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-018
Washington, DC                  )    NAL/Acct. No. 200232100002
                                )    FRN 0006-1660-29
                                )    
                                   

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 

Adopted:  May 9, 2002                   Released:  May 20, 2002

By the Commission:  

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

1.        This  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for   Forfeiture 
  (``NAL'') follows an  investigation into whether AT&T  Wireless 
  Services, Inc.  (``AT&T Wireless'') violated  the Enhanced  911 
  (``E911'') Phase  II rules1 with respect  to its Global  System 
  for Mobile Communications/General Packet Radio Service  network 
  (``GSM  network'') and  whether AT&T  Wireless made  inaccurate 
  statements in  its request for  a waiver of  the E911 Phase  II 
  rules for  its GSM  network.  Based on  this investigation,  we 
  find that AT&T Wireless apparently (1) failed to begin  selling 
  and activating  location-capable handsets by  October 1,  2001, 
  in willful and repeated violation of Section 20.18(g)(1)(i)  of 
  the Commission's Rules  (``Rules''), without even requesting  a 
  waiver;2 (2) failed to implement any network or  infrastructure 
  upgrades necessary to  provide E911 Phase II service and  begin 
  providing service  within six months  of a valid  request by  a 
  Public  Safety Answering  Point  (``PSAP'') or  by  October  1, 
  2001, whichever is later, in willful and repeated violation  of 
  Section   20.18(g)(2)  of   the  Rules,   again  without   even 
  requesting  a waiver;3  (3)  failed to  notify  the  Commission 
  within 30  days that information contained  in its E911  waiver 
  request was  no longer  substantially accurate  or complete  in 
  all  respects, in  willful and  repeated violation  of  Section 
  1.65 of  the Rules;4  and (4)  failed to  make a  supplementary 
  filing  notifying the  Commission  that  it was  not  going  to 
  comply with the  deployment schedule requirements set forth  in 
  the  E911  rules  in willful  and  repeated  violation  of  the 
  Commission order  granting it a  waiver of the  E911 rules  for 
  its  GSM network.   For the  reasons discussed  below, we  find 
  AT&T Wireless apparently liable for a forfeiture in the  amount 
  of two million, two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000).  



                         II.  BACKGROUND

2.        Under Phase  II  of  the  FCC's  wireless  E911  rules, 
  wireless carriers  are required  to provide  to the  designated 
  PSAP the location  of wireless 911 callers, a capability  known 
  as Automatic Location Identification (``ALI''), using  handset-
  based  or  network-based  location  technologies.5   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.6  Carriers using a handset-based solution must  begin 
  to  offer one  entry-level model  with location  capability  no 
  later than October 1, 2001, and must ensure that 95 percent  of 
  their customers  have location-capable handsets  no later  than 
  December 31, 2005.7  In addition, within six months of a  valid 
  PSAP  request or  by October  1, 2001,  whichever is  later,  a 
  carrier  using  a handset-based  solution  must  implement  the 
  network and infrastructure  upgrades necessary to provide  E911 
  Phase II service and begin delivering ALI to the PSAP.8

3.        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.9   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.10   Wireless carriers subject to the  rules 
  were directed  to report  their Phase II  plans, including  the 
  technologies they plan to use, by November 9, 2000.11

4.        On November 9, 2000, AT&T Wireless filed an E911  Phase 
  II report in which  it stated that it was not in a position  to 
  choose between a handset and network overlay solution and  that 
  it would file an  amended report.12  In its Amended E911  Phase 
  II Report,  filed December 9, 2000,  AT&T Wireless stated  that 
  it  planned to  overlay a  GSM platform  to its  existing  Time 
  Division Multiple Access network.13  AT&T Wireless also  stated 
  that it  intended to implement a  hybrid network- and  handset-
  based technology  called Enhanced Observed  Time Difference  of 
  Arrival (``E-OTD'')  across its GSM network  and that it  would 
  make E-OTD  available immediately  upon deployment  of its  GSM 
  network.14

5.        On April 4, 2001, AT&T Wireless filed an E911 Phase  II 
  implementation plan  and request for waiver  of the E911  Phase 
  II  rules to  permit  it to  deploy  E-OTD throughout  its  GSM 
  network.15  In its waiver request, AT&T Wireless asserted  that 
  E-OTD would be  implemented simultaneously with the  market-by-
  market rollout of the GSM network and that it would provide  E-
  OTD-capable handsets  to GSM subscribers  when the GSM  network 
  comes online so that  the GSM network is Phase II capable  from 
  day  one.16  However,  AT&T Wireless  stated that  while  E-OTD 
  ultimately will meet and even exceed the Commission's  accuracy 
  requirements  for handset-based  location  technologies,  E-OTD 
  technology    will   not    initially   meet    the    accuracy 
  requirements.17   Accordingly, AT&T  Wireless requested  relief 
  from  the  location  accuracy  requirements  for  handset-based 
  solutions set forth in Section 20.18(h) of the Rules to  permit 
  the deployment of E-OTD technology for its GSM network.  

6.        Subsequently,  in  several   related  pleadings,   AT&T 
  Wireless  reaffirmed  that  its  GSM  network  would  be  E-OTD 
  capable  from the  date of  deployment.  In  its May  21,  2001 
  reply  comments on  the waiver  request, AT&T  Wireless  stated 
  that  ``in  contrast  to  VoiceStream,  AT&T  has  the   unique 
  opportunity to make E-OTD available in its GSM network as  that 
  network  is deployed  so that  AT&T  will not  need to  use  an 
  interim  solution  (such as  VoiceStream's  NSS)  in  order  to 
  accommodate legacy  handsets'' and  that it  ``is working  with 
  its vendors  to ensure  that the  GSM handsets  sold to  AT&T's 
  subscribers will  be E-OTD location  capable from day  one.''18  
  On May 10, 2001, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau  issued 
  an order which,  among other things, directed AT&T Wireless  to 
  provide  further  information on  its  GSM  rollout,  including 
  ``any information establishing that AT&T's GSM network will  be 
  100% compliant  with the  Commission's E911  Phase II  Location 
  Technology Implementation Rules from the date of deployment  of 
  the GSM network.''19  In  its May 31, 2001 partial response  to 
  this order, AT&T  Wireless stated that it ``plans to  implement 
  E-OTD simultaneously with  the market-by-market rollout of  the 
  GSM  network  so  that E-OTD  will  be  available  to  all  GSM 
  subscribers  from  day  one.''20   On  August  6,  2001,   AT&T 
  Wireless submitted a letter to the Wireless  Telecommunications 
  Bureau to provide specific milestones for achieving  compliance 
  with  the E911  Phase II  accuracy requirements  in  connection 
  with  its waiver  request and  in this  letter reiterated  that 
  ``E-OTD  will be  implemented along  with the  market-by-market 
  roll-out of AWS's GSM network.''21

7.        On October  2, 2001,  the Commission  adopted an  order 
  approving AT&T Wireless's  plan to deploy E-OTD throughout  its 
  GSM   network  and   granting   AT&T  Wireless   a   temporary, 
  conditional waiver  of the accuracy  requirements for  handset-
  based location  technologies to permit  implementation of  this 
  plan (``GSM  Waiver Order'').22   The GSM  Waiver Order  relied 
  heavily  on  AT&T  Wireless's  representations  that  its   GSM 
  network would  be E-OTD  capable from the  date of  deployment.  
  Specifically,  the   Commission  found  that  AT&T   Wireless's 
  implementation plan  for its GSM network  was justified by  the 
  overall benefits to  public safety of AT&T Wireless's  proposed 
  location solution, ``particularly  its ability to deploy  E-OTD 
  concurrently with  the deployment of  its new GSM  network.''23  
  Moreover,   the   Commission   found   that   AT&T   Wireless's 
  ``inability  to meet  the handset-based  accuracy standards  is 
  offset by  the fact that ALI-capable  handsets will be  rapidly 
  deployed in the GSM  network and that all GSM handsets will  be 
  E-OTD-capable,'' thus  ensuring that  there will  be no  legacy 
  handset  problem.24   The Commission  granted  AT&T  Wireless's 
  waiver  request   subject  to  the   following  four   specific 
  conditions:  (1)  that, effective October  1, 2001, all  E-OTD-
  capable handsets provide ALI with an accuracy of 100  meters/67 
  percent of calls and  300 meters/95 percent of calls; (2)  that 
  all  E-OTD-capable handsets  sold  and activated  on  or  after 
  October  1,  2003  comply with  an  accuracy  of  50  meters/67 
  percent of calls and  150 meters/95 percent of calls; (3)  that 
  AT&T  Wireless  file Quarterly  Reports  on  its  progress  and 
  compliance with the terms and conditions of its  implementation 
  plan  and  the  E911  rules  beginning  February  1,  2002  and 
  continuing  through November  1, 2003;  and  (4) that,  in  the 
  event  that  its  E-OTD  solution  fails  to  comply  with  the 
  accuracy  requirements  by  October  1,  2003,  AT&T   Wireless 
  propose a  solution that  does comply  with those  requirements 
  and  the other  applicable Phase  II rules.25   The  Commission 
  also stated  that AT&T  Wireless remains subject  to all  other 
  requirements of  the E911 rules  apart from those  specifically 
  modified in the GSM Waiver Order.26

8.        In December 2001, after receiving reports from  various 
  sources that AT&T Wireless had begun deploying its GSM  network 
  but was not  offering E-OTD-capable handsets, Commission  staff 
  requested a meeting with AT&T Wireless.  On December 21,  2001, 
  Commission  staff met  with AT&T  Wireless.  At  this  meeting, 
  AT&T   Wireless   acknowledged  that   it   was   selling   and 
  distributing handsets  that are  not E-OTD-capable  for use  on 
  its GSM  network and stated that it  had been unable to  deploy 
  E-OTD-capable handsets due to vendor delays.

9.        On January  15, 2002,  the  Enforcement Bureau  sent  a 
  letter  of  inquiry  (``LOI'')  to  AT&T  Wireless,  requesting 
  additional  information concerning  AT&T Wireless's  deployment 
  of  its  GSM network  and  its  sale and  distribution  of  GSM 
  handsets   that  are   not  E-OTD-capable.27    AT&T   Wireless 
  submitted a  response to  the LOI  on February  4, 2002,28  and 
  supplemented  this response  on February  19, 2002.29   In  its 
  response  to  the  LOI, AT&T  Wireless  stated  that  it  began 
  providing GSM service  and selling and distributing  non-E-OTD-
  capable handsets for use on its GSM network in Seattle on  July 
  17, 2001.30  AT&T Wireless stated that its July 2001 launch  of 
  GSM service in Seattle was limited to ``enterprise''  customers 
  (i.e.,  customers  who  are part  of  a  larger  enterprise  or 
  business with  a designated  sales agent)  and that  non-E-OTD-
  capable handsets  were not  available in  retail centers  until 
  the commercial  launch of its  GSM network in  four markets  on 
  October  2, 2001.   AT&T Wireless  also indicated  that it  was 
  currently   providing  GSM   service   with   non-E-OTD-capable 
  handsets  in  11   markets:   Seattle,  Portland,  Las   Vegas, 
  Phoenix,  Detroit,   South  Florida,  Lansing,  Grand   Rapids, 
  Chicago, Indianapolis, and Kansas City.31

10.       AT&T Wireless asserted in its  LOI response that it  is 
  selling handsets that are not E-OTD-capable for use on its  GSM 
  network because  its vendors were not  ready to deliver  E-OTD-
  capable  handsets and  other E-OTD  network equipment  when  it 
  launched  its GSM  service.32  It  asserted that  some  handset 
  vendors did  not have E-OTD-capable  handsets available,  while 
  others had E-OTD-capable handsets available, but delays in  the 
  availability  of network  equipment prevented  it from  testing 
  those handsets on an operational E-OTD-equipped network.   AT&T 
  Wireless  acknowledged that  concerns  were raised  within  the 
  company in Spring 2001 about the availability of  E-OTD-capable 
  handsets, but  it maintained that  ``key decision-makers''  did 
  not have  the same  concerns.  AT&T Wireless  indicated in  its 
  LOI response that  non-E-OTD-capable handsets intended for  use 
  on its  GSM network were first  delivered to its warehouses  on 
  June 24,  2001.33  Nevertheless, AT&T  Wireless stated that  it 
  was during  a July 2001 review of  its E911 Phase II plan  that 
  senior  AT&T  Wireless  personnel  learned  that  E-OTD-capable 
  handsets would  not be available before  its initial launch  of 
  GSM  service in  Seattle on  July  17, 2001.34   AT&T  Wireless 
  asserted that  it believed at that  time that testing would  be 
  complete and handsets  would be commercially available from  at 
  least  certain  vendors   by  December  2001.   AT&T   Wireless 
  identified six  senior-level employees  who knew  on or  around 
  July  16, 2001  that all  handsets sold  and/or distributed  by 
  AT&T Wireless  for use on its GSM  network would not be  E-OTD-
  capable.35   AT&T Wireless  also indicated  that two  of  these 
  employees were  involved in the preparation  and review of  the 
  waiver request  and subsequent  related pleadings.36   Finally, 
  documents  provided by  AT&T  Wireless with  its  LOI  response 
  indicate  that  AT&T  Wireless  projected  in  late  July/early 
  August 2001 that it  would have a significant number of  legacy 
  (i.e.,  non-E-OTD-capable) handsets  on  its GSM  network.   We 
  understand  that AT&T  Wireless  continues to  sell  non-E-OTD-
  capable handsets today.

11.       On February  1, 2002,  AT&T  Wireless filed  its  first 
  Quarterly Report on its progress and compliance with the  terms 
  and  condition of  its E911  Phase II  implementation plan  set 
  forth in  the GSM  Waiver Order  and the  E911 rules.37   Among 
  other  things,  the Quarterly  Report  indicates  that,  as  of 
  February 1,  2002, there were at  least 12 valid requests  from 
  PSAPs  for Phase  II service  on  AT&T Wireless's  GSM  network 
  which have been pending for six months or longer.38

12.       On February 1, 2002,  after receipt of the  Enforcement 
  Bureau's LOI,  AT&T Wireless also filed  a request for  limited 
  modification  of  the  implementation  plan  approved  by   the 
  Commission  in   the  GSM  Waiver   Order.39   In  the   waiver 
  modification  request,  AT&T Wireless  requests  that  its  GSM 
  waiver be  modified as follows:  (1)   In order to address  the 
  legacy base of  non-E-OTD-capable handsets, AT&T Wireless  must 
  deploy a  network software solution  (``NSS'') by December  31, 
  2002, without  regard to PSAP request;  (2) AT&T Wireless  must 
  deploy  E-OTD technology  in its  GSM network  by December  31, 
  2002 for all valid  PSAP requests pending as of June 30,  2002, 
  and must implement all valid PSAP requests received after  June 
  30, 2002  within six  months, as  required under  the Phase  II 
  E911 rules;  and (3) AT&T Wireless must  offer at least one  E-
  OTD-capable  GSM handset  for sale  by  September 1,  2002;  50 
  percent of new GSM  handsets sold and activated must be  E-OTD-
  capable  by February  28,  2003; and  100  percent of  new  GSM 
  handsets sold and  activated must be E-OTD-capable by June  30, 
  2003.40  This waiver modification request is pending.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     A.  Violations of E911 Rules

13.       Section 20.18(g)(1)(i) of  the Rules requires  wireless 
  carriers  using a  handset-based  Phase II  solution  to  begin 
  selling  and  activating one  entry-level  handset  model  with 
  location capability no later than October 1, 2001.  The  record 
  before  us  indicates  that, as  of  February  19,  2002,  AT&T 
  Wireless had not yet begun selling and activating any  handsets 
  with  location capability  for its  GSM network.   Furthermore, 
  while the  mere filing of a  waiver request obviously does  not 
  excuse a  company from non-compliance,  here it is  significant 
  that  AT&T  Wireless  did  not  even  seek  a  waiver  of  this 
  requirement  until  February 1,  2002  (after  the  Enforcement 
  Bureau's   LOI  regarding   AT&T  Wireless's   potential   non-
  compliance), notwithstanding the  fact that it apparently  knew 
  at least  as early as July 2001  that it would not have  E-OTD-
  capable handsets  for use with  its GSM network  by October  1, 
  2001.  As the Commission  stated in the GSM Waiver Order,  AT&T 
  Wireless remains subject to all requirements of the E911  rules 
  apart  from  those  specifically  modified  in  that   order.41  
  Accordingly,  we conclude  that  AT&T Wireless  has  apparently 
  willfully and repeatedly violated Section 20.18(g)(1)(i).42

14.       Section 20.18(g)(2)  of  the  Rules  requires  wireless 
  carriers to  implement any network  or infrastructure  upgrades 
  necessary to provide E911 Phase II service and begin  providing 
  Phase II service within six months of a valid PSAP request  for 
  Phase II  service or by  October 1, 2001,  whichever is  later.  
  The record  in this proceeding indicates  that, as of  February 
  1, 2002, AT&T Wireless had at least 12 valid PSAP requests  for 
  Phase II  service on its  GSM network which  have been  pending 
  for six months or longer.43  Again, AT&T Wireless did not  seek 
  a waiver  of Section 20.18(g)(2) until  February 1, 2002,  even 
  though it clearly knew  sometime prior to October 1, 2001  that 
  it would  not comply  with this  requirement.  Accordingly,  we 
  conclude  that  AT&T  Wireless  has  apparently  willfully  and 
  repeatedly violated Section 20.18(g)(2).44





     B.  Failure to Timely Disclose Inaccurate Statements in  its 
Waiver Request

15.       The Commission  staff initiated  this investigation  in 
  part   to  determine   whether  AT&T   Wireless   intentionally 
  misrepresented facts  in its request for  a waiver of the  E911 
  Phase  II rules  for its  GSM network.   The record  before  us 
  raises potentially  serious concerns.   In its  August 6,  2001 
  letter  to   the  Wireless   Telecommunications  Bureau,   AT&T 
  Wireless  reaffirmed that  ``E-OTD  will be  implemented  along 
  with the  market-by-market roll-out of  AWS's GSM  network.''45  
  Given  that  E-OTD  was  not  in  fact  implemented  with  AT&T 
  Wireless's initial  launch of  GSM service in  Seattle on  July 
  17, 2001,46 it  is apparent that this statement is  inaccurate.  
  Moreover,  AT&T  Wireless  admits  that  at  least  two  senior 
  employees who  were involved in the  preparation and review  of 
  the August 6, 2001 letter knew on or around July 16, 2001  that 
  E-OTD-capable  handsets  would  not  be  available  before  the 
  initial launch of GSM service in Seattle.  

16.       The Enforcement  Bureau continues  to investigate  this 
  matter to determine  whether AT&T Wireless may have engaged  in 
  misrepresentation in violation of Section 1.17 of the  Rules.47  
  The base amount for  any forfeiture for a violation of  Section 
  1.17  is  $120,000,  the  statutory  maximum.48   In  order  to 
  expedite any enforcement action that may be appropriate at  the 
  conclusion of  the Bureau's investigation  of this matter,  for 
  the limited purposes  of this matter, we delegate authority  to 
  the Chief,  Enforcement Bureau, to issue  a Notice of  Apparent 
  Liability  and Forfeiture  Order,  if appropriate,  up  to  the 
  statutory maximum  of $120,000 rather  than the $100,000  limit 
  in our delegation rules.

17.       We  conclude  at  this  juncture,  however,  that  AT&T 
  Wireless apparently  willfully and repeatedly violated  Section 
  1.65  of the  Rules.  Under  Section 1.65(a),  applicants  must 
  disclose inaccuracies  in a pending  application ``as  promptly 
  as possible  and in any event  within 30 days'' whenever:   (1) 
  information  furnished  in  the  pending  application  ``is  no 
  longer substantially  accurate or complete  in all  significant 
  respects''; or (2) ``there has been a substantial change as  to 
  any other matter which  may be of decisional significance in  a 
  Commission  proceeding involving  the pending  application.''49  
  The purpose  of Section 1.65 is  to inform the Commission,  the 
  public,  and  concerned parties  of  material  changes  in  the 
  application.50    Furthermore,   Section   1.65   imposes    an 
  affirmative  obligation on  regulated  entities to  inform  the 
  Commission  of the  facts needed  to fulfill  its duties.   Our 
  decisions  rely heavily  on the  completeness and  accuracy  of 
  applicants' submissions  because we do  not have the  resources 
  to verify independently  each and every representation made  in 
  the thousands of pages submitted to us each day.

18.       The record  indicates that  non-E-OTD-capable  handsets 
  intended  for use  on AT&T  Wireless's GSM  network were  first 
  delivered  to its  warehouses on  June  24, 2001.   Thus,  AT&T 
  Wireless apparently  ordered these handsets  sometime prior  to 
  that date.  Nevertheless,  AT&T Wireless stated that it was  on 
  or  around July  16, 2001  that senior-level  employees  became 
  aware that  all handsets sold  and distributed for  use on  its 
  GSM  network  would   not  be  E-OTD-capable.   Two  of   these 
  employees were directly involved in the preparation and  review 
  of  AT&T  Wireless's  waiver  request  and  subsequent  related 
  pleadings   and  therefore   knew   that  AT&T   Wireless   had 
  represented to the Commission that the GSM network would be  E-
  OTD  capable from day  one and  that there would  be no  legacy 
  handsets.  Thus,  even giving  AT&T Wireless  every benefit  of 
  the doubt regarding when it incurred obligations under  Section 
  1.65, it is apparent that AT&T Wireless had a clear  obligation 
  beginning no later than  30 days from July 16, 2001, to  report 
  to the  Commission that  its waiver  request was  substantially 
  inaccurate.  

19.       We also conclude  that AT&T  Wireless's waiver  request 
  was  ``pending,'' as  that term  is  defined in  Section  1.65, 
  during  the  relevant time  period.   Under  Section  1.65,  an 
  application is  ``pending'' from the  time that the  Commission 
  accepts it  for filing until  a Commission grant  or denial  of 
  the application is no longer subject to reconsideration by  the 
  Commission  or  to review  by  any  court.51   AT&T  Wireless's 
  waiver request was pending from April 4, 2001, the date it  was 
  filed, until  November 13, 2001, the  date that the GSM  Waiver 
  Order  was  no   longer  subject  to  reconsideration  by   the 
  Commission.52  

20.       As noted  above, Section  1.65 requires  applicants  to 
  furnish  additional  or corrected  information  whenever  prior 
  filings are ``no  longer substantially accurate or complete  in 
  all significant  respects'' or ``there  has been a  substantial 
  change  as to  any  other matter  which  may be  of  decisional 
  significance  ....''53    We  conclude  that  AT&T   Wireless's 
  representations  in the  waiver request  that the  GSM  network 
  would be  E-OTD capable from  the date of  deployment and  that 
  there would  be no  legacy handsets were  of such  significance 
  that it apparently should have notified the Commission when  it 
  learned  otherwise.    The  apparent   significance  of   these 
  representations is clear  from the record and should have  been 
  quite    evident    to    AT&T    Wireless.     The    Wireless 
  Telecommunications  Bureau issued  an  order on  May  10,  2001 
  which, among other things, specifically directed AT&T  Wireless 
  to provide information  establishing that its GSM network  will 
  be 100%  compliant with the E911 Phase  II rules from the  date 
  of deployment.54   In addition, the  Commission relied  heavily 
  on the  representations in  AT&T Wireless's  waiver request  in 
  the  GSM  Waiver  Order.55   Due  to  its  reliance  on   these 
  representations,  the Commission  did not  include in  the  GSM 
  Waiver Order any benchmarks  for the sale and activation of  E-
  OTD-capable handsets  or the provision of  Phase II service  to 
  PSAPs,  nor  did  it  require  AT&T  Wireless  to  implement  a 
  ``safety  net''  location technology  solution,  like  the  NSS 
  solution which other  wireless carriers using E-OTD  technology 
  are required to implement, for the legacy handsets.  

21.       We find it  particularly troubling  that AT&T  Wireless 
  did not promptly  bring the inaccuracies in its waiver  request 
  to the  Commission's attention once  the Commission issued  the 
  GSM Waiver  Order.  There can  be no doubt  that AT&T  Wireless 
  knew when the GSM  Waiver Order was issued that the  Commission 
  had relied  substantially on its  representations that the  GSM 
  network would be E-OTD capable from the date of deployment  and 
  that there  would be no legacy  handsets.  As discussed  above, 
  AT&T Wireless's waiver request was pending under Section  1.65, 
  and therefore  it remained obligated  to inform the  Commission 
  of inaccuracies  in the  waiver request, until  the GSM  Waiver 
  Order was no longer subject to reconsideration on November  13, 
  2001.   Additionally,  we  note  that  the  GSM  Waiver   Order 
  explicitly stated that while AT&T Wireless's Quarterly  Reports 
  should be  the principal vehicle  for providing the  Commission 
  with  notice  of anticipated  problems,  AT&T  Wireless  should 
  notify  the Commission  through a  supplemental filing  to  the 
  extent  that  unexpected  problems  affecting  its  ability  to 
  perform arise in the period between reports.56  AT&T  Wireless, 
  however, did not make such a supplemental filing.  Indeed,  the 
  Commission  staff first  learned in  December 2001  from  other 
  sources that AT&T Wireless had begun deploying its GSM  network 
  but  was not  offering E-OTD-capable  handsets.  AT&T  Wireless 
  did  not  make  a filing  notifying  the  Commission  that  its 
  deployment  of E-OTD  technology in  its  GSM network  and  its 
  deployment of E-OTD-capable handsets would be delayed until  it 
  filed its waiver modification request on February 1, 2002,  the 
  same date that it  filed its first Quarterly Report, and  after 
  its receipt of  the Enforcement Bureau LOI.  Thus, in  addition 
  to  apparently  violating  Section  1.65,  AT&T  Wireless  also 
  apparently willfully and  repeatedly violated the terms of  the 
  GSM Waiver Order.  

     C.  AT&T Wireless's Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture

22.       In  light  of  AT&T  Wireless's  apparent  willful  and 
  repeated  violations  of  Sections  1.65,  20.18(g)(1)(i)   and 
  20.18(g)(2)  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.57  
  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.58  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.''59

23.       Considering all  of  the  enumerated  factors  and  the 
  particular  circumstances  of this  case,  we  find  that  AT&T 
  Wireless is  apparently liable for  an aggregate forfeiture  in 
  the  amount of  $2.2 million  for  its apparent  violations  of 
  Sections  1.65, 20.18(g)(1)(i)  and 20.18(g)(2)  of the  Rules.  
  Section  1.80 of  the  Rules and  the  Commission's  Forfeiture 
  Policy  Statement establish  a base  forfeiture of  $3,000  for 
  violations of Section 1.65.60  The circumstances of this  case, 
  however, appear to  justify a substantial increase in the  base 
  amount  for   a  Section  1.65   violation  under  the   upward 
  adjustment  criteria   contained  in  Section   1.80  and   the 
  Forfeiture Policy Statement.61  First, AT&T Wireless's  conduct 
  here appears  to be egregious.  In  this regard, the  violation 
  of Section 1.65 occurred  on a material issue in a  significant 
  Commission  proceeding.    For  AT&T  Wireless   to  keep   the 
  Commission and other interested parties uninformed of  material 
  inaccuracies relating to  its E911 waiver request is  extremely 
  serious.   Further, the  Section 1.65  violation continued  for 
  approximately  three months,  from  August 16,  2001  (30  days 
  after its obligation  under Section 1.65 arose) until  November 
  13, 2001.  For a full three months before the GSM Waiver  Order 
  was issued, AT&T Wireless  knew that its waiver request was  no 
  longer  substantially accurate  and complete.   Even after  the 
  Commission   issued  the   GSM  Waiver   Order,  which   relied 
  substantially  on the  representations in  its waiver  request, 
  AT&T Wireless did not come forward and bring the matter to  the 
  Commission's  attention.  Moreover,  AT&T  Wireless  apparently 
  violated the terms of  the GSM Waiver Order by failing to  make 
  a supplemental filing informing the Commission that it was  not 
  going to comply  with the deployment schedule requirements  set 
  forth in the E911 rules.  

24.       In addition, in  the Forfeiture  Policy Statement,  the 
  Commission  made clear  that  companies with  higher  revenues, 
  such as AT&T  Wireless,62 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.63

     The statutory maximum for a continuing violation of  Section 
1.65 is  $1.2  million.   While  it is  unclear  whether  such  a 
forfeiture will act  as a sufficient  deterrent to AT&T  Wireless 
against future  violations  of  Section  1.65,  we  believe  that 
anything less is unlikely to do so.  Therefore, in  consideration 
of the  facts  of  this  case  and  in  accordance  with  Section 
503(b)(2)(B) of the Act, we find that AT&T Wireless is apparently 
liable for the statutory maximum $1.2 million forfeiture for  its 
apparent violation of Section 1.65.

25.       Section 1.80  of the  Rules and  the Forfeiture  Policy 
  Statement  do  not   establish  base  forfeiture  amounts   for 
  violations  of Section  20.18(g)(1)(i) and  20.18(g)(2) of  the 
  Rules.64    However,  we   think  that   substantial   proposed 
  forfeitures for these  violations are warranted.  Violation  of 
  the E911  rules is  extremely serious because  these rules  are 
  intended  to  promote   safety  of  life.   Furthermore,   AT&T 
  Wireless clearly knew prior to October 1, 2001 that it was  not 
  going to  comply with these requirements,  but it did not  seek 
  waivers of  these requirements  until February  1, 2002,  after 
  the  Enforcement  Bureau  began  its  investigation  into  AT&T 
  Wireless's  potential non-compliance.   We also  note that  the 
  violations  of  Section  20.18(g)(1)(i)  and  20.18(g)(2)   are 
  continuing violations  and that each  unsatisfied PSAP  request 
  is a  separate violation of  Section 20.18(g)(2).  Finally,  as 
  discussed  above,  AT&T  Wireless's  ability  to  pay  must  be 
  considered   in   setting   a   proposed   forfeiture   amount.  
  Therefore, taking  these facts into  account and in  accordance 
  with  Section  503(b)(2)(B)  of the  Act,  we  find  that  AT&T 
  Wireless is  apparently liable for a  forfeiture in the  amount 
  of   $500,000   for   its   apparent   violation   of   Section 
  20.18(g)(1)(i) and a  forfeiture in the amount of $500,000  for 
  its apparent violation of Section 20.18(g)(2).

                           IV.  CONCLUSION

26.       We find  AT&T Wireless  apparently liable  for a  total 
  forfeiture   of  $2.2   million.   AT&T   Wireless   apparently 
  willfully and  repeatedly violated  Section 1.65  of the  Rules 
  concerning   the  disclosure   of   information  that   is   of 
  ``decisional significance'' or that renders prior filings  ``no 
  longer substantially accurate  and complete in all  significant 
  respects.''   AT&T  Wireless  also  apparently  willfully   and 
  repeatedly  violated the  terms  of  the GSM  Waiver  Order  by 
  failing   to  make   a  supplementary   filing  notifying   the 
  Commission that it was not going to comply with the  deployment 
  schedule   requirements   set  forth   in   the   E911   rules.  
  Additionally, we  conclude that AT&T  Wireless failed to  begin 
  selling and activating location-capable handsets by October  1, 
  2001  in apparent  willful and  repeated violation  of  Section 
  20.18(g)(1)(i)  of  the  Rules  and  failed  to  implement  any 
  network or  infrastructure upgrades necessary  to provide  E911 
  Phase II service and begin providing service within six  months 
  of a  valid PSAP request  or by October  1, 2001, whichever  is 
  later, in  apparent willful and  repeated violation of  Section 
  20.18(g)(2)  of the  Rules, and  without even  filing a  waiver 
  request.

                      V.  ORDERING CLAUSES

27.       Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
  503(b)  of  the  Act, and  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules,  AT&T 
  Wireless Services,  Inc. is  hereby NOTIFIED  of this  APPARENT 
  LIABILITY FOR  A FORFEITURE in the  amount of two million,  two 
  hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000) for willful and  repeated 
  violations of Sections 1.65, 20.18(g)(1)(i) and 20.18(g)(2)  of 
  the Rules.

28.       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,  AT&T Wireless  Services,  Inc. 
  SHALL PAY the full  amount of the proposed forfeiture or  SHALL 
  FILE a written  statement seeking reduction or cancellation  of 
  the proposed forfeiture.

29.       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. 200232100002 and FRN #  0006-
  1660-29.   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 20554.65

30.       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. 200232100002.

31.       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.

32.       IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  of 
  Apparent  Liability shall  be  sent by  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
                         


                         Marlene H. Dortch   
                         Secretary
_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  20.18.

  2 47 C.F.R.  20.18(g)(1)(i).

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

  4 47 C.F.R.  1.65.

  5   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).

  6 47 C.F.R.  20.18(h)(2).

  7 47 C.F.R.  20.18(g)(1).

  8 47 C.F.R.  20.18(g)(2).

  9 47 C.F.R.  20.18(h)(1).

  10 47 C.F.R.  20.18(f).

  11 47 C.F.R.  20.18(i).

  12  AT&T Wireless  Services,  Inc.  E911 Phase  II  Report,  CC 
Docket No. 94-102 (November 9, 2000).

  13 AT&T Wireless  Services, Inc. Amended E911 Phase II  Report, 
CC Docket No. 94-102 (December 9, 2000).

  14 Id. at 3.

  15  AT&T Wireless  Services, Inc.,  Request for  Waiver of  the 
E911 Phase  II Location  Technology Implementation  Rules,  filed 
April 4,  2001 (``AT&T  Wireless  Waiver Request'').   AT&T  also 
requested a waiver  of the E911  Phase II rules  to permit it  to 
deploy a network-based technology called Mobile-Assisted  Network 
Location System (``MNLS'') for its TDMA network.  After  numerous 
parties  including  public  safety  organizations  and   location 
technology vendors  challenged AT&T  Wireless's proposal  to  use 
MNLS for  its  TDMA network,  AT&T  Wireless filed  a  letter  on 
September 17, 2001 amending its  request for relief with  respect 
to its  TDMA  network.   Letter from  Douglas  I.  Brandon,  Vice 
President - External Affairs & Law, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 
to Thomas  Sugrue,  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau, 
Federal  Communications   Commission,   CC  Docket   No.   94-102 
(September 17,  2001).   In  lieu of  implementing  MNLS  as  its 
network-based solution for its TDMA network, AT&T Wireless sought 
permission to deploy either TruePosition's or Grayson  Wireless's 
network  overlay  technologies.    The  amended  waiver   request 
regarding AT&T Wireless's TDMA network is pending.  

  16 AT&T Wireless Waiver Request, at 5.

  17 Id.

  18 Reply  Comments of AT&T Wireless  Services, Inc., CC  Docket 
No. 94-102, at 3 (May 21, 2001)

  19 Revision of  the Commission's Rules to Ensure  Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911  Emergency Calling Systems,  CC Docket  94-102, 
Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9561, 9563 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2001).

  20 Partial  Response of AT&T Wireless  Services, Inc. to  Order 
of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, CC Docket No.  94-102, 
at 5 (May 30, 2001).

  21 Letter  from Douglas I. Brandon,  Vice President -  External 
Affairs & Law,  AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc., to Thomas  Sugrue, 
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, CC Docket No. 94-102, at 2 (August 6, 2001).

  22 Revision of  the Commission's Rules to Ensure  Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, (Request for  Waiver 
by AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc.), CC Docket  No. 94-102, 16  FCC 
Rcd 18253 (2001) (``GSM Waiver Order'').

  23 Id.

  24 Id. at 18258.

  25 Id. at 18262.

  26 Id. at 18261.

  27 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. 
(January 15, 2002).

  28 Letter  from Douglas I. Brandon,  Vice President -  External 
Affairs & Law, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., to Joseph P.  Casey, 
Chief, Technical and Public  Safety Division, Enforcement  Bureau 
(February 4, 2002).

  29 Letter  from Douglas I. Brandon,  Vice President -  External 
Affairs & Law, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., to Joseph P.  Casey, 
Chief, Technical and Public  Safety Division, Enforcement  Bureau 
(February 19, 2002) (``LOI Response'').

  30 Id. at 1.

  31 Id.  at 2.  In its request  for limited modification of  the 
GSM Waiver Order,  filed three  days before its  response to  the 
Enforcement Bureau  LOI, AT&T  Wireless indicated  that it  began 
offering commercial GSM service  in Seattle, Portland, Las  Vegas 
and Phoenix on October 2, 2001,  in Detroit on October 23,  2001, 
and  in   South   Florida,  Lansing,   Grand   Rapids,   Chicago, 
Indianapolis, and  Kansas City  in  November and  December  2001.  
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Request for Limited Modification  of 
E911 Phase II Waiver, CC Docket  94-102, at 2 (filed February  1, 
2002).

  32 LOI Response at 4.

  33 Id. at 3.

  34 Id. at 4-5.

  35 Id. at 11.

  36  Id. at  10.  AT&T  Wireless  also identified  two  in-house 
attorneys who participated in the  preparation and review of  the 
waiver request and related pleadings, but claimed attorney-client 
and work product privilege with respect to the date on which they 
became aware that  all handsets sold  and/or distributed by  AT&T 
Wireless for use on its  GSM network would not be  E-OTD-capable.  
Id. at 7-11.

  37 AT&T  Wireless Services,  Inc. Quarterly  Report, CC  Docket 
No. 94-102 (filed February 1, 2002).

  38 The  Quarterly Report  indicates that  the following  PSAPs' 
requests for Phase II service are valid and have been pending for 
at least six months:  in Florida, Marion County (filed  6/22/01); 
in Illinois, St  Clair County  ETSB (filed  9/13/00), Village  of 
Barrington Hills  (filed 4/9/01),  and  Village of  Vernon  Hills 
Police Department  (filed  6/19/01); in  Indiana,  Ripley  County 
(filed 4/18/01),  and  Lake County  Sheriff's  Department  (filed 
4/26/01);  in   Oregon,  North   Marion  County   Communications, 
Clackamas County  Communications,  Portland Bureau  of  Emergency 
Communications,   Central   Lane   Communications   Center,   and 
Washington  County   Consolidated   Communications   (all   filed 
4/17/01); and in Washington, Clallam County Sheriff's  Department 
(filed 7/26/01).   In addition,  the Quarterly  Report  indicates 
that the following two  PSAP requests for  Phase II service  have 
been pending  for at  least  six months,  but does  not  indicate 
whether AT&T  Wireless believes  the requests  to be  valid:   in 
Florida, Volusia  County  Sheriff's Office  (filed  6/27/01)  and 
Nassau  County  Sheriff  Department  (filed  4/12/01).   Id.   at 
Appendix I and II.

  39   AT&T  Wireless   Services,   Inc.  Request   for   Limited 
Modification of E911  Phase II  Waiver, CC  Docket 94-102  (filed 
February 1, 2002).

  40 Id. at 13.     

  41 GSM Waiver Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18261.

  42  Section 312(f)(1)  of the  Communications Act  of 1934,  as 
amended, (``Act'') provides that ``the term `willful,' when  used 
with reference to the  commission or omission  of any act,  means 
the conscious or 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 ....''  47 U.S.C.   
312(f)(1).  This definition  applies to the  term ``willful''  as 
used in  Section  503(b) of  the  Act.  See  Southern  California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).  A violation is repeated 
if, among other things, it continues over more than one day.  Id. 
at 4388.

  43 See paragraph 11, supra.

  44 We note that the findings in this NAL relate solely to  AT&T 
Wireless's GSM network.   The Commission  previously referred  to 
the Enforcement Bureau a  matter concerning AT&T Wireless's  TDMA 
network.

  45 Letter  from Douglas I. Brandon,  Vice President -  External 
Affairs & Law,  AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc., to Thomas  Sugrue, 
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, CC Docket No. 94-102, at 2 (August 6, 2001).

  46  We find it  immaterial for  purposes of this  NAL that  the 
initial launch  of GSM  service in  Seattle was  limited to  AT&T 
Wireless's ``enterprise'' customers.

  47  Section 1.17  of the  Rules states  in relevant  part  that 
``[n]o applicant, permittee or licensee shall in any response  to 
Commission correspondence  or  inquiry  or  in  any  application, 
pleading,  report  or   any  other  written   statement  to   the 
Commission,  make  any  misrepresentation  or  willful   material 
omission bearing on  any matter  within the  jurisdiction of  the 
Commission.''  47 C.F.R.  1.17.

  48  See  The  Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement   and 
Amendment of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
Forfeiture Guidelines,  12  FCC Rcd  17087  (1997)  (``Forfeiture 
Policy Statement''), recon.  denied, 15  FCC Rcd  303 (1999);  47 
C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

  49 47 C.F.R.  1.65(a).

  50 See Pinelands, Inc. and BHC Communications, Inc., 7 FCC  Rcd 
6058, 6064  n. 25  (1992);  WPIX, Inc.,  33  FCC 2d  782,  783-84 
(1972).

  51 47 C.F.R.  1.65(a).

  52  Under  Section  1.106(f)  of  the  Rules,  a  petition  for 
reconsideration must  be filed  within  30 days  of the  date  of 
public notice of the final Commission action.  47 C.F.R.  1.106.  
The GSM  Waiver Order  was released  on October  12, 2001.   AT&T 
Wireless did  not  seek  reconsideration of  that  order.   Thus, 
November 13, 2001 is  the date that the  GSM Waiver Order was  no 
longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission.

  53 47 C.F.R.  1.65(a).

  54 Revision of  the Commission's Rules to Ensure  Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911  Emergency Calling Systems,  CC Docket  94-102, 
Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9561, 9563 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 2001).

  55 See paragraph 7, supra.

  56 GSM Waiver Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 18261.  

  57 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(2).

  58 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(2).

  59  47  U.S.C.    503(b)(2)(D);  see  also  Forfeiture  Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100 (1997); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).

  60 47 C.F.R.   1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4):   Section 
I. Base Amounts  for Section 503  Forfeitures; Forfeiture  Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17114, Appendix A, Section I.

  61 47 C.F.R.   1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4):   Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for  Section 503 Forfeitures;  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17117, Appendix A, Section II.

  62 In 2001, AT&T  Wireless had total revenues of $13.6  billion 
with operating income of $598 million.  See AT&T Wireless  Annual 
Report 2001 at 2 (2002).

  63 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.

  64  The fact  that there  are  no established  base  forfeiture 
amounts for these violations 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.

  65 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.