Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                        )
                              )
VOICESTREAM PCS I LICENSE L.L.C.   )    File No. EB-00-PO-272
                              )
Bellevue, Washington                    )    NAL/Acct.        No. 

200132920001

                        FORFEITURE ORDER

  Adopted:   April 2, 2001              Released:   April 4, 2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.   Introduction

     1.   In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand  dollars 
($21,000)   against    VoiceStream   PCS    I   License    L.L.C. 
(``VoiceStream''), for willful  violation of  Section 17.4(g)  of 
the Commission's Rules  (``the Rules'').1   The noted  violations 
involve  VoiceStream's   failure   to  post   antenna   structure 
registration (``ASR'') numbers at eleven antenna sites.

     2.  On February 13, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau released  a 
Notice of  Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture  (``NAL'')  against 
VoiceStream  in  the  amount  of  twenty-four  thousand   dollars 
($24,000).2  VoiceStream filed its response on March 13, 2001.

                         II.  Background

     3.   During routine inspections of antenna structures  owned 
by VoiceStream on June 9, June 21, June 22 (two structures), June 
28, July  27, December  15 (five  structures), and  December  18, 
2000, agents  from the  Commission's Portland,  Oregon,  Resident 
Agent Office (``Portland Office'') observed that the ASR  numbers 
for twelve antenna structures were not posted.  On June 12,  June 
22, June 23, July  14 (two notices), July  27, December 20  (five 
notices) and  December  22,  2000,  the  Portland  Office  issued 
Official  Notices  of  Violation  (NOVs)  to  Voice  Stream   for 
violation of Section 17.4(g) of  the Rules.  In its responses  to 
the  NOVs,  VoiceStream  indicated  that  it  had  corrected  the 
violations by posting the antenna structures' ASR numbers.

                        III.  Discussion

     4.  As  the NAL  explicitly states,  the Enforcement  Bureau 
assessed  the  proposed  forfeiture   amount  in  this  case   in 
accordance with  Section 503  of the  Act,3 Section  1.80 of  the 
Rules,4 and  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), recon. denied, 15 
FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Policy Statement'').  Section 503(b) of the 
Act5 requires  that,  in examining  VoiceStream's  response,  the 
Commission take into  account 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 other such matters as justice may require.6

     5.  Section 17.4(g) of the Rules requires display of the ASR 

number ``at a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible  at 

the base of the antenna structure.''

     6.  VoiceStream, for the first  time, contends that the  ASR 
number (1047489)  was  properly  posted at  its  Keizer,  Oregon, 
antenna site.  VoiceStream  states that, on  an unspecified  date 
following its receipt of the NOV issued for failure to post  this 
ASR number, its  Operations Manager visited  the Keizer,  Oregon, 
site and  observed that  a  sign indicating  the ASR  number  was 
``properly attached to the chain link fence surrounding the  site 
at a location clearly visible to the public.''7   On this  basis, 
VoiceStream argues that no forfeiture should be imposed for  lack 
of signage at the  Keizer, Oregon, site.   We disagree.  The  ASR 
number may  have  been  posted  on the  date  of  the  Operations 
Manager's visit  but VoiceStream  has  submitted no  evidence  to 
suggest that  it  was posted  at  the  time of  the  FCC  agent's 
observations on December 15, 2000.   On that date, the FCC  agent 
walked  around  the  fence  surrounding  the  antenna  structure, 
observing all four sides of the fence as well as the base of  the 
antenna structure, and saw no sign indicating the ASR number.  We 
conclude that, on December 15,  2000, ASR number 1047489 was  not 
posted.   Accordingly,  we  impose  a  monetary  forfeiture   for 
VoiceStream's failure to post ASR number 1047489.

     7.  It is undisputed that the ASR numbers were not  properly 
posted, as  required by  Section 17.4(g)  of the  Rules, for  the 
other  eleven  antenna  structures   inspected  by  FCC   agents.  
However,  VoiceStream  propounds  a   number  of  arguments   for 
mitigation. 

     8.  VoiceStream's principal argument for mitigation is  that 
the base  forfeiture amount  for failure  to post  an ASR  number 
should be $1,000, not  $2,000.  The Bureau's proposed  forfeiture 
was based on the Commission's decision in American Tower  Corp.,8 
in which the Commission determined that a $2,000 base  forfeiture 
amount was appropriate for this type of violation.9  Because  the 
Bureau is bound  by the Commission's  determination, we will  not 
address VoiceStream's argument in this case.

     9.  VoiceStream asserts, for  the first time, that,  because 
the antenna  structure located  at  4400 NE  Broadway,  Portland, 
Oregon (ASR number 1040956), is less  than 20 feet in height,  it 
is exempt from the Federal Aviation Administration's notification 
requirement  and,   therefore,   from  the   tower   registration 
requirements.10 VoiceStream  argues  that, since  it  voluntarily 
registered this  antenna  structure, the  Commission  should  not 
impose a monetary forfeiture for failing to post its ASR  number.  
We agree. 

     10.   VoiceStream also asserts that  the ASR number for  its 
antenna structure at 3025 Industrial Way, NE, Salem, Oregon,  was 
not posted because the sign  indicating the ASR number  (1040800) 
was vandalized  and fell  to  the ground.   VoiceStream  suggests 
mitigating the proposed forfeiture for  failure to post this  ASR 
number from  $2,000 to  $250.  While  mitigation to  $250 is  not 
warranted, we find that mitigation to $1,000 is appropriate.
     
     11.   Finally,   VoiceStream   argues  that   the   proposed 
forfeiture  should  be  mitigated  because  it  has   ``extensive 
compliance policies and  processes in  place to  ensure that  FCC 
registration is completed for  every site so required.   Further, 
VoiceStream promptly installed  signs at the  sites in  question, 
and its policies will work to detect those . . . signs that  have 
been  weather  damaged  or  vandalized  in  the  future.''   This 
argument lacks merit.   After, June 12,  2000, when the  Portland 
Office first notified VoiceStream  that it was violating  Section 
17.4(g) of the  Rules, FCC  agents observed  ten more  violations 
(not  counting  the  antenna  structure  at  4400  NE   Broadway, 
Portland, Oregon) of that  rule over a  six month period.   Thus, 
even six months after  the initial notification, VoiceStream  did 
not  have  effective  compliance   policies  in  place  and    no 
mitigation is warranted on this basis.
     
     12.  We  have examined  VoiceStream's  response to  the  NAL 

pursuant to  the  statutory  factors  set  forth  above,  and  in 

conjunction with the Policy  Statement as well.   As a result  of 

our  review,  we  conclude   that  VoiceStream  has  provided   a 

sufficient justification for  mitigating the proposed  forfeiture 

amount  to   $21,000,  but   has   not  provided   a   sufficient 

justification for any further mitigation.

                      IV.  Ordering Clauses

     13.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT IS ORDERED  THAT, pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of the Act,  and Sections 0.111,  0.311 and 1.80(f)(4)  of 
the Commission's Rules,11  VoiceStream IS LIABLE  FOR A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willful violation of  the 
provisions of 17.4(g) of the Rules.

     14.  Payment of the forfeiture  shall be made in the  manner 
provided for in Section 1.80  of the Commission's Rules12  within 
30 days of the release of  this Order.  If the forfeiture is  not 
paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the 
Department of Justice for  collection pursuant to Section  504(a) 
of the Act.13  Payment may be made by mailing a check or  similar 
instrument, payable to the order of the ``Federal  Communications 
Commission,'' to the Federal Communications Commission, P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. number  referenced above.   Requests for  full  payment 
under an installment plan should  be sent to: Chief, Revenue  and 
Receivables Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,  Washington, 
D.C. 20554.14








     15.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this notice shall be  sent, 
by certified mail, return  receipt requested, to Vice  President, 
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, for VoiceStream PCS I License 
L.L.C., Brian  O'Connor,  at 401  9th  Street, N.W.,  Suite  550, 
Washington, D.C. 20004.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         

                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

_________________________

     1 47 C.F.R.  17.4(g).

     2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL Acct. No. 
200139220001 (Enf. Bur., released February 13, 2001).

     3  47 U.S.C.  503.

     4 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     55 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     66 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

     7 Compare VoiceStream's January 19, 2001, NOV response, 
stating, in pertinent part, ``This is the response to the 
violation . . . for [the] VoiceStream cell site at 930 Chemawa, 
Keizer, Oregon.  Per FCC records and VoiceStream, the antenna 
structure under Registration # 1047489 was missing proper tower 
registration signage.''

     8 American Tower Corp., FCC 01-9 (rel. Jan. 16, 2001).

     9 Id. at  9.

     10 See 47 C.F.R.  17.4(a) and 17.14(b).  VoiceStream  made 
no mention of  this argument  in its  response to  the Notice  of 
Violation regarding the Portland antenna structure. 

     11 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

     12 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     13 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     14 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.