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                 )    File No. EB-04-SE-054
                                )
Sprint Spectrum LP d/b/a Sprint  )    NAL/Acct. No. 200532100002
PCS                              )    FRN No. 0007165210


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Adopted:  October 19, 2004              Released:  October 20, 
2004

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
("NAL"), we find that Sprint  Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint PCS 
(``Sprint'') has apparently failed to provide Enhanced 911 
(``E911'') Phase I service within six months of a request by 
Santa Cruz County, Arizona (``Santa Cruz'') on behalf of two 
Public Safety Answering Points (``PSAPs'') in willful and 
repeated violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Commission's Rules 
(``Rules'').1  For the reasons discussed below, we find Sprint 
apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of fifty 
thousand dollars ($50,000).

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.2  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 Local Exchange Carrier 
(``LEC'') for the necessary trunking and other facilities, 
including any necessary Automatic Location Information (``ALI'') 
database upgrades.3

     3.   On February 25, 2004, Santa Cruz filed an informal 
complaint against Sprint for failure to provide E911 Phase I 
wireless service.  The Enforcement Bureau subsequently began an 
investigation and, on March 24, 2004, sent a letter of inquiry 
(``LOI'') to Sprint seeking additional information concerning 
Sprint's compliance with the E911 Phase I rule.4  On April 20, 
2004,5 Sprint filed the LOI Response.6 

     4.   In the informal complaint, Santa Cruz asserts that on 
August 28, 2003, it sent a letter to Sprint, 15 other wireless 
service providers and the local exchange carrier, Qwest 
Communications (``Qwest''), requesting Phase I service on behalf 
of two PSAPs, the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office and the Nogales 
Police Department.7  In that letter, Santa Cruz stated that the 
PSAPs were ready to meet the requirements of Phase I wireless 
service and that the funds to support the project had been 
allocated in the State's 9-1-1 Revolving Fund.  Santa Cruz states 
that on October 1, 2003, Sprint returned the ``Business 
Activity'' form included in the request for Phase I service, 
acknowledging that it does business in Santa Cruz County.  On 
October 7, 2003, Sprint asked Santa Cruz to provide the 
information needed to make routing choices.  On October 15, 2003, 
Santa Cruz sent Sprint the information it requested.  Qwest 
completed all necessary modifications to the PSAPs' 911 networks 
and equipment in preparation for Phase I service on December 14, 
2003.  On January 21, 2004, Santa Cruz asked Sprint to schedule a 
test and turn-up and reminded Sprint that the Phase I six-month 
installation window would close on February 28, 2004.  Sprint did 
not respond to the communication.  On February 17 and 19, 2004, 
Santa Cruz contacted Sprint's 911 implementation vendor, Intrado, 
and asked if it could schedule Sprint's test and turn-up.  On 
February 19, 2004, Intrado told Santa Cruz that Sprint did not 
appear ready to take that step.  Also on February 19, 2004, Santa 
Cruz called Sprint to discuss why Sprint had not responded to its 
requests for a turn-up date and pricing and network design 
information.  According to Santa Cruz, Sprint stated that it did 
not respond because it had not completed the necessary work 
required to deploy Phase I service.  Sprint explained that it had 
not ordered either the Pseudo-ANIs (``p-ANIs'')8 or the network, 
but promised to order the p-ANIs the next day (February 20, 
2004), followed by a network request the next week (February 27, 
2004).  When asked about a possible turn-up date, Sprint stated 
that a network order normally takes six weeks, but that it would 
attempt to expedite the process. 

     5.   On March 2, 2004, Santa Cruz reported to the 
Enforcement Bureau that the other six wireless carriers providing 
service in Santa Cruz had begun providing Phase I service to the 
two Santa Cruz PSAPs by February 28, 2004.  On March 16, 2004, 
Santa Cruz reported to the Enforcement Bureau that on March 2, 
2004, it had asked Sprint for a reply within 24 hours concerning 
the number of trunks that it intended to install (explaining that 
it had requested the information several times over the previous 
two months), so that Qwest could begin billing for the selective 
router portion of their Phase I service, but Sprint did not 
reply.  Finally, Santa Cruz reported that on March 25, 2004, the 
day after the Enforcement Bureau issued its LOI to Sprint, a 
Sprint supervisor contacted Santa Cruz ``to get the process 
rolling,'' and explained that the delay in deployment stemmed 
from a transition from Intrado's Mobile Positioning Center 
(``MPC'') to Sprint's own MPC.  According to Santa Cruz, the 
Sprint supervisor said that Sprint had hoped to put Santa Cruz on 
its own MPC and avoid a later migration.  

     6.   In its LOI Response, Sprint asserts that it received 
Santa Cruz's request for Phase I service on September 15, 2003.  
Sprint indicates that it did not attempt to make a determination 
as to whether Santa Cruz's request for Phase I service was valid 
or request readiness documentation from Santa Cruz.  In this 
regard, Sprint states that it does not screen PSAP requests as 
valid or invalid, but rather proactively attempts to process all 
E911 requests that it receives and establishes an ongoing 
communications process with every PSAP.  Sprint further states 
that although Santa Cruz did not upgrade its equipment until 
December 14, 2003, Sprint did not attempt to assert that the PSAP 
request was invalid or otherwise attempt to delay deployment.  
Sprint asserts that it took the following actions in response to 
Santa Cruz's Phase I request.  On September 16, 2003, Sprint 
faxed the Santa Cruz Phase I request to Intrado.  On September 
22, 2003, Sprint delivered to Intrado a spread sheet identifying 
the cell sites serving the Santa Cruz area and the information 
required to develop network recommendations regarding necessary 
trunking, switch instructions and other necessary network 
modifications.  On October 1, 2003, Sprint provided Santa Cruz 
contact information for the Sprint analyst who would work with 
Intrado to manage the Phase I deployment.  On October 8 and 15, 
2003, communications occurred regarding the default routing and 
other information.  On November 13, 2003, Intrado ordered network 
recommendations from its internal network group, on December 22, 
2003, Intrado notified Sprint that the recommendations needed to 
be reordered because the Phase I deployment was state-wide and 
required different processing, and on January 9, 2004, Intrado 
requested p-ANI assignments from Sprint.  

     7.   Additionally, Sprint states that on January 21, 2004, 
Santa Cruz requested an update and a test and turn-up schedule.  
Although it asserts that some additional telephone conversations 
with Santa Cruz occurred in January and February, Sprint states 
that it is clear that its analyst ``failed to appropriately 
explain why testing had been delayed.''9  Sprint explains that 
while the network recommendations had been ordered on December 
22, 2003, they had not been received from Intrado, and the 
necessary trunk ordering and network design could not be 
completed until these network recommendations were received.  
Sprint states that ``[b]ased on review of this matter, Sprint 
believes that its analyst should have more aggressively pursued 
Intrado to determine the reasons for the delay in receiving the 
[network recommendations] and communicated those facts to the 
PSAP.''10  Sprint acknowledges that ``it is clear that this did 
not occur.''11  Moreover, Sprint admits that on March 2, 2004, 
Santa Cruz again complained about the lack of information and 
again, the Sprint representative failed to provide appropriate 
feedback.  Sprint states that on March 24, 2004 upon becoming 
aware of Santa Cruz's informal complaint, the manager of Sprint's 
E911 group immediately stepped into the process to identify the 
reasons for delay.  The request for network recommendations was 
escalated and upon receipt, trunk orders were placed with Qwest 
and also expedited.12  The deployment of Phase I service to Santa 
Cruz was completed by April 15, 2004.

III.      DISCUSSION

     8.   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.  
Sprint states that it received Santa Cruz's request for Phase I 
service to the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office and the Nogales Police 
Department on September 15, 2003.  Santa Cruz asserted in its 
request that the PSAPs were ready to meet the requirements for 
Phase I service and that the appropriate supporting funds had 
been allocated in the State's 9-1-1 Revolving Fund.  Sprint 
indicates that it did not attempt to make a determination as to 
whether Santa Cruz's request for Phase I service was valid or 
request readiness documentation from Santa Cruz,13 but rather 
began processing the request.  Thus, the six-month period for 
implementing Phase I service to the two PSAPs ended on March 15, 
2004.  However, Sprint did not complete deployment of Phase I 
service to the two PSAPs until April 15, 2004, after the 
Enforcement Bureau issued its letter of inquiry.  Accordingly, we 
find that Sprint apparently willfully14 and repeatedly15 violated 
Section 20.18(d) of the Rules by failing to provide Phase I 
service for a period of a month to two PSAPs within six months of 
a request.  

     9.   Although Sprint asserts that Santa Cruz did not 
complete the necessary equipment upgrades to receive Phase I 
information until December 14, 2003, the Commission has 
determined that there is no requirement that a PSAP must be fully 
capable of receiving and utilizing the Phase I data at the time 
of its request for Phase I service.16  Rather, the PSAP must be 
fully capable of receiving and utilizing the Phase I data no 
later than six months after making its request.  Here, it is 
undisputed that the two PSAPs in Santa Cruz were not only 
capable, but were in fact, receiving and utilizing Phase I data 
from the six other wireless carriers serving Santa Cruz within 
six months of Santa Cruz's request for Phase I service.  

     10.  Moreover, we conclude that Sprint has not established 
that its failure to complete deployment of Phase I service to the 
two PSAPs within the six-month implementation period was due to 
factors outside of its control.  Sprint explains that a delay in 
receiving the network recommendations from Intrado in turn 
delayed the necessary trunk ordering and network design.  
However, the Commission has repeatedly cautioned carriers that 
``an assertion that a vendor, manufacturer, or other entity was 
unable to supply compliant products will not excuse 
noncompliance'' with the E911 requirements.17  A carrier's 
``concrete and timely actions'' taken with a vendor, 
manufacturer, or other entity may be considered as possible 
mitigation factors in an enforcement context,18 but we do not 
believe that Sprint has shown that it exercised the level of 
diligence expected of carriers in processing Santa Cruz's request 
for Phase I service to warrant mitigation.  For example, Sprint 
concedes that its analyst ``should have more aggressively pursued 
Intrado to determine the reasons for delay in receiving the Net 
Recs and communicated those facts to the PSAP.''19  Sprint also 
acknowledges that it repeatedly failed to provide appropriate 
feedback in response to requests for information from Santa 
Cruz.20 

     11.  In light of Sprint's apparent willful and repeated 
violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules, we find that a 
forfeiture appears to be 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.21  
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.22  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.''23

     12.  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.24  
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.25  Further, the Phase I requirements set forth in Section 
20.18(d) have been in effect for over six years.





     13.  In addition, in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the 
Commission made clear that companies with higher revenues, such 
as Sprint,26 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.27
     14.  We believe that the factors cited above, the fact that 
this was a continuing violation, the public safety nature of the 
violation, and the fact that Sprint is a large company with 
substantial revenues, justify a substantial proposed forfeiture.  
Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular 
circumstances of this case, we conclude that Sprint is apparently 
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $50,000 for its apparent 
willful and repeated violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules. 

IV.  CONCLUSION
     15.  We find that Sprint apparently willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 20.18(d) of the Rules by failing to fulfill a 
request for Phase I service to two PSAPs within six months of the 
date of the request.  We also find that Sprint is apparently 
liable for a $50,000 forfeiture for the violation.     

V.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     16.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the Sprint 
Corporation is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) for 
willful and repeated violation of Section 20.18(d) of the Rules.

     17.  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 for Forfeiture, the Sprint Spectrum LP 
d/b/a Sprint PCS SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed 
forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

     18.  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  The payment must include the 
NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or 
money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor 
Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.  Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and 
account number 1165259.28

     19.  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 - Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced in the caption.

     20.  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. 29

     21.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class 
mail and certified mail return receipt requested to Luisa L. 
Lancetti, Vice President, Wireless Regulatory Affairs, Sprint 
Corporation, 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 
20004.



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon    
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  20.18(d).
2 47 C.F.R.  20.18(d) and (j).
3 Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with 
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Petition of City of 
Richardson, Texas, Order, 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, 17 FCC Rcd 24282 
(2002) (``City of Richardson Reconsideration Order'').
4 Letter from Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, to Luisa L. Lancetti, Vice 
President, Wireless Regulatory Affairs, Sprint Corporation (March 
24, 2004).
5 On April 13, 2004, Sprint requested and was granted a one-week 
extension - to April 20, 2004 - in which to file its response to 
the LOI.  Letter from Charles W. McKee, General Attorney, Sprint 
Law & Regulatory Affairs, to Jennifer Burton, Senior Attorney-
Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (April 
13, 2004) (``LOI Response''). 
6 Letter from Luisa L. Lancetti, Vice President, Wireless 
Regulatory Affairs, Sprint Corporation, to Jennifer Burton, 
Senior Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
Enforcement Bureau (April 20, 2004).
7 Letter from Penelope E. Meyers, 9-1-1 Project Manager, State of 
Arizona, to Greg Garrelts, Manager, 9-1-1, Sprint PCS (Aug. 28, 
2003).
8 The automatic number identification (``ANI'') is a caller's 10-
digit phone number (including the 3-digit area code).  The Pseudo 
ANI, or p-ANI, is the unique 10-digit number that identifies the 
cell sector location of the base station handling the call.

9 LOI Response at 3.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 4.
13 Under the tolling rules adopted in the City of Richardson 
Reconsideration Order, a wireless carrier may request readiness 
documentation from a PSAP within 15 days of receiving the PSAP's 
request for Phase I or Phase II service.  If the PSAP fails to 
provide the necessary documentation within 15 days after service 
of the carrier's request, the six-month implementation period 
will be tolled.  If the carrier declines to seek documentation 
during the 15-day period, the six-month implementation period 
will continue to run uninterrupted.  See City of Richardson 
Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24284; see also 47 C.F.R.  
20.18(j)(3).
14 The term ``willful,'' as used in Section 503(b) of the Act, 
means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate the Commission's 
Rules.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).
15 A violation is ``repeated'' within the meaning of Section 
503(b) of the Act if a violation occurs more than once or it 
continues for more than one day.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).
16 Richardson Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18992.
17 See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems Request for Waiver by 
Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint PCS, Order, 16 FCC Rcd. 18330, 
18340 (2001) (``Sprint Waiver''); see also Revision of the 
Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 
Emergency Calling Systems Request for Waiver by AT&T Wireless 
Services, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18253, 18261 (2001); see also City of 
Richardson Reconsideration Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 24287 (carrier's 
certification may not be based on circumstances attributable to 
its own vendors, manufacturers or third party service providers).
18 Sprint Waiver, 16 FCC Rcd at 18340.
19 LOI Response at 3.
20 Id. at 4.
21 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(2).
22 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(2).  On 
June 18, 2004, the Commission amended Section 1.80(b) of the 
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b), to increase the maximum penalties 
established in order to account for inflation since the last 
adjustment to those penalties.  The new maximum penalties took 
effect on September 7, 2004.  Violations which occur after that 
date will be subject to the increased forfeiture amounts.  
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules, 
Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 
FCC Rcd 10945 (2004).
23 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, Report and Order, 12 FCC 
Rcd 17087, 17100 (1997) (``Forfeiture Policy Statement''), recon. 
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
24 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.
25 See T-Mobile USA, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
18 FCC Rcd 3501 (2003) (proposed forfeiture of $1.25 million for 
E911 violations).
26 In 2003, Sprint and its parent company, the Sprint 
Corporation, reported total revenues of $12.7 billion and $26.2 
billion, respectively.  United States Securities and Exchange 
Commission Form 10-K, Annual Report, Sprint Corporation (2004).
27 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.
28 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.
29 Id.