Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

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



   Before the

   Federal Communications Commission

   Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of )

   ) File No. EB-06-SE-344

   T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C. ) NAL/Acct. No. 200732100001

   ) FRN # 0004677209

                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted Date: October 19, 2006 Released Date: October 19, 2006

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. By this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C. ("T-Mobile"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
       T-Mobile USA, Inc., apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
       of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000) for constructing a facility
       before completing environmental review, in apparent willful violation
       of Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Under the Commission's rules implementing the National Environmental
       Policy Act of 1969, as amended, ("NEPA"), licensees, permittees and
       applicants (collectively, "licensees") are required to assess proposed
       facilities to determine whether the facilities may significantly
       affect the environment, as defined in Section 1.1307 of the Rules. For
       actions that may have significant environmental effects, licensees
       must prepare and submit to the Commission an Environmental Assessment
       and undergo environmental review and any mandatory consultation with
       expert agencies, prior to initiating construction. This includes
       actions for which no pre-construction authorization is otherwise
       required.

    3. Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules requires licensees to consider
       whether their proposed facilities would affect properties listed or
       eligible for listing ("historic properties") in the National Register
       of Historic Places ("National Register"). In considering potential
       effects on historic properties, Section 1.1307(a)(4) requires
       licensees to follow the prescribed procedures established by the
       Programmatic Agreements for collocated antennas and for historic
       preservation review. The Collocation and Nationwide Agreements are
       designed to tailor and streamline the review and consultation
       procedures required by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
       as amended ("NHPA"),  and the implementing regulations issued by the
       Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("Advisory Council").

    4. Specifically, the Collocation Agreement recognizes that installing or
       mounting antennas on existing buildings and other structures generally
       is environmentally preferable to and less likely to affect historic
       properties than the construction of new towers, and thus exempts
       certain collocated antennas from the historic preservation review and
       consultation procedures. The Collocation Agreement, however, does not
       exempt the collocation of antennas on buildings or other structures
       that "are over 45 years old." Because the collocation of antennas on
       such buildings or structures is not exempt, licensees must consider
       whether their actions may affect historic properties, in accordance
       with the streamlined review and consultation procedures set forth in
       the Nationwide Agreement, prior to initiating construction.

    5. The Nationwide Agreement requires licensees to: (i) determine the
       geographical areas of potential effects ("APE") for both direct and
       visual effects; (ii) identify historic properties within the
       applicable APE; and (iii) consider the effects a proposed facility may
       have on the identified properties. In the course of this process,
       licensees must, among other things, solicit the views of the State
       Historic Preservation Officer ("SHPO") and, if applicable, any Indian
       tribe or Native Hawaiian organization ("NHO") that may attach
       religious or cultural significance to potentially affected historic
       properties.

    6. Thus, under the Nationwide Agreement, licensees must identify the
       historic properties located within the APE that may be directly or
       visually affected by their proposed facility. The APE for direct
       effects is the area of potential ground disturbance and any property
       that will be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking; the
       "presumed APE" for visual effects is based on the height of the
       facility (i.e., the height of a mounted antenna and building, or the
       height of the tower). For a facility that is 200 feet or less in
       overall height, the presumed APE for visual effects is a half mile. To
       identify historic properties located within the APE for direct and
       visual effects ("nearby historic properties"), licensees must review
       certain records maintained by the appropriate SHPO and must gather
       information from interested Indian tribes and NHOs, and make
       additional reasonable good faith efforts at identification within the
       APE for direct effects. In the course of the identification and
       assessment process, licensees must also gather information from the
       local government and the general public. At the conclusion of this
       process, licensees must provide the SHPO and any interested consulting
       parties with Submission Packets ("Packets") detailing their proposals
       and explaining the effects, if any, their proposals may have on nearby
       historic properties. Licensees must provide the SHPO a 30-day period
       to review these Packets, during which other parties may submit
       comments.

    7. In cases where a licensee determines that its proposed facility will
       not involve  historic properties, and the SHPO concurs or does not
       respond within 30 days of receipt of the Packet, the environmental
       review process is deemed complete and the licensee may begin
       construction. In cases where a licensee determines that its proposed
       facility will have an effect on nearby historic properties, but that
       the effect is not adverse, and the SHPO does not respond within 30
       days of receipt of the Packet, the environmental review process is
       deemed complete and the licensee may begin construction after it
       provides the Commission with a copy of the Packet and allows for the
       prescribed period for Commission review. Finally, if the licensee or
       the SHPO determines that the proposed facility will have an adverse
       effect  on nearby historic properties, the licensee may not begin
       construction until the conclusion of a prescribed process to address
       and, if possible, mitigate the effects. If an Indian tribe or NHO
       disagrees with the licensee's determination or does not respond to
       contacts, the licensee must seek guidance from the Commission and
       cannot proceed without the Commission's concurrence.

    8. As a wireless licensee, T-Mobile is subject to the Commission's
       environmental rules, including the specific historic preservation
       review requirements. In 2005, T-Mobile proposed to collocate three
       cluster mounted antennas onto a mast attached to the bell tower roof
       of the Temple Ark of Salvation Church ("Temple Church") in
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, increasing the church's overall height
       from 55 feet to 67 feet. Because the church was over 45 years old,
       T-Mobile's proposed facility was not exempt under the Collocation
       Agreement. T-Mobile thus was required to consider the effects of its
       proposed facility on any historic properties located within the half
       mile APE, as well as the APE for direct effects, and comply with the
       procedures outlined in the Nationwide Agreement, before it initiated
       construction.

    9. To carry out its responsibilities under the Nationwide Agreement,
       T-Mobile retained environmental consultant URS Corporation ("URS").
       URS researched available records, conducted on-site field
       investigations, and ultimately determined that T-Mobile's proposed
       facility would not affect historic properties. Specifically, URS
       determined that the Temple Church was not a historic property (i.e.,
       was not eligible for listing on the National Register), and that the
       qualifying historic characteristics of two eligible railroad
       properties located within the half mile APE would not be altered by
       T-Mobile's proposed facility. On October 13, 2005, URS solicited the
       views of the local planning and the local historical agencies. In
       addition, on October 14, 2005, URS sought to identify interested
       Indian tribes and solicit their views by submitting the proposed
       church site to the Commission's Tower Construction Notification System
       ("TCNS"). The TCNS notification was sent to 17 federally-recognized
       Indian tribes that had identified the Philadelphia area as within
       their area of geographic preference and was also sent to 19 additional
       Indian tribes that had not yet specified their areas of geographic
       preference. URS did not, however, prepare and submit the required
       Packet (FCC Form 621) to the Pennsylvania SHPO at this time.

   10. On October 20, 2005, before any of the 17 federally-recognized Indian
       tribes that had identified the Philadelphia area as within their area
       of geographic preference had responded, and before URS submitted the
       Packet to the Pennsylvania SHPO, T-Mobile commenced construction at
       the church site. T-Mobile completed construction on November 9, 2005.

   11. T-Mobile later realized that its construction was premature, and
       through URS, advised the Pennsylvania SHPO on December 16, 2005, and
       the Commission staff on January 9, 2006. In February and March of
       2006, conferences calls were held between representatives of T-Mobile,
       URS, the Pennsylvania SHPO and the Commission staff to address
       historic preservation concerns. On March 23, 2006, URS submitted to
       the Pennsylvania SHPO a Packet (FCC Form 621) and a Historical
       Resources Survey Form ("HRSF"). The documentation determined that
       T-Mobile's facility did not directly affect historic properties
       because the Temple Church was not eligible for listing in the National
       Register, and did not indirectly (visually) affect the eligible
       railroad properties located within the APE because it did not alter
       their qualifying characteristics for inclusion in the National
       Register. On May 10, 2006, the Pennsylvania SHPO concurred, finding
       that T-Mobile's facility "would have no effect on historic
       properties."

   12. Regarding the tribal notifications, on October 21, 2005, URS received
       automatic, computer-generated responses via TCNS from five Indian
       tribes indicating that there was no need for consultation on the
       Temple Church site. On December 16, 2005, after two unsuccessful
       attempts by URS to contact the Tuscarora Nation, URS referred the site
       to the Commission staff for follow-up contact. Accordingly, on
       December 21, 2005, the Commission staff sent a letter to the Tuscarora
       Nation giving it a final 20-day period to indicate an interest in the
       site. This 20-day period expired without any response from the
       Tuscarora Nation.

   13. On August 4, 2006, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB") sent
       T-Mobile a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI"). In its response to the LOI,
       T-Mobile acknowledges that it erred in constructing the facility at
       the church site before completing the historic preservation review
       requirements. According to T-Mobile, the error occurred with its
       "Philadelphia and Central Pennsylvania markets internal record keeping
       procedures," when one of its employees "inadvertently issued
       directions to start construction" before the historic preservation
       review process was completed. T-Mobile states that, after the company
       realized its error, it contacted appropriate state and federal
       agencies, completed the required documentation, and provided further
       environmental training for its staff. After receiving T-Mobile's LOI
       response, the WTB referred the matter to the Enforcement Bureau for
       possible enforcement action.

   III. DISCUSSION

   14. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 as
       amended ("Act"), and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, any person who
       is determined by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed
       to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or
       order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States
       for a forfeiture penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
       Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, and the person
       against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
       show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed.
       The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a
       preponderance of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or
       a Commission rule.

   15. The record establishes that T-Mobile commenced and completed
       construction at the Temple Church site prior to submission of the
       required Packet to the Pennsylvania SHPO and receiving the
       recommendation of the Pennsylvania SHPO. The record also establishes
       that T-Mobile commenced and completed construction at the Temple
       Church site prior to receiving responses from interested Indian tribes
       or obtaining Commission guidance. Thus, we find that T-Mobile
       commenced and completed construction at the church site prior to
       concluding the historic preservation review process in apparent
       willful violation of Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules. Based on our
       finding, and consistent with Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act and
       Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules, we find it appropriate to propose a
       forfeiture penalty against T-Mobile.

   16. Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess
       forfeitures against common carriers of up to $130,000 for each
       violation, or each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of
       $1.325 million for a single act or failure to act. In determining the
       appropriate forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs
       the Commission to consider "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."

   17. The Commission has established base forfeiture amounts for certain
       violations, but has not specified a base forfeiture amount for
       constructing a facility prior to completing historic preservation or
       other environmental reviews required under Section 1.1307(a) of the
       Rules. Nevertheless, the Commission has stated that "any omission of a
       specific rule violation from the list ... [establishing base
       forfeiture amounts] should not signal that the Commission considers
       any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant. The Commission
       expects, and it is each licensee's obligation to know and comply with
       all Commission's rules." Thus, the Commission retains its discretion
       to issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis. Having considered the
       statutory factors and as explained below, we propose a base forfeiture
       amount of $7,000.

   18. In determining the appropriate base forfeiture amount, we consider the
       nature of the T-Mobile's violations. The Commission has long required
       licensees to submit environmental assessments, perform environmental
       review and obtain Commission approval before they construct facilities
       that may have a significant effect on the environment, including
       historic properties. The Commission has explained that any
       construction delay resulting from requiring pre-construction
       environmental review "is more than offset by the public interest
       benefits of ensuring, in compliance with Federal environmental
       statutes, that no potentially irreversible harms to the environment
       occurs." We also note that the Commission has determined that $10,000
       is the appropriate base forfeiture amount for violations of other
       environmental rules, specifically, the radio frequency radiation
       exposure limits set forth in Section 1.1307(b), notwithstanding the
       absence of an established base forfeiture amount in the rules. While
       we think that failure to comply with Section 1.1307(a)(4) is a serious
       violation and may have a significant effect on historic properties,
       such violations do not potentially jeopardize public health and
       safety, as do violations of the radio frequency radiation exposure
       limits. We thus find that a lower base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is
       appropriate for violations of the historic preservation review
       requirements of Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules.

   19. This $7,000 base forfeiture amount is subject to adjustment, however.
       In this regard, we consider T-Mobile's size and ability to pay a
       forfeiture. To ensure that forfeiture liability is a deterrent, and
       not simply a cost of doing business, the Commission has determined
       that large or highly profitable companies, such as T-Mobile, could
       expect the assessment of higher forfeitures for violations. Given
       T-Mobile's size and ability to pay a forfeiture, we conclude that an
       upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount to $14,000 is
       appropriate. We do not believe that T-Mobile is entitled to any
       mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount because its employee
       mistakenly authorized construction before the historic preservation
       review was concluded. It is well established that licensees are
       responsible, and subject to forfeiture liability, for violations
       caused by their employees' actions. We find, however, that T-Mobile is
       entitled to a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture based on
       its voluntary disclosures to Commission staff, and prompt efforts to
       address historic preservation concerns by consulting with the
       Pennsylvania SHPO and Commission staff, prior to the Commission's
       initiation of an investigation. Accordingly, consistent with
       precedent, we reduce the proposed forfeiture amount from $14,000 to
       $11,000.

   IV. CONCLUSION

   20. We propose a forfeiture of $11,000 against T-Mobile for its failure to
       comply with the historic preservation review requirements prior to
       constructing its facility in apparent willful violation of Section
       1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   21. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C., IS
       hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the
       amount of $11,000 for its apparent willful violation of Section
       1.1307(a)(4) 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 for Forfeiture, T-Mobile Northeast, L.L.C., 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 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. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
       by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
       Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
       Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
       15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
       receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for
       payment of the full amount of the NAL under an installment plan should
       be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445
       12^th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

   24. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   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 principles; 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
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to Shannon Reilly Kraus, Esq., T-Mobile USA,
       Inc., 129290 SE 38^th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307(a)(4).

   42 U.S.C. SS 4321-4335.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1307.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1311.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1308.

   47 C.F.R. S 1.1312.

   See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Programmatic
   Agreement with respect to Collocating Wireless Antennas on Existing
   Structures, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 5574 (WTB 2001), recon. denied, 20
   FCC Rcd 4084 (WTB 2005) ("Collocation Agreement").

   See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National
   Historic Preservation Act Review Process, Report and Order, WT Docket No.
   03-128, 20 FCC Rcd 1073 (2004), clarified, 20 FCC Rcd 17995 (2005), aff'd,
   CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n. v. FCC, No. 05-1008 (D.C. Cir. September 26,
   2006) ("Nationwide Agreement").

   Section 1.1307(a)(4) of the Rules incorporates by reference the
   Collocation Agreement and the Nationwide Agreement.

   16 U.S.C. S 470 et seq. The NHPA requires that a federal agency consider
   the effects of its federal undertakings, including actions that it
   authorizes or approves, on historic properties prior to issuing federal
   licenses, permits or approvals. See 16 U.S.C. SS 470f, 470w(7). In
   considering such effects, the NHPA further requires the federal agency to
   consider the views of expert agencies. Specifically, the NHPA requires the
   federal agency to consider the views of the Advisory Council on Historic
   Preservation, the agency tasked with the responsibility for implementing
   the NHPA, the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, and, if
   affected historic properties are of religious or cultural significance to
   Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, their representatives. See
   16 U.S.C. SS 470a(a)(3), (d)(6)(B), 470f, 470i. Consistent with the
   Advisory Council's regulations, the Commission's environmental rules
   delegate the task of identification and consideration of the effects that
   proposed facilities may have on historic properties, including the
   initiation of consultation, to its licensees, permittees and applicants,
   but the Commission remains ultimately responsible. See 47 C.F.R. S
   1.1307(a)(4); see also 36 C.F.R. S 800.2(a)(3); Nationwide Agreement, 20
   FCC Rcd at 1076-77 P 5.

   See 36 C.F.R. S 800.1 et seq. Under the NHPA and the Advisory Council's
   implementing regulations, a federal agency may, with the agreement of the
   Advisory Council and the relevant State Historic Preservation Officer or
   the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, adopt
   Programmatic Agreements to tailor the historic preservation review and
   consultation procedures, as well as exempt actions, that are unlikely to
   affect historic properties. See 16 U.S.C. S 470v; 36 C.F.R. S
   800.14(b),(c).

   See Collocation Agreement, 16 FCC Rcd at 5575, Appendix A.

   Id. at 5578-79, Appendix A, Section V. Also, under the Collocation
   Agreement, a collocated antenna on a non-tower structure is not exempt
   from historic preservation review and consultation procedures if: (i) the
   building or structure is a designated National Historic Landmark or is
   located within or near a historic district, or (ii) the collocation is
   subject to a substantiated complaint regarding its effect on one or more
   historic properties.

   See Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1144, Appendix B, Section I. C.

   The requirements of the Nationwide Agreement apply to Commission
   licensees, permittees, registration holders, and applicants or prospective
   applicants for a wireless or broadcast license, authorization or antenna
   structure registration. See Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1145,
   Appendix B, Section II. A. 2.

   "APE" refers to the geographic area within which a proposed communication
   facility "may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or
   use" of historic properties. Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1145,
   Appendix B, Section II. A. 3.

   Id. at 1156, Appendix B, Sections VI. C. 2; VI. C. 4.

   Id. at 1156, Appendix B, Section VI. C. 4. a.

   Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1156-1158, Appendix B, Section VI. D.
   The Nationwide Agreement requires licensees to use "reasonable and good
   faith efforts" to identify any Indian tribe or NHO that "may attach
   religious or cultural significance" to the nearby historic properties. Id.
   at 1149-50, Appendix B, Section IV B. Such efforts may include reference
   to the Commission's Tower Construction Notification System through which
   such tribes and organizations register geographical areas that encompass
   significant religious or cultural historic properties of interest. Id. See
   also generally Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally
   Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations under the
   Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd 17955
   (2005) ("Declaratory Ruling").

   See Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1153-1154, Appendix B, Section V.
   Notice to the public may be accomplished through local zoning or historic
   preservation review proceedings.

   Id. at 1160, Appendix B, Section VII A. 1. The Nationwide Agreement
   attaches standardized Packets for collocated antenna construction (FCC
   Form 621) and for new tower construction (FCC Form 620). See Nationwide
   Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1180-1201, Appendix B, Attachments 3 and 4.

   Id. at 1160-61, Appendix B, Section VII. A. 2-4.

   A no effect determination signifies that there are no historic properties
   within the APE, or that there are such properties but the proposed
   facility will not alter their qualifying historic character. See
   Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1161, Appendix B, Section VII. B. 1.

   Id. at 1161, Appendix B, Section VII. B. 1 and 2.

   Id. at 1162, Appendix B, Section VII. C. 2. In cases where the SHPO
   affirmatively concurs with a licensee's determination of no adverse
   effect, the process is complete and the licensee may proceed without any
   submission to the Commission. Id. at 1161-62, Appendix B, Section VII C.1.

   Id. at 1162-63, Appendix B, Section VII. C. 3-6 and D. The NHPA
   establishes a procedural scheme whereby effects on historic properties
   must be considered prior to federal licensing; it does not preclude
   federally licensed actions that alter or impair historic properties. See
   16 U.S.C. S 470f; see also National Mining Ass'n v. Fowler, 324 F.3d 752,
   755 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (noting that the NHPA does not impose substantive
   standards on federal agencies; it only requires federal agencies to
   solicit the Advisory Council's views and take into account the effects of
   its licensed actions on historic properties); Davis v. Latscher, 202 F.3d
   359, 368-69 (D.C. Cir. 2000); City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F. 3d862,
   871 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied sub nom., 531 U.S. 820 (2000) (finding
   that the NHPA is a procedural not a substantive statute and thus does not
   bar federally authorized projects that significantly or adversely affect
   historic properties, it only requires that federal agencies consider such
   effects in their decision making); Amendment of Environmental Rules in
   Response to New Regulations Issued by the Council on Environmental
   Quality, Order, 60 RR 2d 13, 16 PP 7-8, n. 12 (1986) (noting that the
   Commission may authorize actions that adversely affect the environment,
   where it concludes that "the public benefits outweigh the environmental
   consequences").

   Nationwide Agreement, 20 FCC Rcd at 1152, Appendix B, Section IV. G.

   The church, formerly the 6th German Evangelical Church, was built in 1898.

   See Letter from Zana C. Wolf, Architectural Historian, URS Corporation, to
   Philadelphia City Planning Commission (October 13, 2005); Letter from Zana
   C. Wolf, Architectural Historian, URS Corporation, to Philadelphia
   Historical Commission (October 13, 2005). In September of 2005, prior to
   the issuance of these requests, T-Mobile applied for and was granted
   zoning and building permits from the City of Philadelphia Department of
   Licenses. See supra n. 20 and accompanying text (regarding local
   involvement).

   Specifically, the HRSF found that the church was not eligible because its
   gothic revival architecture was common, its integrity was compromised by
   modern additions, and it lacked association with significant historic
   persons or events.

   See Letter from Andres MacDonald, Chief, Division of Preservation
   Services, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission to Stephen W.
   Tull, URS Corporation (May 10, 2006).

   On October 27, 2005, one of these five tribes, the Shawnee Tribe, replied
   to URS stating, in contradiction of the earlier automatic message, that it
   did wish to be consulted on this site. There is nothing in the record to
   indicate that URS or T-Mobile initiated any further contact with the
   Shawnee Tribe as a result of this request for consultation.

   In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarified that once an applicant
   has made two good faith efforts over 40 days to obtain a response from an
   Indian tribe or NHO as specified in the Nationwide Agreement, the
   Commission upon notice will send a letter or email to the Indian tribe or
   NHO seeking an indication of the Indian tribe's or NHO's interest in
   participating in review of the proposed construction. If the Indian tribe
   or NHO does not respond within 20 days, it will be deemed to have no
   interest in pre-construction review, and the applicant's obligations with
   respect to that Indian tribe or NHO under the Nationwide Agreement are
   complete. Declaratory Ruling, 20 FCC Rcd at 16092.

   See Letter from Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, NEPA Adjudications, Spectrum
   Competition and Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission, to Shannon Reilly Kraus, Corporate
   Counsel, T-Mobile USA, Inc.  (August 4, 2006). The LOI was sent to
   T-Mobile's parent company, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and its parent company
   responded. See infra n. 35.

   See Letter from Shannon Reilly Kraus, Corporate Counsel, T-Mobile USA,
   Inc., to Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, NEPA Adjudications, Spectrum
   Competition and Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission (August 31, 2006) ("Response").

   Id. at 5.

   Id.

   Id. at 5, and Exhibits 6-7.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B) and 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(4); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591, P 4 (2002).

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
   deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
   to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful
   applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765,
   97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the
   term in the Section 503(b) context. See, e.g., Southern California
   Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) ("Southern California").
   Because T-Mobile consciously and deliberately constructed its facility at
   the church site, its failure to comply with the environmental review
   requirements was willful. Its claim of inadvertent mistake is not a
   mitigating factor and does not negate a finding of willfulness. See Emery
   Telephone, 13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23859 PP 11-12 (1998), recon. dismissed in
   part and den'd in part, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999); PJB Communications of
   Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088 P 5 (1992); Bureau D'Electronique
   Appliquee, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 17893, 17896 PP 9-12 (Enf. Bur. 2005); Eure
   Family Ltd. Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 7042, 7043 PP 5-7 (Enf. Bur. 2002).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(B). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima forfeiture
   amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
   contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S
   2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221
   (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $100,000/$1,000,000
   to $120,000/$1,200,000); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's
   Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd
   10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
   $120,000/$1,200,000 to $130,000/$1,325,000); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c).

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

   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, 17113-15 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
   Policy Statement"); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099 P 22.

   Id.

   See Amendment of Environmental Rules, First Report and Order, Gen. Docket
   No. 88-387, 5 FCC Rcd 2942, 2294 Appendix 3. (1990) (amending Section
   1.1312 of the environmental rules to require that facilities, which are
   subject to geographic blanket licenses and which may affect the
   environment, be evaluated and approved "prior to the initiation of
   construction of the facility") ("First Report"), modified, Second Report
   and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1716 (1991) (further amending the rules to require
   the facilities of non-dominant common carriers be subject to the same
   pre-construction environmental review as wireless carriers that operate
   under geographic blanket licenses).

   First Report, 5 FCC Rcd at 2943 P 11.

   See A-O Broadcasting Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd 24184, 24190 P 22 (2002),
   forfeiture ordered, 31 Communications Reg. (P&F) 411 (2003), recon.
   denied, 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005) (determining that the $10,000 base
   forfeiture amount established for antenna lighting and other safety
   violations should apply to violations of Section 1.1307(b) violation,
   given the serious and "public safety nature" of the radio frequency
   radiation maximum exposure limits); see also Americom Las Vegas Limited
   Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 23689, 23694 P 19 (Enf. Bur. 2002), forfeiture
   ordered, 19 FCC Rcd 9643 (Enf. Bur. 2003), review pending.

   T-Mobile's parent company, T-Mobile USA, Inc., recently reported that in
   2005, it passed the 20 million customer mark and had total revenues of
   approximately $14.8 billion. See Press Release, T-Mobile USA Reports
   Record Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2005 Results (March 2, 2006).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100; see also SBC
   Communications, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 19370, 19372 PP 9-12 (Enf. Bur. 2001),
   forfeiture ordered, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599 P 23 (2002) (increasing the
   $3,000 base forfeiture amount to $100,000, based on a finding that the
   carrier had the ability to pay and that its failure to file required
   information was egregious and intentional). We find that T-Mobile's
   violation was willful, but not egregious or intentional. See supra n. 42.
   Nevertheless, because T-Mobile's revenues, like SBC's, are substantial,
   the forfeiture amount must be higher to serve a deterrent effect.

   See supra n. 42 (noting that inadvertent mistakes are not mitigating
   circumstances and do not negate findings of willfulness).

   See Bay Television, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 11509, 11510-11 P 9 (1995);
   Sonderling Broadcasting Corp., 69 FCC Rcd 289, 290-291 P 6 (1977);
   Wagenvoord Broadcasting Co., 35 FCC 2d 361, 361-62 P 3 (1972); Eure Family
   Lmtd. Partnership, 17 FCC Rcd 21861, 21863-64 PP 6-7 (Enf. Bur. 2002);
   American Paging, Inc., 12 FCC 10417, 10419-20 P 11 (WTB 1997).

   See Local Phone Services, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 9974 P 117 (2006) Emery
   Telephone, 13 FCC Rcd at 23858 PP 5, 10; Victoria Cellular Corp., 7 FCC
   Rcd 7853, 7854 PP 10-11 (1992); American Family Ass'n, 17 FCC Rcd 18135,
   18137 P 10 (Enf. Bur. 2002), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 2413 (Enf. Bur.
   2003).

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Id.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued...)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2065

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-2065