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-SD-012
                                )
Washington, DC                   )     NAL/Acct. No. 200232940002 
                                )
                                )     FRN # 0006-1660-29
                                )
                                )


           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted:  April 18, 2002             Released:  April 25, 2002

By the Commission:  Commissioner Abernathy issuing a statement.

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Notice of  Apparent Liability  for  Forfeiture 
(``NAL''),we  find   AT&T   Wireless   Services,   Inc.   (``AT&T 
Wireless''), Washington, DC, apparently  liable for a  forfeiture 
in the  amount  of  one  hundred  fifty  three  thousand  dollars 
($153,000) for nine  willful and repeated  violations of  Section 
303(q) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended  (``Act''),1 
and Part 17  of the  Commission's Rules  (``Rules'') relating  to 
antenna structure construction, marking and lighting.2  

     2.   In particular, we find AT&T Wireless apparently  liable 
for  one  failure  to  register  an  existing  antenna  structure 
(Section 17.4(a)(2)); four failures to post the Antenna Structure 
Registration (``ASR'') number in  a conspicuous location so  that 
it is visible  near the  base of the  antenna structure  (Section 
17.4(g));  one  failure  to  comply  with  the  Federal  Aviation 
Administration's (``FAA'') painting  and lighting  specifications 
for antenna structures (Section  17.23); one failure to  maintain 
good visibility of  antenna structures  that are  required to  be 
painted  (Section  17.50);  and  two  failures  to  maintain  the 
required obstruction lighting on the antenna structures  (Section 
17.51(b)).3  We  find that  during  the period  of June  8,  2001 
through February 8, 2002, AT&T Wireless failed to comply with one 
of  these  requirements  on  nine  occasions  in  eight  separate 
locations throughout the country.  

     3.   The apparent violations  here come within  a year of  a 
prior forfeiture against AT&T  Wireless for similar  violations.4  
Our rules relating to tower lighting and marking are important to 
public safety.  AT&T Wireless's apparent inability to comply with 
these rules on a consistent basis is very troubling.  In light of 
these circumstances, we have tripled the base forfeiture  amounts 
for these violations.  Future violations will result in even more 
serious enforcement action.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     4.   The  Commission's   antenna   structure   construction, 
marking and  lighting requirements  operate in  concert with  FAA 
regulations to  ensure that  antenna  structures do  not  present 
hazards to  air navigation.   Generally, our  rules require  that 
antenna structures located close to airports or that are  greater 
than 200  feet  in  height  comply  with  painting  and  lighting 
specifications  designed  to  ensure  air  safety.5   We  require 
antenna structure owners to register antenna structures with  the 
Commission and post ASR numbers at the base of antenna structures 
to  allow  for  easy  contact  if  problems  arise.6   The  rules 
requiring  antenna   structure  registration   for  all   antenna 
structures that may pose a hazard to air navigation have been  in 
effect since 1996.7  We have repeatedly advised antenna structure 
owners that all existing, unregistered antenna structures subject 
to our rules must be registered immediately or the owners face  a 
monetary forfeiture or other enforcement action.8

     5.   Because  of  the   substantial  public  safety   issues 
involved, we further require antenna structure owners to  monitor 
lights daily or install automatic alarm systems to ensure  lights 
function properly.9   Antenna structure  owners are  required  to 
maintain lighting  equipment and  replace or  repair  inoperative 
lights, indicators  and  control and  alarm  systems as  soon  as 
practicable.10   Additionally,  antenna   structure  owners   are 
required  immediately  to  notify  the  FAA  when  major  antenna 
structure lights are inoperative and cannot be repaired within 30 
minutes.11  The FAA  then issues a  Notice to Airmen  (``NOTAM'') 
for a  period of  15  days advising  aircraft  that there  is  an 
antenna structure at a specific  location with a temporary  light 
outage.

     6.   Commission  field  agents  regularly  inspect   antenna 
structures to  determine compliance  with the  antenna  structure 
construction, marking  and  lighting  requirements  and  promptly 
respond to complaints  of unlit towers.   The FAA also  routinely 
notifies Commission  field offices  when  owners fail  to  either 
report that lights have been  repaired within 15 days or  request 
that a NOTAM be extended.  During routine inspections of  antenna 
structures owned  by  AT&T  Wireless,  from  April  20,  2000  to 
December 7, 2000, Commission field agents discovered nine antenna 
structures that did not have the ASR numbers posted as  required.  
These  violations  resulted  in  a  $14,000  monetary  forfeiture 
against AT&T  Wireless issued  on March  19, 2001,12  which  AT&T 
Wireless paid  in full  on  April 16,  2001.   In the  course  of 
ongoing routine inspections and investigations, Commission  field 
agents have  continued to  uncover a  significant number  of  new 
violations of the Commission's antenna structure requirements  by 
AT&T Wireless,  and in  the past  year have  issued a  number  of 
Notices of Violation (``NOVs'')  for such violations.13  A  brief 
discussion  of   the  most   serious  of   these   safety-related 
violations, which are the subject of this NAL, follows.

Woodland, California - File No. EB-00-SF-478

     7.   On September 15, 2000, agents from the Commission's San 
Francisco, California  Field  Office (``San  Francisco  Office'') 
inspected an antenna  structure owned by  AT&T Wireless which  is 
located at  824 N.  East Street,  Woodland, California  (ASR  No. 
1014047).  The agents  observed that the  tower's visibility  was 
severely reduced by coaxial cable on two sides of the  structure.  
On June 8, 2001,  the San Francisco Office  issued an NOV  citing 
AT&T Wireless  for failure  to maintain  good visibility  of  the 
tower in violation of  Section 17.50 of the  Rules.  In its  June 
18, 2001, response to the NOV,  AT&T Wireless stated that it  was 
in the process of  having all of the  coaxial cable on the  tower 
painted in aviation orange and white as described in the  current 
FAA Advisory  Circular on  Obstruction Marking  and Lighting  and 
that it anticipated that the painting would be completed by  June 
29, 2001.14

Bluffdale, Utah - File No. EB-01-DV-382

     8.   On August  14,  2001,  after sunset,  agents  from  the 
Commission's Denver,  Colorado Field  Office (``Denver  Office'') 
inspected an antenna  structure owned by  AT&T Wireless which  is 
located at  16400 South  1942 West  in Bluffdale,  Utah (ASR  No. 
1039565).  The agents observed that a side intermediate light  on 
the southwestern  side of  the tower  was flashing,  rather  than 
steady burning.  The FAA's  painting and lighting  specifications 
for the tower require that the side intermediate lights be steady 
burning.  On November 19, 2001,  the Denver Office issued an  NOV 
citing AT&T Wireless for failure to conform to the FAA's painting 
and lighting specifications for the tower in violation of Section 
17.23  of  the  Rules  and   failure  to  correct  the   improper 
functioning of  a  steady  burning  side  intermediate  light  in 
violation of Section 17.48(b) of the Rules.  In its December  20, 
2001, response to the  NOV, AT&T Wireless  confirmed that a  side 
intermediate light on the tower was flashing, rather than  steady 
burning as required.  

Tyler, Texas - File No. EB-01-DL-696

     9.   On August  15, 2001,  an  agent from  the  Commission's 
Dallas, Texas  Field  Office  (``Dallas  Office'')  inspected  an 
antenna structure located at 8562 County Road, Tyler, Texas.  The 
agent observed that there was no  ASR number posted at the  site.  
A  search  of  Commission  records  revealed  the  structure  was 
registered to AT&T Wireless (ASR  No. 1047254).  On November  15, 
2001, the Dallas Office  issued an NOV  citing AT&T Wireless  for 
failure to post the ASR number in a conspicuous place so that  it 
is readily visible  near the base  of the tower  in violation  of 
Section 17.4(g) of the Rules.  In its December 10, 2001, response 
to the NOV, AT&T  Wireless acknowledged that at  the time of  the 
inspection, the ASR number was not affixed to the tower.

Fellsmere, Florida - File No. EB-01-TP-502

     10.  On November  27,  2001, agents  from  the  Commission's 
Tampa, Florida  Field  Office  (``Tampa  Office'')  inspected  an 
antenna structure  located  on  County  Road  507  in  Fellsmere, 
Florida.  The agents observed that there was no ASR number posted 
at  the  site.   Subsequent  investigation  revealed  that   AT&T 
Wireless owned  the  structure but  had  not registered  it.   On 
December 21, 2001,  the Tampa  Office issued an  NOV citing  AT&T 
Wireless  for  failure  to  register  the  antenna  structure  in 
violation of Section 17.4(a)(2) of the Rules.  In its January  7, 
2002, response to the NOV, AT&T Wireless admitted that the  tower 
was not registered at the time of the inspection.

Malabar, Florida - File No. EB-01-TP-488

     11.  On November  27, 2001,  agents  from the  Tampa  Office 
inspected an  antenna structure  located on  County Road  507  in 
Malabar, Florida.   The agents  observed that  there was  no  ASR 
number posted  in  a conspicuous  place  so that  it  is  readily 
visible.  A  search  of  Commission  records  revealed  that  the 
structure was registered to AT&T Wireless (ASR No. 1028946).   On 
December 3,  2001, the  Tampa Office  issued an  NOV citing  AT&T 
Wireless for  failure to  post the  ASR number  in a  conspicuous 
place so that it is readily visible near the base of the tower in 
violation of Section 17.4(g) of  the Rules.  In its December  10, 
2001, response  to the  NOV, AT&T  Wireless stated  that the  ASR 
number was affixed to the tower, but acknowledged that it was not 
readily visible unless  you are in  the compound.  AT&T  Wireless 
indicated that it would  place a placard with  the ASR number  on 
the fence so that it is  visible at a location accessible to  the 
public within the next few days. 

Okeechobee, Florida - File No. EB-02-TP-012

     12.  On January  8, 2002,  an agent  from the  Tampa  Office 
inspected  an  antenna  structure  located  on  Highway  441   in 
Okeechobee, Florida.  The  agent observed that  there was no  ASR 
number posted  at  the  site.  A  search  of  Commission  records 
revealed that the structure was registered to AT&T Wireless  (ASR 
No. 1226262).  On January  14, 2002, the  Tampa Office issued  an 
NOV citing AT&T Wireless for failure to post the ASR number in  a 
conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base  of 
the tower in violation of Section  17.4(g) of the Rules.  In  its 
February 1, 2002, response to the NOV, AT&T Wireless acknowledged 
that at  the time  of  the inspection,  the  ASR number  was  not 
affixed to the tower.

Center Township, Pennsylvania - File No. EB-02-PA-043

     13.  On January 24, 2002, at approximately 9 a.m., an  agent 
from the Philadelphia Office inspected an antenna structure owned 
by  AT&T   Wireless  which   is  located   in  Center   Township, 
Pennsylvania (ASR  No. 1026350).   The  agent observed  that  the 
white obstruction lighting  on the tower  was not operating.   On 
January 31, 2002,  the Philadelphia Office  issued an NOV  citing 
AT&T Wireless for failure  to conform to  the FAA's painting  and 
lighting specifications  in violation  of  Section 17.23  of  the 
Rules.  In  its February  13,  2002, response  to the  NOV,  AT&T 
Wireless confirmed that the obstruction  lighting was out at  the 
time of the  inspection.  AT&T Wireless  stated that an  employee 
noticed the outage on  January 30, 2002  and discovered that  the 
automatic monitoring  system that  alerts  AT&T Wireless  when  a 
light is out did not  pick up the outage  because a relay on  the 
tower malfunctioned.  AT&T Wireless further stated that it opened 
a NOTAM the same day, and  that it repaired the light outage  and 
the malfunctioning relay on the following day and then closed the 
NOTAM.

Holly Hill, Florida - File No. EB-02-TP-054

     14.  On February 7,  2002, an  agent from  the Tampa  Office 
inspected an antenna  structure located at  112 Carswell  Avenue, 
Holly Hill, Florida at approximately 5 p.m.  The agent  inspected 
the antenna structure again at approximately 10 a.m. on  February 
8, 2002.  On both occasions, the agent observed that there was no 
ASR number  posted  at the  site  and that  the  red  obstruction 
lighting on the  tower was operating,  but the white  obstruction 
lighting  on  the  tower   was  not  in  operation.    Subsequent 
investigation revealed  that the  tower  was registered  to  AT&T 
Wireless (ASR No. 1203757), that the FAA's painting and  lighting 
specifications  for  the  tower   require  both  red  and   white 
obstruction lighting, and that there  was no NOTAM in effect  for 
the tower.  Thus, the Tampa  Office concluded that AT&T  Wireless 
has apparently failed  to post  the ASR number  in a  conspicuous 
place so that it is readily visible near the base of the tower in 
violation of Section 17.4(g) of  the Rules and failed to  exhibit 
the required white obstruction lighting on the tower in violation 
of Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.15  

                      III.      DISCUSSION

     15.  Based on  the evidence  before us,  we find  that  AT&T 
Wireless has apparently failed  to register an antenna  structure 
in one  instance in  willful16 violation  of Section  17.4(a)(2); 
failed to post an ASR number in a conspicuous location so that it 
is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure in four 
instances in  willful violation  of  Section 17.4(g);  failed  to 
comply with the FAA's painting and lighting specifications in one 
instance in  willful  violation  of Section  17.23;17  failed  to 
maintain good visibility of an antenna structure that is required 
to be painted in willful  violation of Section 17.50; and  failed 
to exhibit  the  required  obstruction lighting  on  its  antenna 
structure in  two  instances  in  willful  violation  of  Section 
17.51(b).18  The violations of Sections 17.23, 17.50 and 17.51(b) 
were also repeated in that they occurred on more than one  day.19  
We also  find  that AT&T  Wireless  has failed  to  maintain  the 
painting and lighting  of its antenna  structures as required  by 
our rules in willful and repeated violation of Section 303(q)  of 
the Act.

     16.  Section 503(b) of the  Act20 authorizes the  Commission 
to assess a forfeiture  for each violation of  the Act or of  any 
rule, regulation, or  order issued  by the  Commission under  the 
Act.  In exercising such authority,  we are to 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 such other matters 
as justice may require.''21

     17.  Pursuant  to   The   Commission's   Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement  and  Amendment  of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules   to 
Incorporate  the  Forfeiture   Guidelines  (``Forfeiture   Policy 
Statement''),22  and  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules,23  the  base 
forfeiture amount for failure to comply with prescribed  lighting 
and marking  requirements is  $10,000,  and the  base  forfeiture 
amount for failure to file  required forms or information  (e.g., 
failure to file  an antenna  registration form)  is $3,000.   The 
Forfeiture Policy Statement does not establish a base  forfeiture 
amount for  failure to  post the  antenna structure  registration 
number.24   The  Commission  has  determined,  however,  that  an 
appropriate base forfeiture  amount for failure  to post the  ASR 
number is $2,000 per violation.25  

     18.  Application of  the  base amounts  to  AT&T  Wireless's 
violations results in an  initial proposed forfeiture of  $10,000 
for each of the four instances of violations of the lighting  and 
marking rules, a forfeiture of $3,000 for the failure to register 
an antenna structure, and a forfeiture of $2,000 for each of  the 
four instances of violations of the ASR posting rules.  Thus, the 
total  base  forfeiture  amount   for  all  of  AT&T   Wireless's 
violations is $51,000. 

     19.  We are concerned, however, with the pattern of apparent 
violations here.  Unlit and improperly lit antenna structures can 
pose a  serious  threat  to air  safety.   Furthermore,  we  have 
previously stressed the  importance of full  compliance with  the 
antenna structure rules  because of the  potential danger to  air 
traffic safety,  including the  rules designed  to enable  us  to 
readily locate antenna structure owners.26

     20.  We  are  particularly   troubled  that  AT&T   Wireless 
continues to violate these rules despite a forfeiture  assessment 
just one year ago  for nine instances of  failure to comply  with 
the ASR posting  rules.  This  prior forfeiture  action put  AT&T 
Wireless on notice that the  Commission considers these types  of 
violations to  be serious  safety-related infractions,  yet  AT&T 
Wireless apparently failed to take  adequate steps to ensure  its 
future compliance in this  area.  AT&T Wireless's new  violations 
not only include  four new instances  of ASR posting  violations, 
but three  very  serious  violations  of  the  antenna  structure 
lighting rules.   AT&T Wireless's  continuing violations  of  the 
antenna structure requirements evince a pattern of non-compliance 
with and  apparent  disregard  for  these  safety-related  rules.  
Accordingly, we believe  a significant upward  adjustment of  the 
base forfeiture amount is  warranted.27  Applying the  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement and statutory factors (e.g., nature, extent  and 
gravity of the violation and the history of prior offenses)28  to 
the instant case, we  conclude that it  is appropriate to  triple 
the  base  forfeiture  amounts   for  AT&T  Wireless's   apparent 
violations.  Therefore, we find  AT&T Wireless apparently  liable 
for a forfeiture in the amount of $153,000. 

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     21.  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 one  hundred fifty three  thousand 
dollars ($153,000)  for willfully  violating Sections  17.4(a)(2) 
and 17.4(g) of the Rules  and willfully and repeatedly  violating 
Section 303(q) of the Act and Sections 17.23, 17.50 and  17.51(b) 
of the Rules.

     22.  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.

     23.  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. 200232940002 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 20554.29

     24.  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. 
200232940002.

     25.  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.

     26.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that  a copy of  this Notice  of 
Apparent Liability shall be sent by Certified Mail Return Receipt 
Requested to David  Jatlow, Vice  President, Regulatory  Affairs, 
AT&T Wireless Services,  Inc. at Fourth  Floor, 1150  Connecticut 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.




                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
                      SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
                 COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY


In re: SpectraSite Communications Inc. - Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture;  AT&T Wireless Services Inc. - Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 

     I support today's decisions to render substantial notices of 
apparent liability against wireless tower owners who have 
violated our tower marking and lighting requirements.  I write 
separately to call attention to the excellent and important work 
of our field offices in these stepped up enforcement efforts.

     Our field agents are our grass roots front line of defense 
against unlawful spectrum and tower safety practices.  As a 
federal regulatory agency, we necessarily operate with most of 
our personnel in Washington DC.  However, for most Americans, the 
FCC they see and hear and call upon for help work in the dozens 
of field offices the Commission operates around the country.  The 
Commission has unique responsibilities for enforcement of 
interference rules, tower safety, and unlicensed radio 
operations, among others.  These NALs are one indication of this 
important work.  In three regional offices and twenty five field 
offices round the country, 109 agents with extensive technical 
and enforcement expertise work tirelessly for a fraction of what 
they could earn in the private sector.  Since January 2001 in the 
tower safety area alone, field agents have been integral in 
issuing 37 Commission and/or Enforcement Bureau NALs, forfeiture 
orders and consent decrees totaling well over $600,000.  
Unfortunately, at times, the fine efforts of the field offices do 
not receive the recognition they deserve.  I write separately in 
an effort to close this gap.   

_________________________

1 47 U.S.C.  303(q) (Antenna structure owners shall maintain the 
painting and lighting of antenna structures as prescribed by  the 
Commission.)
2 47 C.F.R.  17.1 et seq.
3 47 C.F.R.  17.4(a)(2), 17.4(g), 17.23, 17.50 and 17.51(b).
4    See  6 and note 12, infra.
5 47 C.F.R.  17.21.
6 47 C.F.R.  17.4.
7 Antenna  structure owners  were required  to register  existing 
antenna structures during a  two-year filing period between  July 
1, 1996 and June 30, 1998, and to register new antenna structures 
prior to  construction.   Streamlining the  Commission's  Antenna 
Structure Clearance Procedure, 11 FCC Rcd 4272 (1995).
8  Subsequent  to  the  expiration  of  the  filing  period,  the 
Commission staff issued a Public Notice warning antenna structure 
owners to register any unregistered antenna structures subject to 
our  requirements   immediately   or   face   possible   monetary 
forfeitures  or   other  enforcement   action.   Public   Notice, 
``No?Tolerance   Policy   Adopted   for   Unregistered    Antenna 
Structures,'' 1999  WL 10060  (WTB rel.  January 13,  1999).   In 
addition, in June and July 1999, the Wireless  Telecommunications 
Bureau  sent  letters  to  licensees  informing  them  that   the 
Commission had no valid registration  for their antenna site  and 
that owners and, to  the extent they  were liable, tenants  could 
face  monetary   forfeitures   for   structures   that   remained 
unregistered.
9 47 C.F.R.  17.47.
10 47 C.F.R.  17.56.
11 47 C.F.R.  17.48.
12 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 814 (Enf. Bur. 2001), 
forfeiture ordered, 16 FCC Rcd 6805 (Enf. Bur. 2001).
13 See Public  Notice, Enforcement Bureau  Field Offices List  of 
Actions Taken, DA  01-1314 (rel.  May 31,  2001); Public  Notice, 
Enforcement Bureau Field  Offices List of  Actions Taken, DA  01-
1644 (rel.  July 12,  2001);  Public Notice,  Enforcement  Bureau 
Field Offices List of  Actions Taken, DA  01-1756 (rel. July  25, 
2001); Public Notice,  Enforcement Bureau Field  Offices List  of 
Actions Taken, DA  01-2948 (rel. December  21, 2001); and  Public 
Notice, Enforcement Bureau Field  Offices List of Actions  Taken, 
DA 02-197 (rel. January 28, 2002).
14  Because  the  violation  continued  until  the  painting  was 
completed in  June 2001,  the violation  is within  the  one-year 
statute of limitations.
15 The Tampa Office  had not yet issued  an NOV to AT&T  Wireless 
for these violations prior to issuance of this NAL.  
16 Section 312(f)(1)  of the  Act, 47 U.S.C.   312(f)(1),  which 
applies to violations  for which forfeitures  are assessed  under 
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term  `willful', 
when used with  reference to  the commission or  omission of  any 
act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision  of 
this Act ....''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6  FCC 
Rcd 4387 (1991).  
17 Although  in EB-01-DV-382,  the Denver  Office issued  an  NOV 
citing AT&T Wireless for violation of Sections 17.23 and 17.48(b) 
based on its observation  that a side  intermediate light on  the 
Bluffdale, Utah antenna structure was flashing rather than steady 
burning, we are not including  the violation of Section  17.48(b) 
as a separate  violation in  this NAL because  this violation  is 
encompassed in the violation of Section 17.23.  
18 We note that in  EB-01-PA-043, the Philadelphia Office  issued 
an NOV citing AT&T Wireless for violation of Section 17.23 of the 
Rules  based  on  its  observation  that  the  white  obstruction 
lighting  on  the  Center  Township  antenna  structure  was  not 
operating.  Although  Section  17.23 requires  antenna  structure 
owners  to   comply  with   the  FAA's   painting  and   lighting 
specifications and thus clearly covers the observed violation, we 
are citing AT&T  Wireless in  this NAL for  violation of  Section 
17.51(b), which explicitly requires  antenna structure owners  to 
exhibit all  high  intensity  and  medium  intensity  obstruction 
lighting continuously unless otherwise specified.  
19 The term ``repeated'' means  the commission or omission of  an 
act more than once.  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).
20 47 U.S.C.  503.
21 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
22 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
23 47 C.F.R  1.80.
24 The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify 
a base  amount 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 American Tower Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 1282 (2001) (``American 
Tower'').
26 Id. at 1282-85.
27 Cf.,  American Tower,  16  FCC Rcd  at 1285  (base  forfeiture 
amount doubled); TeleCorp Communications,  Inc., 16 FCC Rcd  805, 
807 (Enf. Bur. 2001) (base forfeiture amount doubled).
28 See also 47 C.F.R.  1.80, Note to paragraph (b)(4):   Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
29 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.