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                )
                                )
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.    )     File No. EB-02-TS-002
                                )     
                                )     
                                      
                            ORDER

Adopted:  May 23, 2003                  Released:    May 23, 
2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Order, we address  a request filed by AT&T 
Wireless Services,  Inc. (``AT&T  Wireless'') to  clarify or 
modify  the December  31, 2002  benchmark set  forth in  the 
consent  decree  adopting  a   schedule  for  deployment  of 
enhanced 911 (``E911'') Phase II service by AT&T Wireless on 
its Time Division Multiple  Access (``TDMA'') network.1  For 
the  reasons that  follow,  we conclude  that AT&T  Wireless 
satisfied the December 31, 2002 benchmark.  

                       II.  BACKGROUND

     2.        Under  Phase II  of the  FCC's wireless  E911 
rules,  wireless carriers  are  required to  provide to  the 
designated  Public  Safety  Answering Point  (``PSAP'')  the 
location  of wireless  911  callers, a  capability known  as 
Automatic Location Identification  (``ALI''), using handset-
based  or network-based  location technologies.2   The rules 
provide  that   handset-based  location   technologies  must 
provide the location of wireless  911 calls with an accuracy 
of 50 meters  for 67 percent of calls and  150 meters for 95 
percent of calls.3  Carriers  using a handset-based solution 
must meet certain interim benchmarks for activating handsets 
with location  capability,4 and must ensure  that 95 percent 
of their  customers have location-capable handsets  no later 
than December  31, 2005.5  For carriers  choosing a network-
based solution,  the rules provide that  the technology must 
report the location  of wireless 911 calls  with an accuracy 
of 100 meters for 67 percent  of calls and 300 meters for 95 
percent of calls.6  A carrier using a network-based solution 
must provide ALI  to 50 percent of its coverage  area, or 50 
percent of its  population, beginning on October  1, 2001 or 
within six months of a PSAP request, whichever is later, and 
to 100 percent  of callers within 18 months  of that request 
or by October 1, 2002, whichever is later.  

     3.        On June  12, 2002,  the Commission  adopted a 
consent   decree    terminating   an    Enforcement   Bureau 
investigation into  whether AT&T Wireless was  in compliance 
with  the E911  Phase  II  rules with  respect  to its  TDMA 
network.7   Pursuant to  the consent  decree, AT&T  Wireless 
agreed to a  specific timeline for deployment  of a network-
based location  technology on  its TDMA  network.  Paragraph 
12(a)(2)  of the  consent decree  required AT&T  Wireless to 
deploy a Phase II compliant technology at a minimum of 2,000 
cell sites and  provide Phase II service at  all these sites 
by  December  31, 2002.8   AT&T  Wireless  is subject  to  a 
$300,000  automatic  penalty  if   it  fails  to  meet  this 
benchmark.9  

     4.        On December  24, 2002, AT&T Wireless  filed a 
request  to   clarify  or  modify  the   December  31,  2002 
benchmark.10  In this request,  AT&T Wireless indicated that 
it  deployed Phase  II  technology at  2,605  cell sites  by 
December 31, 2002,  but was not providing  Phase II location 
information  to PSAPs  at  the minimum  required 2,000  cell 
sites  by December  31, 2002.   Specifically, AT&T  Wireless 
stated, as of  December 31, 2002, it was  providing Phase II 
location information to  PSAPs served by 1,168  of the 2,605 
cell sites  at which  it had  deployed Phase  II technology.  
AT&T Wireless  asserted that  the 116 PSAPs  associated with 
the  remaining 1,437  cell sites  at which  it had  deployed 
Phase II  technology were not  ready to receive  and utilize 
Phase  II data  by December  31, 2002.   Although these  116 
PSAPs were not  ready to receive and utilize  Phase II data, 
AT&T  Wireless stated  that it  conducted ``short  testing'' 
with  these PSAPs  to confirm  the operational  readiness of 
AT&T Wireless's  network to  deliver Phase II  data.11  AT&T 
Wireless seeks clarification that it is ``providing Phase II 
service'' within the  meaning of the consent  decree when it 
has taken  all the steps  necessary and possible  to deliver 
Phase II data  to the PSAP and has conducted  short tests to 
confirm the operational readiness  of the location system to 
deliver  Phase  II data,  even  if  the  PSAP is  unable  or 
unwilling  to   receive  and  utilize  the   data.   In  the 
alternative,  AT&T  Wireless  requests modification  of  the 
December 31, 2002 benchmark to require either the completion 
of short testing or the integration of Phase II service at a 
minimum of 2,000 cell sites by December 31, 2002.

     5.        On  January 7,  2003, at  the request  of the 
Enforcement Bureau,  AT&T Wireless  submitted certifications 
for  the 116  PSAPs  associated with  the  1,437 cell  sites 
substantially consistent  with the new rules  adopted in the 
City of Richardson Reconsideration  Order.12  In response to 
a request  for additional  information from  the Enforcement 
Bureau,13  AT&T   Wireless  subsequently   supplemented  its 
certification   filing.14   AT&T   Wireless's  certification 
filing  included  letters   from  PSAP  requesting  entities 
representing 112 PSAPs associated with 1,368 cell sites.  In 
these letters, the  PSAPs acknowledge that they  are not yet 
ready to  receive Phase II  service for various  reasons and 
that  AT&T Wireless  completed all  necessary steps  towards 
E911  implementation   that  are   not  dependent   on  PSAP 
readiness.  With respect to  the remaining four PSAPs, which 
are associated  with 69 cell sites,  AT&T Wireless certified 
that  it  had completed  all  necessary  steps towards  E911 
implementation that are not  dependent on PSAP readiness and 
documented the basis  for its conclusion that  the PSAPs are 
not yet ready to receive and utilize Phase II service.15  

                      III.  DISCUSSION

     6.        In  its  request  to clarify  or  modify  the 
December   31,   2002   benchmark,   AT&T   Wireless   seeks 
clarification  that it  is  ``providing  Phase II  service'' 
within the meaning  of the consent decree when  it has taken 
all the  steps necessary  and possible  to deliver  Phase II 
data to  the PSAP and  has conducted short tests  to confirm 
the operational readiness of  its location system to deliver 
Phase II  data, even if the  PSAP is unable or  unwilling to 
receive and  utilize the  data.  We deny  this clarification 
request.  We think that it  is clear that the requirement in 
the  consent decree  that AT&T  Wireless ``provide  Phase II 
service'' means  that the  carrier must fully  integrate its 
Phase II location system with  the PSAP and begin delivering 
Phase II location information to  the PSAP, which is capable 
of, and actually is, receiving the Phase II data.  

     7.        Nevertheless,     after     reviewing     the 
certification filing submitted by AT&T Wireless, we conclude 
that  AT&T   Wireless  satisfied   the  December   31,  2002 
benchmark, as modified  by the rules adopted in  the City of 
Richardson   Reconsideration    Order.    Under    the   new 
certification  process adopted  in  the  City of  Richardson 
Reconsideration Order, a wireless carrier that has completed 
all necessary steps towards E911 implementation that are not 
dependent  on PSAP  readiness may  have its  E911 obligation 
temporarily tolled if  the PSAP is not ready  to receive the 
E911 information at the  end of the six-month implementation 
period and the carrier files  a certification to that effect 
with    the   Commission.16    The   City    of   Richardson 
Reconsideration  Order explicitly  states that  deadlines to 
complete  PSAP  requests  for E911  service  established  in 
consent  decrees  negotiated   between  the  Commission  and 
particular  carriers   are  subject  to   the  certification 
process.17  

     8.        Paragraph  12(a)(2)  of  the  consent  decree 
required  AT&T  Wireless  to  deploy a  Phase  II  compliant 
technology  at a  minimum of  2,000 cell  sites on  its TDMA 
network and provide  Phase II service at all  these sites by 
December 31, 2002.   As of December 31,  2002, AT&T Wireless 
had deployed  Phase II  technology at  2,605 cell  sites and 
fully integrated  Phase II  service at  1,168 of  these cell 
sites.  AT&T Wireless asserts  that the 116 PSAPs associated 
with the remaining 1,437 cell sites at which it had deployed 
Phase II  technology were not  ready to receive  and utilize 
Phase  II location  information by  December 31,  2002.  The 
certification  filing submitted  by  AT&T Wireless  supports 
this assertion.   AT&T Wireless  provided letters  from PSAP 
requesting entities  representing 112 PSAPs  associated with 
1,368 cell  sites.   These  PSAPs acknowledge that  they are 
not ready to  receive and utilize Phase II  service and that 
AT&T  Wireless completed  all necessary  steps towards  E911 
implementation that  are independent of PSAP  readiness.  In 
addition, with  respect to the  other four PSAPs,  which are 
associated with 69 cell  sites, AT&T Wireless certified that 
it completed all necessary steps towards E911 implementation 
that are not dependent on  PSAP readiness and documented the 
basis for its conclusion that the PSAPs are not yet ready to 
receive and  utilize Phase  II service.   We find  that AT&T 
Wireless's certification filing  substantially complies with 
the certification process adopted  in the City of Richardson 
Reconsideration Order.   Accordingly, we conclude  that AT&T 
Wireless  satisfied  the  December 31,  2002  benchmark,  as 
modified  by the  rules adopted  in the  City of  Richardson 
Reconsideration Order.18  

     9.        Finally, because we  have concluded that AT&T 
Wireless  satisfied  the  December 31,  2002  benchmark,  as 
modified by the new certification rules, we need not address 
its request  to modify the benchmark.   We therefore dismiss 
the modification request as moot.

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.  Accordingly, IT  IS ORDERED, that  AT&T Wireless's 
request to clarify or modify the December 31, 2002 benchmark 
in the TDMA Consent Decree IS DENIED to the extent indicated 
herein and IS otherwise DISMISSED as moot.
     11.       IT  IS FURTHER  ORDERED that  a copy  of this 
Order shall be  sent by first class mail  and certified mail 
return  receipt  requested  to   Douglas  I.  Brandon,  Vice 
President, External Affairs and Law, AT&T Wireless Services, 
Inc.,   Fourth  Floor,   1150   Connecticut  Avenue,   N.W., 
Washington, DC 20036, and to Michelle M. Mundt, Esq., Mintz, 
Levin,  Cohn,   Ferris,  Glovsky,   and  Popeo,   P.C.,  701 
Pennsylvania  Avenue,  N.W.,  Suite  900,  Washington,  D.C. 
20004.



                              FEDERAL         COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION
                         


                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

   1 AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc., 17 FCC Rcd  11510 (2002) 
(``TDMA Consent Decree'').

   2 See  Revision  of  the  Commission's  Rules  to  Ensure 
Compatibility with  Enhanced 911 Emergency  Calling Systems, 
CC Docket No. 94-102, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking,  11 FCC Rcd  18676 (1996); see  also 47 
C.F.R.  20.18.

   3 47 C.F.R.  20.18(h)(2).

   4 See e.g., Revision of the  Commission's Rules to Ensure 
Compatibility with  Enhanced 911 Emergency  Calling Systems, 
CC  Docket  No.  94-102,   Request  for  Waiver  by  Verizon 
Wireless, 16 FCC Rcd 18364 (2001) (``Verizon Phase II Wavier 
Order); Wireless E911 Phase II Implementation Plan of Nextel 
Communications,  Inc., 16  FCC  Rcd  18277 (2001)  (``Nextel 
Phase  II  Waiver Order'');  Request  for  Waiver by  Sprint 
Spectrum  L.P. d/b/a  Sprint PCS,  16 FCC  Rcd 18330  (2001) 
(``Sprint Phase II Waiver Order'').

   5 47 C.F.R.  20.18(g).

   6 47 C.F.R.  20.18(h)(1).

   7 TDMA Consent Decree, 17 FCC Rcd 11510.

   8 Id. at 11514.

   9 Id. at 11515.

   10 AT&T  Wireless Services,  Inc. Request  to Clarify  or 
Modify Benchmark, filed December 24, 2002.

   11 AT&T  Wireless explains  that ``short  testing'' means 
that  it and  the PSAP  connect  their E911  systems to  the 
extent possible given  the missing pieces on  the PSAP side, 
determine whether  the voice path  is routed to  the correct 
PSAP,  and   assess  whether  the  AT&T   Wireless  network, 
including the Wireless Location  Service devices at the cell 
sites,  Position  Determining  Equipment,  Mobile  Switching 
Center and  the Intrado Service Control  Point/ALI database, 
are fully integrated and capable  of providing Phase II data 
for the applicable service area.

   12  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)  (``City  of   Richardson  Reconsideration  Order''), 
petitions  for  recon.  pending.   Although  the  new  rules 
adopted in the City  of Richardson Reconsideration Order had 
not yet taken effect,  the Enforcement Bureau requested that 
AT&T  Wireless  submit  these  certifications  in  order  to 
evaluate  fully its  assertion that  the 116  PSAPs are  not 
ready to  receive and  utilize Phase  II data.   Because the 
rules were not in effect,  certain procedural aspects of the 
rules were not relevant here.

   13 Letter  from  Joseph P.  Casey,  Chief, Technical  and 
Public Safety  Division, Enforcement  Bureau, to  Douglas I. 
Brandon,  Vice  President -  External  Affairs  & Law,  AT&T 
Wireless Services, Inc. (February 3, 2003).

   14 AT&T  Wireless responded  to the  Enforcement Bureau's 
request for additional information on February 19, 2003, and 
supplemented  its response  on  February 21,  March 13,  and 
March 25, 2003.

   15 AT&T Wireless indicated that these four PSAPs were not 
ready to receive and utilize Phase II service due to  delays 
in completing necessary equipment upgrades.  Two of the four 
PSAPs  have completed  the  equipment upgrades  and are  now 
receiving Phase  II location  data from AT&T  Wireless.  The 
other two PSAPs expect  to complete their equipment upgrades 
by April 2003. 

   16 City of Richardson  Reconsideration Order, 17  FCC Rcd 
at 24286-7.

   17 Id. at 24287. 

   18 As set forth in the City of Richardson Reconsideration 
Order,  AT&T  Wireless's  certification  filing  temporarily 
tolls  its obligation  to  implement Phase  II service  with 
respect  to  these  116  PSAPs.  AT&T  Wireless  must  begin 
delivering Phase II service to each of these PSAPs within 90 
days after the PSAP provides the carrier with written notice 
that the PSAP is capable of receiving and utilizing Phase II 
location data.  Id. at 24287.