
MI Ionia Ionia County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Jackson Jackson County Sheriff's Department 3/29/01
MI Kalamazoo Kalamazoo County 3/20/01
MI Kent Grand Rapids Police Department 4/24/01
MI Kent Kent 5/23/01
MI Lapeer Lapeer County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Lenawee Lenawee 11/14/00
MI Macomb Macomb County 9/1/00
MI Monroe Monroe County Central Dispatch 9/1/00
MI Montcalm Montcalm County Central Dispatch Authority 9/1/00
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
MI Muskegon Muskegon 5/2/00
MI Ottawa Ottawa County Central Dispatch Authority 9/1/00
MI Saginaw Saginaw County 911 Communications Center 9/1/00
MI ShiawasseeShiawassee 6/21/00
MI St. Clair St. Clair County 3/6/01
MI St. JosephSt. Joseph County E911 Central Dispatch 11/13/01
MI Van Buren Van Buren County 4/12/01
MI Washtenaw Washtenaw Central Dispatch Authority 9/1/00
MI Wayne City of Detroit Police Department 3/21/01
MI Wayne Conference of Eastern Wayne 9/20/00
MI Wayne Downriver Mutual Aid Service District 4/10/01
MN Aitkin Aitkin County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Anoka Anoka County Central Communications 1/10/01
MN Benton Benton County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Blue EarthBlue Earth County 1/10/01
MN Brown Brown County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Carlton Carlton County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Carver Carver County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Cass Cass County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Chisago Chisago County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Clay Clay County 911 1/10/01
MN Crow Wing Crow Wing County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Dakota Apple Valley Police Department 1/10/01
MN Dakota Burnsville Police Department 1/10/01
MN Dakota Dakota County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Dakota Eagen 1/10/01
MN Dakota Lakeville Police Department 1/10/01
MN Dodge Dodge County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Douglas Douglas County 1/10/01
MN Faribault Faribault County 1/10/01
MN Freeborn Freeborn County Law Enforcement Center 1/10/01
MN Goodhue Goodhue County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Grant Grant County 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Bloomington Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Brooklyn Center Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin City of St. Louis Park Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Eden Prairie Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Edina Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Hennepin County Sheriff's Office-Communications
1/10/01
MN Hennepin Hopkins Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Minneapolis Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Minnetonka Police Department 1/10/01
MN Hennepin Richfield Police Department 1/10/01
MN Isanti Isanti County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
MN Jackson Jackson County 1/10/01
MN Kanabec Kanabec County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Kandiyohi Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Le Sueur Le Sueur County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Martin Martin County 1/10/01
MN McLeod McLeod County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Meeker Meeker County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Mille LacsMille Lacs County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN MN-Multiple St. Paul
1/10/01
MN Morrison Morrison County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Mower Mower County-Law Enforcement Center Austin Police
1/10/01
MN MSP MSP East 1/10/01
MN Nicollet Nicollet County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Nobles Nobles County 1/10/01
MN Olmsted Olmsted County Law Enforcement Center 1/10/01
MN Otter TailOtter Tail County 1/10/01
MN Pine Pine County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Ramsey Maplewood Police Department 1/10/01
MN Ramsey White Bear Lake Police Department 1/10/01
MN Rice Rice County-Pearl Street 911 Center 1/10/01
MN Rock Rock County 1/10/01
MN Scott Scott County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Sherburne Sherburne County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Sibley Sibley County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN St. Louis St. Louis County Emergency Communications
Department 1/10/01
MN Stearns Stearns County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN Steele Steele County-Pearl Street 911 Center 1/10/01
MN Todd Todd County 1/10/01
MN Waseca Waseca County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MN WashingtonWashington County Sheriff's Department 1/10/01
MN Watonwan Watonwan County 1/10/01
MN Wilkin Wilkin County 1/10/01
MN Wright Wright County Sheriff's Office 1/10/01
MO Boone City of Columbia/Boone County Joint Communications
3/15/02
MO Cass Belton Police Department 11/9/01
MO Cass Cass County Sheriff's Office 11/9/01
MO Cass Harrisonville Police Department 11/9/01
MO Cass Pleasant Hill Police Department 11/9/01
MO Cass Raymore Police Department 11/9/01
MO Clay Clay County Sheriff 11/9/01
MO Clay Gladstone Police Department 11/9/01
MO Clay Kansas City Police Department 11/9/01
MO Clay Liberty Police Department 11/9/01
MO Clay North Kansas City Police Department 11/9/01
MO Clay Pleasant Valley Police Department 11/9/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
MO Cooper Cooper County EMA/9-1-1 10/29/00
MO Franklin Franklin County Emergency Management Agency 1/31/02
MO Jackson Blue Springs Police Department 11/9/01
MO Jackson Grandview Police Department 11/9/01
MO Jackson Independence Emergency Communications Center 11/9/01
MO Jackson Jackson County Sheriff 11/9/01
MO Jackson Lee's Summit Police Department 11/9/01
MO Jackson Raytown Police Department 11/9/01
MO Jackson Sugar Creek Police Department 11/9/01
MO Jasper Jasper County Communications Center 11/26/02
MO Johnson Johnson County Sheriff's Office 11/9/01
MO Platte Platte County Sheriff's Department 11/9/01
MO Ray Ray County 9-1-1 11/9/01
MO St. Louis St. Louis County 12/8/00
MO Taney Taney County 911 Administration 7/23/01
MO Warren Warren County 9-1-1 7/19/01
MS Covington Covington County E-911 3/13/01
MS DeSoto DeSoto Sheriff's Office 11/9/98
MS Forrest Forrest County Sheriff's Office 5/14/98
MS Itawamba Itawamba County E-911 4/1/97
MS Jackson Jackson County Emergency Communications District
12/19/00
MS Lowndes The Emergency Management District 5/14/98
MS Marion Marion County 911 3/14/01
MS Panola Panola County Civil Defense 10/11/00
MS Rankin Rankin County 1/1/01
MS Tunica Tunica County Planning Commission 8/2/99
MS Warren Vicksburg-Warren E-911 Communications Center 3/5/01
NE Douglas Douglas County Communications Department 6/14/01
NE Hall Grand Island-Hall County 9-1-1 Service District
1/15/02
NE Lancaster Lincoln/Lancaster County 6/18/01
NE Madison City of Norfolk 9/13/01
NE Sarpy Sarpy County 5/14/01
NJ NJ-Multiple State of
New Jersey-OETS1/1/00
NM Dona Ana Mesilla Valley Regional Dispatch Authority 8/7/01
NY Cattaraugus
Cattaraugus County Sheriff's Office 1/29/02
NY Erie County of Erie 3/21/02
NY LivingstonLivingston County 2/27/02
NY Nassau Nassau County PD 10/10/98
NY New York New York Police Communications 7/30/01
NY Onondaga Onondaga County Department of Emergency
Communications 4/3/01
NY Ontario Ontario County 9-1-1 1/24/02
NY Schenectady New York
State Police-Schenectady County 11/21/01
NY Suffolk County of Suffolk Police Department 3/13/01
OH Delaware Delaware County Emergency Services 7/12/01
OH Hamilton Cincinnati 9-1-1 4/19/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
OH Hamilton Hamilton County 9/20/01
OH Hocking Hocking County 911 3/11/02
OH Miami Miami County Communications Center 7/23/01
OR OR-Multiple Oregon
911 Program 6/16/00
PA Berks Berks County 1/10/02
PA Delaware Delaware County Emergency Services 5/11/01
PA Erie Erie County 911 Center 12/5/01
PA Pike Pike County Communications Center 6/22/01
SC Aiken Aiken County Planning & Development Department
7/26/99
SD Minnehaha Minnehaha Metro Communications 12/20/01
TN Bradley Bradley County 4/1/01
TN Gibson Gibson County Communications Center 4/1/01
TN Hardin Hardin County 4/23/01
TN Lincoln Lincoln County 4/3/01
TN Putnam Putnam County 4/1/01
TX Austin Austin County Emergency Communications District
1/11/02
TX Bexar Bexar Metro 9-1-1 Network District 5/1/00
TX Brazos Brazos County Emergency Communications District
8/18/00
TX Callahan Callahan County 8/13/01
TX Clay Clay County Sheriff's Department 8/16/01
TX Collin City of Plano 9/11/01
TX Dallas City of Addison Police Department 1/8/01
TX Dallas City of Dallas Police & Fire Department 1/12/00
TX Dallas City of Farmers Branch 1/8/01
TX Dallas City of Garland Telecommunications 6/23/00
TX Dallas City of Mesquite Police Department 7/18/00
TX Dallas Dallas County Sheriff's Office 12/27/01
TX Dimmit Dimmit County 1/26/00
TX Eastland Eastland County 8/13/01
TX Ector Ector County Emergency Communications District
9/28/01
TX El Paso El Paso County 911 District 8/16/00
TX Gregg City of Longview 1/31/01
TX Harris Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network
9/18/97
TX Howard Howard County 9-1-1 11/13/01
TX Llano Llano County 8/16/01
TX Lubbock Lubbock Emergency Communications District 9/17/01
TX Matagorda Matagorda County Sheriff's Department 2/9/00
TX Midland Midland Emergency Communications District 9/26/01
TX Montague Montague County 8/16/01
TX Smith Smith County 9-1-1 Communications District 1/26/00
TX Tarrant Tarrant County 911 District 8/24/00
UT Salt Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center 6/28/97
UT Weber Weber County Communications 3/10/97
VA Albemarle Albemarle County Emergency Communications Center
8/21/01
VA AlexandriaAlexandria Police Department 7/12/01
(cont'd)
State County PSAP
Requesting Entity Request
Date
VA Arlington Arlington County Emergency Communications Center
7/12/01
VA ChesapeakeCity of Chesapeake 2/7/02
VA Chesterfield
Chesterfield County 9-1-1 10/19/01
VA Colonial Hgts City of
Colonial Heights 3/7/02
VA Dinwiddie Dinwiddie County Sheriff's Office 10/19/01
VA Fairfax Fairfax Police Department 7/12/01
VA Fauquier Warrenton-Fauquier Joint Communications Center
7/5/01
VA Frederick Frederick County 3/21/02
VA Hampton City Hampton
City 2/7/02
VA James CityJames City County 2/7/02
VA Loudoun Loudoun County 9-1-1 7/12/01
VA New Kent New Kent County Sheriff's Office 11/5/01
VA Newport News City of
Newport News 2/7/02
VA Norfolk City City of
Norfolk 2/7/02
VA PetersburgCity of Petersburg 10/10/01
VA Poquoson City City of
Poquoson 2/7/02
VA Prince George Prince
George County Police 12/10/01
VA Prince William Prince
William County 7/12/01
VA Stafford Stafford County Sheriff's Office 10/19/01
VA Virginia Beach City of
Virginia Beach 1/31/02
WA Adams Adams County Sheriff's Office 8/17/01
WA Cowlitz Cowlitz County TSC 5/2/00
WA Island Island County Emergency Service Communications
Center 4/11/00
WA Jefferson Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 3/27/00
WA King King County E911 2/17/00
WA Lewis Lewis County 9-1-1 Communications 4/26/00
WA Pierce Pierce County E 9-1-1 Program 6/19/00
WA San Juan San Juan County E9-1-1 5/2/00
WA Skagit Skagit County 911 2/24/00
WA Snohomish Snohomish County Emergency Services 2/22/00
WA Spokane Spokane County 911 Communications 4/19/00
_________________________
1 T-Mobile was previously known as VoiceStream Wireless
Corporation. For convenience, we will refer to this carrier as
T-Mobile throughout this document.
2 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d).
3 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d) and (j).
4 Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Petition of City of
Richardson, Texas, Order, CC Docket No. 94-102, 16 FCC Rcd 18982,
18986-87 (2001) (``Richardson Order''), recon. granted in part,
denied in part, Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
Petition of City of Richardson, Texas, Order on Reconsideration,
CC Docket No. 94-102, 17 FCC Rcd 24282 (2002).
5 Letter from Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Technical and Public
Safety Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Brian T. O'Connor, Vice
President, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(October 11, 2002). In addition, on January 28, 2003, the 911
coordinator for ten PSAPs in Jefferson County, Colorado filed a
complaint alleging that T-Mobile is not in compliance with the
Phase I rules in Jefferson County. An investigation into the
allegations raised in this complaint is currently pending.
6 Letter from Robert A. Calaff, Senior Corporate Counsel,
Governmental and Industry Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc., to Joseph
P. Casey, Chief, Technical and Public Safety Division,
Enforcement Bureau (November 1, 2002).
7 T-Mobile classified these 170 PSAP requests as ``invalid.''
However, T-Mobile stated that for Phase I, it has generally
presumed that a PSAP request is valid unless evidence is
presented to the contrary, so it has not affirmatively set out to
determine its validity. T-Mobile further stated that its
experience has shown that there are issues on the PSAP's side of
the demarcation point that will affect the request's validity
that become apparent only as the deployment process proceeds.
Based on the information provided by T-Mobile, we do not believe
that these 170 PSAP requests are appropriately classified as
``invalid.'' In this regard, there is no evidence that these
PSAP requests were not valid, as that term is defined in the
Richardson Order, at the time they were filed. Rather, it
appears that there is a question as to whether these PSAPs were
currently ready to receive and utilize Phase I location
information.
8 The E2 interface is the communications link between the
PSAP's ALI database and the carrier's Mobile Positioning Center
(``MPC''). It is through this link that ALI requests for Phase
II data are transmitted and through which the data requested is
returned by the MPC. See Richardson Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18987.
Although the E2 interface is part of the J-STD-036 standard
interface for Phase II, T-Mobile indicated in its LOI response
that it is also using the E2 interface to implement its Phase I
NCAS connections.
9 T-Mobile identified six PSAPs which specifically requested
that their Phase I requests be placed on hold. However, we note
that each of these PSAP requests had been pending for more than
six months at the time the PSAP requested the hold.
10 T-Mobile did not identify the specific PSAP requests with
respect to which it believes it has responsibility for
implementation delays, the specific reasons for the delays, or
the length of the delays attributable to it.
11 Appendix A lists these 481 PSAP requests. We are not
counting, for purposes of this NAL, the 50 PSAP requests for
Phase I service in areas in which T-Mobile was not yet providing
coverage during the period covered by the LOI.
12 The LOI issued to T-Mobile specifically directed that, for
each unfulfilled Phase I PSAP request, T-Mobile provide a
detailed explanation as to why the request had not been fulfilled
and identify the specific actions taken by T-Mobile in an effort
to fulfill each PSAP request and the dates on which such actions
were taken. In many cases, T-Mobile provided only general
reasons why certain categories of PSAP requests had not been
fulfilled. In cases where T-Mobile did identify specific actions
it had taken to fulfill a PSAP request, there was typically a
substantial lapse of time, sometimes a period of years, between
the date that the PSAP request was received by T-Mobile and the
date of any specific action or actions taken by T-Mobile to
fulfill the request.
13 See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, CC Docket No. 94-102, 15 FCC Rcd
17442, 17461-64 (2000).
14 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), which
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term `willful,'
... means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of
this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized
by this Act ....'' See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6
FCC Rcd 4387 (1991) (``Southern California'') (discussing
legislative history regarding applicability of Section 312(f)(1)
definition of ``willful'' to Section 503(b)).
15 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), which
also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b)
of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term `repeated,' ... means the
commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.''
See Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388.
16 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(2).
17 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2).
18 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); see also The Commission's
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), recon. denied, 15
FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
19 The fact that there is no established base forfeiture
amount for this violation does not indicate that no forfeiture
should be imposed. The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that
``... any omission of a specific rule violation from the ...
[forfeiture guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission
considers any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant.''
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099. The Commission
retains the discretion, moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture
Policy Statement and issue forfeitures on a case?by?case basis,
under its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503
of the Act. Id.
20 T-Mobile reported that it had total revenues of $3.99
billion in 2001. See T-Mobile International Reports Detailed
Full Year 2001 and Fourth Quarter 2001 Results of VoiceStream
(released March 4, 2002).
21 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100. See
also 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to
paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section
503 Forfeitures.
22 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100. See
also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
23 The statutory maximum for each of the continuing violations
would be $1.2 million. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(B); see also 47
C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(2).
24 The proposed forfeiture here covers the period dating back
one year from the date of this NAL.
25 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.