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                )            
                                )       
VoiceStream PCS I License L.L.C.)       File No. EB-02-KC-500
Owner of Antenna Structure #1226514  )
Near Davis City, Iowa           )       NAL/Acct.             No. 
200232560017
                                )
Bellevue, Washington            )       FRN 0001-5651-34         

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  June 30, 2003                 Released:  July 2, 2003

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

                                1.      In this Forfeiture  Order 
                                   (``Order''),   we   issue    a 
                                   monetary  forfeiture  in   the 
                                   amount   of   eight   thousand 
                                   dollars      ($8,000)       to 
                                   VoiceStream  PCS   I   License 
                                   L.L.C. (``VoiceStream''),  for 
                                   repeated violations of Section 
                                   17.51(b) of  the  Commission's 
                                   Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted 
                                   violation             involves 
                                   VoiceStream's    failure    to 
                                   continuously exhibit all  high 
                                   intensity and medium intensity 
                                   obstruction lighting. 

                                2.      On  July  24,  2002,  the 
                                   Commission's   Kansas    City, 
                                   Missouri,   District    Office 
                                   (``Kansas    City    Office'') 
                                   issued a  Notice  of  Apparent 
                                   Liability    for    Forfeiture 
                                   (``NAL'') to VoiceStream for a 
                                   forfeiture in  the  amount  of 
                                   ten      thousand      dollars 
                                   ($10,000).2  VoiceStream filed 
                                   its response  to  the  NAL  on 
                                   August 23, 2002.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

                                3.      On  June  24,  2002,   an 
                                   agent  from  the  Kansas  City 
                                   Office,    while    conducting 
                                   random   tower    inspections, 
                                   inspected an antenna structure 
                                   near   Davis    City,    Iowa.   
                                   During  the  inspection,   the 
                                   agent  determined   that   the 
                                   antenna  structure   did   not 
                                   exhibit all the required  high 
                                   intensity and medium intensity 
                                   obstruction   lighting.    The 
                                   agent noted  that  the  posted 
                                   antenna structure  number  was 
                                   1226514.

                                4.      The  agent  checked   the 
                                   Commission's           Antenna 
                                   Registration Data Base on June 
                                   27,  2002,   and  found   that 
                                   VoiceStream is the  registered 
                                   owner of  antenna structure  # 
                                   1226514 and that VoiceStream's 
                                   contact person is Dan  Menser, 
                                   Esq.  On  the same  date,  the 
                                   agent contacted Mr. Menser  by 
                                   telephone and  told him  about 
                                   the    outage    at    antenna 
                                   structure  #   1226514.    Mr. 
                                   Menser stated  that  he  would 
                                   check on the outage.

                                5.      The  agent  conducted   a 
                                   telephone interview  with  Mr. 
                                   Menser  on   July   2,   2002, 
                                   concerning   the   outage   at 
                                   antenna structure  #  1226514.   
                                   During   the   interview   Mr. 
                                   Menser   stated    that    the 
                                   photocell at antenna structure 
                                   #  1226514   became   damaged, 
                                   causing the  high  and  medium 
                                   intensity obstruction lighting 
                                   to become  inoperable and  the 
                                   red    obstruction    lighting 
                                   (required only from sunset  to 
                                   sunrise)  to  operate   during 
                                   both  daylight  and  nighttime 
                                   hours,  and  that  VoiceStream 
                                   repaired the photocell on June 
                                   29,  2002.  Mr.  Menser   also 
                                   stated  that  VoiceStream  did 
                                   not   notify    the    Federal 
                                   Aviation        Administration 
                                   (``FAA'') of the outage at any 
                                   time3 because ``the red lights 
                                   and  beacon  were  operational 
                                   and  .  .  .  no  alarms  were 
                                   received.''      After     the 
                                   interview, Mr. Menser e-mailed 
                                   a   copy   of    VoiceStream's 
                                   ``Monthly and Quarterly  Check 
                                   of  FAA   Lighting   and   FAA 
                                   Outages Log''  to  the  agent.  
                                   According   to    this    log, 
                                   VoiceStream    inspects    the 
                                   automated  alarm  system   for 
                                   antenna  structure  #  1226514 
                                   every   month   and   visually 
                                   checks  for  lighting  outages 
                                   every three  months.  The  log 
                                   indicates that the most recent 
                                   visual check  was on  May  30, 
                                   2002, and that the most recent 
                                   monthly  inspection   of   the 
                                   automatic  monitoring   system 
                                   was on June 18, 2002.

                                6.      On  July  24,  2002,  the 
                                   Kansas City  Office  issued  a 
                                   NAL for  a forfeiture  in  the 
                                   amount    of    $10,000     to 
                                   VoiceStream  for  willful  and 
                                   repeated      failure       to 
                                   continuously exhibit all  high 
                                   intensity and medium intensity 
                                   obstruction    lighting,    in 
                                   violation of Section  17.51(b) 
                                   of   the   Rules.    In    its 
                                   response,  filed  August   23, 
                                   2002,    VoiceStream     seeks 
                                   cancellation or mitigation  of 
                                   the    monetary    forfeiture.  
                                   Although  VoiceStream   admits 
                                   that   it   violated   Section 
                                   17.51(b), it contends that  it 
                                   did not  do  so  willfully  or 
                                   repeatedly.     In   addition, 
                                   VoiceStream asserts  that  the 
                                   violation   of   17.51(b)   is 
                                   mitigated  by  its  ``frequent 
                                   inspections   prior   to   the 
                                   single lighting  malfunction'' 
                                   and  ``implementing  a   swift 
                                   remedy''  and  by  its  having 
                                   ``not  experienced  a  similar 
                                   equipment failure or been  the 
                                   subject  of  a  violation   of 
                                   Commission Rules pertaining to 
                                   tower lighting.''

                      III.      DISCUSSION

                                7.      The forfeiture amount  in 
                                   this  case  was  assessed   in 
                                   accordance with Section 503(b) 
                                   of the  Communications Act  of 
                                   1934, as  amended  (``Act''),4 
                                   Section 1.80  of  the  Rules,5 
                                   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'').    In 
                                   examining        VoiceStream's 
                                   response,  Section  503(b)  of 
                                   the  Act  requires  that   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

                                8.      Section 17.51(b)  of  the 
                                   Rules provides  that all  high 
                                   intensity and medium intensity 
                                   obstruction lighting shall  be 
                                   exhibited continuously  unless 
                                   otherwise  specified.''     In 
                                   its  response   to  the   NAL, 
                                   VoiceStream admits it did  not 
                                   comply with  Section  17.51(b) 
                                   but  contends   that  it   not 
                                   violate    Section    17.51(b) 
                                   willfully or repeatedly.7  The 
                                   Commission    detected     the 
                                   lighting  outage  at   antenna 
                                   structure #  1226514  on  June 
                                   24,    2002.     The    outage 
                                   continued   until    it    was 
                                   corrected on June 29, 2002 - a 
                                   five day period.  A continuous 
                                   violation is  ``repeated''  if 
                                   it continues for more than one 
                                   day.8    We   conclude    that 
                                   VoiceStream         repeatedly 
                                   violated Section  17.51(b)  of 
                                   the Rules between June 24  and 
                                   29, 2002.

                                9.      Section 503(b) of the Act 
                                   gives the Commission authority 
                                   to assess a forfeiture penalty 
                                   against  any  person  if   the 
                                   Commission determines that the 
                                   person  has   ``willfully   or 
                                   repeatedly'' failed to  comply 
                                   with the provisions of the Act 
                                   or with  any rule,  regulation 
                                   or   order   issued   by   the 
                                   Commission.  In  light of  our 
                                   determination             that 
                                   VoiceStream's violations  were 
                                   repeated, it is not  necessary 
                                   to determine whether they were 
                                   also willful. 9

                                10.     No     mitigation      is 
                                   warranted  on  the  basis   of 
                                   VoiceStream's  correction   of 
                                   the   violation.     As    the 
                                   Commission stated  in  Seawest 
                                   Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 
                                   6099   (1994),    ``corrective 
                                   action  taken  to  come   into 
                                   compliance   with   Commission 
                                   rules or  policy is  expected, 
                                   and  does   not   nullify   or 
                                   mitigate any prior forfeitures 
                                   or violations.''10

                                11.     No     mitigation      is 
                                   warranted on  the  basis  that 
                                   VoiceStream     ``has      not 
                                   experienced     a      similar 
                                   equipment failure or been  the 
                                   subject  of  a  violation   of 
                                   Commission Rules pertaining to 
                                   tower lighting.''   To warrant 
                                   mitigation, VoiceStream  would 
                                   need  to  show  a  history  of 
                                   overall compliance - not  just 
                                   compliance  with   the   rules 
                                   pertaining to tower lighting - 
                                   and   it    is   clear    that 
                                   VoiceStream does  not  have  a 
                                   history of overall compliance. 
                                   11

                                12.     VoiceStream asserts  that 
                                   it   made   regular    monthly 
                                   inspections of  its  automatic 
                                   alarm  system   as   well   as 
                                   quarterly  visual  inspections 
                                   of   the    tower    lighting.  
                                   VoiceStream's   last    visual 
                                   check of the lighting prior to 
                                   the June  24-29, 2002,  outage 
                                   was on May  30, 2002, and  its 
                                   last monthly inspection of the 
                                   automatic  monitoring   system 
                                   was on June 18, 2002.12  Given 
                                   these circumstances,  we  find 
                                   that  that  forfeiture  amount 
                                   should be reduced to $8,000 on 
                                   the  basis  of   VoiceStream's 
                                   good faith13 efforts to comply 
                                   with   the   requirements   of 
                                   Section 17.51(b) of the Rules.

                                13.     We     have      examined 
                                   VoiceStream's response to  the 
                                   NAL pursuant to the  statutory 
                                   factors    above    and     in 
                                   conjunction  with  the  Policy 
                                   Statement  as   well.   As   a 
                                   result  of   our  review,   we 
                                   conclude   that    VoiceStream 
                                   repeatedly  violated   Section 
                                   17.51(b) of the Rules and find 
                                   that, while there is no  basis 
                                   for   cancellation   of    the 
                                   proposed monetary  forfeiture, 
                                   a  reduction   to  $8,000   is 
                                   warranted.

                        IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

                                14.     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   Rules,14 
                                   VoiceStream IS  LIABLE  FOR  A 
                                   MONETARY  FORFEITURE  in   the 
                                   amount   of   eight   thousand 
                                   dollars ($8,000)  for  failure 
                                   to  continuously  exhibit  all 
                                   high  intensity   and   medium 
                                   intensity          obstruction 
                                   lighting,     in      repeated 
                                   violation of Section  17.51(b) 
                                   of the Rules.

                                15.     Payment of the forfeiture 
                                   shall be  made in  the  manner 
                                   provided for  in Section  1.80 
                                   of the Rules 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.15   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  reference 
                                   NAL/Acct. No. 200232560017 and 
                                   FRN  0001-5651-34.    Requests 
                                   for  full  payment  under   an 
                                   installment  plan  should   be 
                                   sent to:  Chief,  Revenue  and 
                                   Receivables  Group,  445  12th 
                                   Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
                                   20554.16

                                16.     IT  IS  FURTHER   ORDERED 
                                   that  copies  of  this   Order 
                                   shall  be  sent  by  Certified 
                                   Mail Return Receipt  Requested 
                                   and by First Class Mail to Dan 
                                   Menser,    Senior    Corporate 
                                   Counsel  Regulatory   Affairs, 
                                   VoiceStream  PCS   I   License 
                                   L.L.C, 401 Ninth Street, N.W., 
                                   Suite  550,  Washington,  D.C. 
                                   20004.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         


                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  17.51(b).  

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200232560017 (Enf. Bur.,  Kansas City Office,  released July  24, 
2002).    

  3 The  owner of  any registered antenna  structure must  report 
immediately to the nearest flight service station of the FAA  any 
observed  or   otherwise   known   extinguishment   or   improper 
functioning of  any  flashing  obstruction  light  not  corrected 
within 30 minutes.  See 47 C.F.R.  17.48.

  4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  6 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  7  Although   VoiceStream  argues  that   its  tower   lighting 
violations were neither willful nor repeated, it provides nothing 
to support its claim that the violations were not repeated.

  8 See  47 U.S.C.  312(f)(2).

  9 Koke, Inc., 23 FCC 2d 191 (1970).

  10 See also Callais Cablevision, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 22626,  22629 
(2002); Radio Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973);  and 
Executive Broadcasting Corp., 3 FCC 2d 699, 700 (1966).

  11 See,  e.g., VoiceStream PCS License I  LLC, 16 FCC Rcd  7584 
(Enf. Bur. 2001) (forfeiture paid), which involved  VoiceStream's 
failure to post antenna structure registration numbers at  eleven 
antenna sites, in violation of 47 C.F.R.  17.4(g).   In the case 
cited by VoiceStream, USA  Tower, Inc., 16  FCC Rcd  13182  (Enf. 
Bur. 2001), the tower owner had a history of overall  compliance, 
which was the  basis for  the mitigating the  forfeiture in  that 
case.

  12  According  to  VoiceStream's  response  to  the  NAL,   its 
automatic alarm  system  failed  to detect  the  lighting  outage 
because of a design defect:   the system could be triggered  only 
by failure  of both  the high  and medium  intensity  obstruction 
lighting and the red obstruction  lighting.  In this case,  there 
was no  triggering because  only the  high and  medium  intensity 
obstruction lighting failed. 

  13  See   Section  1.80(b)(4)  of  the   Rules,  47  C.F.R.    
1.80(b)(4),  Guidelines  for  Assessing  Forfeitures,  Part   II, 
Adjustment  Criteria  for   Section  503  Forfeitures,   Downward 
Adjustment Criteria.

  14 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  15 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  16 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.