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
                                )


                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  October 29, 2002              Released:  October 31, 
2002

By the Commission:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  assess  a 
forfeiture in  the  amount  of  one  hundred  seventeen  thousand 
dollars ($117,000) against AT&T  Wireless Services, Inc.  (``AT&T 
Wireless'') for  seven  willful  and/or  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  The noted violations involve AT&T Wireless's  failure 
on one  occasion to  register an  existing antenna  structure  in 
willful  violation  of  Section  17.4(a)(2);  failure  on   three 
occasions to post  the Antenna  Structure Registration  (``ASR'') 
number in a conspicuous location so  that it is visible near  the 
base of the  antenna structure  in willful  violation of  Section 
17.4(g); failure on one occasion  to maintain good visibility  of 
antenna structures that are required to be painted in willful and 
repeated violation of Section 17.50; and failure on two occasions 
to maintain  the  required  obstruction lighting  on  an  antenna 
structure in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.51(b).3  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   The  Commission's   antenna   structure   construction, 
marking and lighting requirements operate in concert with Federal 
Aviation Administration  (``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.4  We also require antenna structure owners  to 
register such antenna structures with the Commission and post ASR 
numbers at  the base  of  antenna structures  to allow  for  easy 
contact if problems  arise.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.6   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.7  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.8  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.

     3.   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.    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, 2001,9 which AT&T Wireless paid in full on April 16, 2001.  

     4.   Subsequently,  in   the  course   of  further   routine 
inspections and investigations, Commission field agents uncovered 
a significant  number  of  new  violations  of  the  Commission's 
antenna structure rules by AT&T  Wireless.10  On April 25,  2002, 
the  Commission  issued  a  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability   for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'') finding AT&T Wireless apparently liable  for 
a $153,000 forfeiture for nine apparent violations of the antenna 
structure rules:   one failure  to register  an existing  antenna 
structure (Section  17.4(a)(2)); four  failures to  post the  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  FAA's painting and  lighting specifications  for 
antenna structures  (Section 17.23);11  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)).12  The  total  base  forfeiture amount  for  the  nine 
violations  was  $51,000.   However,  the  Commission   expressed 
concern that  AT&T  Wireless  continued to  violate  the  antenna 
structure rules despite a forfeiture assessment one year  earlier 
for nine  instances of  failure to  comply with  the ASR  posting 
rules and  found  that  these  continuing  violations  evinced  a 
pattern  of  non-compliance  and  apparent  disregard  for  these 
safety-related rules.  The Commission therefore concluded that  a 
significant upward adjustment of  the base forfeiture amount  was 
warranted  and  tripled  the  base  forfeiture  amount  for  AT&T 
Wireless's apparent violations from $51,000 to $153,000.  

     5.   AT&T Wireless filed a  response to the  NAL on May  28, 
2002.  In its  response, AT&T Wireless  disputes that  violations 
occurred in many of the instances  cited in the NAL and  requests 
that the Commission  reduce the total  base forfeiture amount  to 
$6,500.  AT&T Wireless also argues that the Commission's decision 
in the NAL  to triple  the aggregate base  forfeiture amount  was 
unwarranted.

                        III.  DISCUSSION

     6.   The  proposed  forfeiture  amount  in  this  case   was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,13  Section 
1.80 of  the  Rules,14  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).   In  examining  AT&T 
Wireless's response  to  the  NAL,  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.15   The Commission will  issue a  forfeiture 
order if it finds  by a preponderance of  the evidence that  AT&T 
Wireless has violated the  Act or the Rules.16   As set forth  in 
detail below,  we conclude  that, based  on this  standard,  AT&T 
Wireless is subject to a forfeiture. 

A.  AT&T Wireless's Challenges to Violations

     7.   AT&T Wireless disputes a number of the violations cited 
in the NAL.  We address AT&T Wireless's arguments with respect to 
the specific violations in turn below.  

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

     8.   On January  24, 2002,  an agent  from the  Commission's 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Field Office (``Philadephia  Office'') 
inspected a Center Township, Pennsylvania antenna structure owned 
by AT&T Wireless (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 a  Notice  of 
Violation (``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 
called the FAA to open 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.  In the NAL, the Commission  cited 
AT&T Wireless  for  apparently  failing  to  exhibit  obstruction 
lighting on its Center Township tower continuously in willful and 
repeated violation of Section 17.51(b)  and, prior to the  upward 
adjustment, proposed a $10,000 forfeiture for this violation.17

     9.   In its response to the  NAL, AT&T Wireless argues  that 
it does not believe that it violated the tower lighting rules  at 
the Center Township site and that the proposed forfeiture  should 
therefore be cancelled.  AT&T Wireless asserts that a conflict in 
the rules  places  antenna  structure owners  in  a  ``Catch-22'' 
situation because Section 17.51(b) requires continuous  operation 
of obstruction  lights, while  Section 17.47(a)  recognizes  that 
lights will sometimes malfunction  and therefore requires  either 
daily observation  of the  lights or  use of  an automatic  alarm 
system.  In  addition, AT&T  Wireless  asserts that  it  complied 
fully with the tower lighting requirements but could not  prevent 
the brief light outage.  Specifically, AT&T Wireless states  that 
it installed an automatic alarm  system, but this system did  not 
pick up the  light outage because  there was a  malfunction in  a 
relay on the tower  that causes alarms to  be transmitted to  the 
local switch  and  to  its national  network  operations  center.  
Further, AT&T Wireless states that it inspected the tower and the 
alarm system ``regularly.''   AT&T Wireless also  states that  an 
AT&T Wireless employee  noticed the outage  on January 30,  2002, 
the day before the NOV was  issued, and took steps to remedy  the 
outage within one day.  

     10.  We find no  merit in AT&T  Wireless's arguments.   AT&T 
Wireless's bare assertion that it  inspected the tower and  alarm 
system ``regularly,'' without  more specific evidence  of such  a 
practice, is insufficient  to establish its  compliance with  the 
tower lighting requirements.  Accordingly, we conclude that  AT&T 
Wireless willfully and  repeatedly violated  Section 17.51(b)  by 
failing to  exhibit  white  obstruction lighting  on  its  Center 
Township towers and that AT&T Wireless has presented no basis for 
canceling or reducing the $10,000 forfeiture proposed in the  NAL 
for this violation.  

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

     11.  On September 15, 2000, agents from the Commission's San 
Francisco, California  Field  Office (``San  Francisco  Office'') 
inspected a Woodland, California antenna structure owned by  AT&T 
Wireless (ASR  No. 1014047).   The agents  observed that  coaxial 
cable on two sides  of the tower reduced  good visibility 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.  In  the NAL, the  Commission cited AT&T  Wireless 
for  apparently  failing  to  maintain  good  visibility  of  the 
Woodland tower in willful and repeated violation of Section 17.50 
and,  prior  to  the   upward  adjustment,  proposed  a   $10,000 
forfeiture for this violation.

     12.  In its  response to  the NAL,  AT&T Wireless  does  not 
dispute that it  violated Section 17.50.   However, it  disagrees 
with the Commission's conclusion in  the NAL that this  violation 
falls within  the  one-year  statute of  limitations  in  Section 
503(b)(6)(B)  of  the  Act.18   AT&T  Wireless  states  that  the 
Commission became aware of the  presence of the coaxial cable  on 
the tower when it inspected the tower on September 15, 2000,  yet 
it did not commence forfeiture proceedings until April 25,  2002.  
The Commission  nevertheless  determined  in  the  NAL  that  the 
violation of Section  17.50 was  within the  one-year statute  of 
limitations because the violation continued until the painting of 
the coaxial  cable was  completed in  June 2001.   AT&T  Wireless 
acknowledges that the statute of limitations accrues at the  time 
of the violation, as opposed to when the agency has knowledge  of 
the violation.  Furthermore, AT&T Wireless does not dispute  that 
this  violation  was  continuing.   Nevertheless,  AT&T  Wireless 
maintains  that  the  Commission's  view  that  the  statute   of 
limitations is satisfied in this  case because the violation  was 
continuing  undermines  Congress's   objective  in   establishing 
deadlines for regulatory enforcement  action.  We disagree.   The 
underlying objective of the statute of limitations - to protect a 
person from liability for stale claims - is not implicated where, 
as here, a violation is continuing.  

     13.  AT&T Wireless also argues that a $10,000 forfeiture  is 
excessive in  this situation.    In  this regard,  AT&T  Wireless 
asserts the  tower  itself was  painted  in aviation  orange  and 
white, that it does not believe that the unpainted coaxial  cable 
severely reduced the tower's visibility, and that it is  unlikely 
that the Field Office would have waited nine months to alert AT&T 
Wireless to the problem  if the unpainted  cable truly created  a 
safety hazard.  Additionally, AT&T Wireless states that it  acted 
promptly when it received the NOV  to have the cables painted  in 
less than three  weeks.  AT&T Wireless  further asserts that  the 
Commission's rules establish $10,000 as the fine for ``failure to 
comply with prescribed lighting or marking'' and that this amount 
would therefore  be imposed  when an  owner failed  to paint  its 
tower altogether  or  otherwise  created a  true  hazard  to  air 
safety.  AT&T Wireless  states that there  is no indication  that 
air safety was ever compromised  by the unpainted cable and  that 
the $10,000 forfeiture  proposed in the  NAL should therefore  be 
cancelled. 

     14.  Since AT&T  Wireless does  not  deny that  the  coaxial 
cable on its Woodland  tower was not  painted from September  15, 
2000 until  June 29,  2001,  we conclude  that it  willfully  and 
repeatedly violated  Section 17.50  of the  Rules by  failing  to 
maintain good visibility  of the  tower.  We  disagree with  AT&T 
Wireless's argument that a $10,000 forfeiture for this  violation 
is excessive.   The fact  that the  tower itself  was painted  in 
aviation orange  and  white  does not  mitigate  this  violation.  
Three agents from the San Francisco Office observed the tower and 
determined that the coaxial cable obscured good visibility of the 
tower.  Moreover, while  it would  have been  preferable for  the 
Field Office to have taken action here more promptly, it is  AT&T 
Wireless's responsibility as  a tower  owner to  ensure that  its 
towers comply  with  the  painting  requirements  and  avoid  the 
continuing  violation  that  occurred.   We  also  think  it   is 
irrelevant that  there  is  no indication  that  air  safety  was 
actually compromised  by  the  unpainted  cable.   The  potential 
hazard to air navigation presented by the unpainted cable  raises 
serious safety of life concerns justifying a $10,000  forfeiture.  
Finally,  AT&T  Wireless's  remedial   actions  to  correct   the 
violation are not a mitigating factor.19  

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

     15.  On February 7, 2002, and again on February 8, 2002,  an 
agent from the Commission's Tampa, Florida Field Office  (``Tampa 
Office'') inspected a Holly Hill, Florida antenna structure.   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.  In the NAL, the Commission 
cited AT&T Wireless for apparently failing to post the ASR number 
in a conspicuous  place so that  it is readily  visible near  the 
base of the tower in willful violation of Section 17.4(g) of  the 
Rules and  failing  to  exhibit the  required  white  obstruction 
lighting on  the  tower  in willful  and  repeated  violation  of 
Section 17.51(b) of  the Rules.20  The  Commission, prior to  the 
upward adjustment, proposed a  $2,000 forfeiture for the  posting 
violation and a $10,000 forfeiture for the lighting violation.

     16.  In its response to the NAL, AT&T Wireless concedes that 
it did not have the ASR number  posted at the Holly Hill site  at 
the time of the inspection.  However, AT&T Wireless asserts  that 
the $10,000  forfeiture proposed  for  failure to  exhibit  white 
obstruction lighting  on the  tower  should be  cancelled.   AT&T 
Wireless states that it  has an automatic  alarm system for  this 
tower and its switches and/or  network operations center pick  up 
alarms when  lights  on  the tower  malfunction.   AT&T  Wireless 
further states that it has examined  its logs for the Holly  Hill 
site and no alarms were received for this tower since January  1, 
2002.  AT&T Wireless indicates that  after the NAL was  released, 
it dispatched a technician to the site on April 29, 2002, and the 
technician observed that all lights were operating correctly  and 
that the alarm  system was in  proper operating condition.   AT&T 
Wireless asserts that it  cannot explain the discrepancy  between 
its records and observations and those of the Commission's  field 
agent.  AT&T Wireless  states that it  is conceivable that  there 
were some  intermittent light  problems  but maintains  that  the 
alarm would have been triggered in that case.  AT&T Wireless also 
suggests that it is possible that the lights were operational but 
not easily seen from the ground.  AT&T Wireless argues that since 
two  and  a  half  months  passed  between  the  Tampa   Office's 
observations and issuance of the NAL, it cannot now defend itself 
against charges for a  violation that was  not continuing at  the 
time of  the  NAL  and for  which  it  has no  record  of  having 
occurred.    

     17.  Since AT&T Wireless admits that it did not have the ASR 
number  posted at  the  Holly  Hill  site  at  the  time  of  the 
inspection,  we  conclude  that  it  willfully  violated  Section 
17.4(g) of the  Rules.  Based on  the record before  us, we  also 
conclude that  AT&T Wireless  willfully and  repeatedly  violated 
Section 17.51(b)  of  the  Rules  by  failing  to  exhibit  white 
obstruction lighting on the tower.   The fact that AT&T  Wireless 
has  no  record  of  the  lighting  violation  does  not  justify 
cancellation  of  the   proposed  forfeiture.   AT&T   Wireless's 
suggestion that the lights were  operational but not easily  seen 
from the ground  is unsupported  by the  record.  The  inspecting 
agent observed the tower from the  ground at the Holly Hill  site 
and also drove away from the  site in a couple of directions  and 
observed the tower from a distance.  Using this method, the agent 
observed that the white obstruction lighting was not operational.  
Under these circumstances,  we find  no basis  for canceling  the 
$10,000 forfeiture proposed for this violation.

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

     18.  On  August  14,  2001,  agents  from  the  Commission's 
Denver, Colorado  Field Office  (``Denver Office'')  inspected  a 
Bluffdale, Utah antenna structure owned by AT&T Wireless (ASR No. 
1039565).  The agents observed that a side intermediate light  on 
the southwestern  side of  the tower  was flashing,  rather  than 
steady burning as required by  the tower's ASR.  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  admitted that  a side  intermediate light  on  the 
tower was flashing, rather than  steady burning, and stated  that 
it had  taken  steps  to  repair the  light.   In  the  NAL,  the 
Commission cited AT&T Wireless for apparently failing to  conform 
to  the  FAA's  painting  and  lighting  specifications  for  the 
Bluffdale tower  in willful  and  repeated violation  of  Section 
17.23 and,  prior  to  the upward  adjustment,  proposed  a  base 
forfeiture of $10,000 for this violation.  

     19.  In its response to the NAL, AT&T Wireless asserts,  for 
the  first  time,  that   the  Bluffdale  tower  was   registered 
voluntarily (i.e., the structure was less than 200 feet in height 
and passed  the  ``slope  test''  used  to  determine  whether  a 
structure will interfere with the approach or departure space  of 
a nearby airport and therefore FAA notification of the  structure 
was  not  required)21  and  indicates  that  it  terminated   the 
registration  for  this  tower  on  December  19,  2001.22   AT&T 
Wireless argues that since it  was not required to register  this 
tower, we should not impose a forfeiture for the violation  cited 
in the NAL.  We agree with  AT&T Wireless and we will cancel  the 
forfeiture  proposed  for  this  violation.23   We  remind   AT&T 
Wireless, however, that the Commission has previously stated that 
antenna structures which do not  require notification to the  FAA 
should not be registered.24  



Tyler, Texas - File No. EB-01-DL-696
Okeechobee, Florida - File No. EB-02-TP-012
Malabar, Florida - File No. EB-01-TP-488

     20.  On November  15, 2001,  the FCC's  Dallas, Texas  Field 
Office issued an NOV citing AT&T Wireless for failing to post its 
ASR number  on or  near  the base  of  its Tyler,  Texas  antenna 
structure in  violation  of Section  17.4(g)  of the  Rules.   On 
December 3, 2001, and January  14, 2002, respectively, the  Tampa 
Office issued NOVs citing AT&T  Wireless for failing to post  its 
ASR numbers  on or  near the  base of  its Malabar,  Florida  and 
Okeechobee, Florida antenna  structures in  violation of  Section 
17.4(g) of  the Rules.   In the  NAL, the  Commission cited  AT&T 
Wireless for apparently failing to  post its ASR number at  these 
three tower sites in willful violation of Section 17.4(g) of  the 
Rules and, prior to  the upward adjustment, proposed  forfeitures 
of $2,000 for each of these  violations.  In its response to  the 
NAL, AT&T Wireless  asserts that the  $2,000 forfeiture  proposed 
for the Malabar, Florida site  should be cancelled because  there 
was no  violation  of Section  17.4(g)  at this  site.   In  this 
regard, AT&T Wireless states  that while the  ASR number was  not 
visible from outside the Malabar, Florida tower compound, the ASR 
number was affixed to the base  of the tower and could be  easily 
seen at the base of  the tower.  AT&T Wireless acknowledges  that 
the  ASR  numbers  were  not  posted  at  the  Tyler,  Texas  and 
Okeechobee, Florida tower sites at  the time of the  inspections, 
although it states  that it  believes that the  ASR numbers  were 
originally  attached  to  these  towers  and  suggests  that  ASR 
placards sometimes  disappear because  of weather  conditions  or 
vandalism.

     21.  We agree with AT&T Wireless that the $2,000  forfeiture 
proposed for  the  Malabar,  Florida site  should  be  cancelled.  
Section 17.4(g)  requires that  the  ASR number  be posted  in  a 
conspicuous location so that it is readily visible on or near the 
base of the tower, and it now appears that the ASR number was  in 
fact affixed to the base of the Malabar, Florida tower.  However, 
we conclude that AT&T Wireless willfully violated Section 17.4(g) 
by failing to  post the ASR numbers  on or near  the base of  the 
Tyler,  Texas  and  Okeechobee,  Florida  towers  and  that  AT&T 
Wireless has  provided no  basis for  canceling or  reducing  the 
forfeitures proposed  in  the  NAL for  these  violations.   AT&T 
Wireless  presents  no  evidence   that  the  ASR  numbers   were 
originally posted  at the  Tyler, Texas  and Okeechobee,  Florida 
tower sites or that the ASR numbers were missing from these sites 
due to either  vandalism or  weather.  Moreover,  it proffers  no 
evidence that it periodically  inspected its ASR number  postings 
to learn of any that are missing.

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

     22.  On December 21,  2001, the Tampa  Office issued an  NOV 
citing AT&T  Wireless  for  failing to  register  its  Fellsmere, 
Florida tower in  violation of Section  17.4(a)(2) of the  Rules.  
In the NAL,  the Commission  cited AT&T  Wireless for  apparently 
failing to  register  its  Fellsmere, Florida  tower  in  willful 
violation of Section 17.4(a)(2)  of the Rules  and, prior to  the 
upward  adjustment,  proposed  a   $3,000  forfeiture  for   this 
violation.  In its response to the NAL, AT&T Wireless admits that 
the Fellsmere  tower  was  not  registered at  the  time  of  the 
inspection.  It  argues, however,  that the  forfeiture for  this 
violation should  be  reduced  to $1,500  because,  although  not 
registered, the  tower  received  an FAA  determination  of  ``no 
hazard'' in 1991 (based on the required lighting and marking) and 
has been lighted and marked in accordance with Commission and FAA 
requirements since that time.   AT&T Wireless asserts that,  when 
the Commission adopted the tower registration rules in 1996, AT&T 
Wireless inadvertently  overlooked this  tower in  the course  of 
filing ASRs for the hundreds of towers it owned.  

     23.   We conclude that AT&T Wireless failed to register  its 
Fellsmere,  Florida  tower  in   willful  violation  of   Section 
17.4(a)(2) of  the Rules.   In  addition, we  find no  basis  for 
reduction of the $3,000 forfeiture  proposed in the NAL for  this 
violation.   AT&T  Wireless  has  provided  no  support  for  its 
assertion that its failure to register the tower was inadvertent.  
Moreover, AT&T Wireless's  compliance with  related lighting  and 
marking rules  does  not  render the  failure  to  register  less 
significant; had the lights  failed, the FCC  still may not  have 
known who  to  contact  because  of  the  lack  of  registration.  
Furthermore, as we stated in the NALž we have repeatedly  advised 
antenna structure  owners that  all existing  antenna  structures 
subject to our rules must be registered immediately or the owners 
face a monetary forfeiture or other enforcement action.25  

B.  Calculation of Forfeiture Amount

     24.  In  addition  to   its  specific   challenges  to   the 
violations cited in the NAL,  AT&T Wireless also argues that  the 
Commission's decision in  the NAL  to triple  the aggregate  base 
forfeiture amount was unwarranted.   First, AT&T Wireless  states 
that the  Commission's decision  to  triple the  base  forfeiture 
amount stemmed from its belief  that AT&T Wireless had  committed 
three very serious violations of the tower lighting rules.   AT&T 
Wireless maintains, however,  that it did  not violate the  tower 
lighting rules  in  any  of  the  instances  cited  in  the  NAL.  
Additionally, AT&T Wireless argues that the Commission's apparent 
belief that AT&T Wireless  is indifferent to  the need to  comply 
with the  antenna  structure rules  is  far from  the  truth,  as 
evidenced by AT&T Wireless's thorough internal procedures and its 
prompt efforts to cure violations  brought to its attention.   In 
this regard, AT&T Wireless  asserts that its longstanding  policy 
has been to adhere  strictly to the  antenna structure rules  and 
that it previously registered towers on a regular basis even when 
not required to  do so  under the rules.   AT&T Wireless  further 
asserts that since it  was sanctioned last  year for several  ASR 
number posting  violations, it  has taken  a number  of steps  to 
better ensure that its compliance policy and the specifics of the 
Commission's rules are communicated  effectively to the  relevant 
personnel.   Specifically,  AT&T  Wireless  states  that  it  has 
designated three employees in  its Washington, D.C. legal  office 
to oversee compliance efforts  and to serve  as liaisons for  all 
questions from the  field about the  tower structure rules,  that 
this group  has prepared  and distributed  memoranda and  e-mails 
detailing the registration, posting and lighting requirements  on 
numerous occasions, and that it has reinstituted its ``FCC  101'' 
courses for its employees across  the country, the curriculum  of 
which includes antenna structure compliance.  

     25.  We are not persuaded by AT&T Wireless's arguments  that 
our decision in the NAL  to triple the aggregate base  forfeiture 
amount  was  unwarranted.   As  explained  in  detail  above,  we 
disagree with AT&T Wireless's claim  that it did not violate  the 
tower lighting rules in any of  the three instances cited in  the 
NAL.  Although we have cancelled  one of the lighting  violations 
because the tower was  voluntarily registered, we have  concluded 
that AT&T Wireless did willfully and repeatedly violate the tower 
lighting rules in two of the instances cited in the NAL.  Coupled 
with the painting and  posting violations in  this case and  AT&T 
Wireless's past  history of  posting violations,  we continue  to 
believe  that  these  serious   lighting  violations  support   a 
substantial upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount.  

     26.    Moreover,  while  AT&T  Wireless  asserts  that   its 
longstanding policy has  been to adhere  strictly to the  antenna 
structure rules and that  it has taken  various steps to  improve 
its compliance with these rules,  we are not convinced that  AT&T 
Wireless had an effective antenna structure compliance program in 
place at the time of these violations.  Nor do we think that AT&T 
Wireless's efforts to  cure violations brought  to its  attention 
due in  part to  the failure  of its  current system  to  provide 
timely  notifications  demonstrate  strict  compliance  with  the 
rules.  All licensees and  Commission regulatees are expected  to 
promptly take corrective  action when violations  are brought  to 
their attention.  We  also note that  nothing in AT&T  Wireless's 
description of its  compliance plan indicates  any efforts to  do 
follow-up checks regarding its  compliance with registration  and 
posting rules.

     27.  More  importantly,  we  find  it  troubling  that  AT&T 
Wireless apparently continues  to violate  the antenna  structure 
rules.  During the period just prior to the issuance of the  NAL, 
the Commission's Field  Offices issued three  additional NOVs  to 
AT&T Wireless as a result  of routine tower inspections, two  for 
ASR number posting violations and  one for failure to notify  the 
Commission  of   completion  of   construction  of   an   antenna 
structure.26  In  its  responses  to these  NOVs,  AT&T  Wireless 
admitted that the ASR numbers were not posted at the times of the 
inspections and that it failed  to notify the Commission when  it 
completed construction of the tower.  Furthermore, since issuance 
of the NAL, the Field Offices  have issued two more NOVs to  AT&T 
Wireless, one for an ASR number posting violation and failure  to 
notify the Commission of completion of construction of an antenna 
structure and one for failure to paint coaxial cable attached  to 
the face of a tower.27  In its  response to the NOV issued for  a 
posting  violation  and  failure  to  notify  the  Commission  of 
completion of construction, AT&T  acknowledged that there was  no 
ASR number  posted at  the time  of the  inspection and  that  it 
failed to notify the Commission of completion of construction  of 
the tower.  In  its response  to the  NOV issued  for failure  to 
paint the  coaxial cable,  AT&T  Wireless acknowledges  that  the 
cable was  not  painted.   The Enforcement  Bureau  continues  to 
investigate these apparent violations, and we note that there has 
been  no  adjudication  in  these  cases.   Nevertheless,   these 
additional apparent violations  reinforce our  conclusion in  the 
NAL that AT&T Wireless's  continuing violations evince a  pattern 
of non-compliance with and  apparent disregard for these  safety-
related rules.  We accordingly affirm our decision in the NAL  to 
triple  the  total  base  forfeiture  amount  for  all  of   AT&T 
Wireless's violations.

     28.  As discussed  above,  we  have  concluded  that  it  is 
appropriate to cancel the forfeiture amounts proposed in the  NAL 
for one  lighting  violation ($10,000)  and  for one  ASR  number 
posting violation ($2,000).  The base forfeiture amounts for  the 
remaining violations total $39,000 ($10,000 for each of the three 
instances of violations of the lighting and marking rules, $3,000 
for the failure to register an antenna structure, and $2,000  for 
each of the three ASR number posting violations).  We continue to 
believe that  it  is appropriate  to  triple the  aggregate  base 
forfeiture amount for these violations.  Accordingly, we conclude 
that AT&T Wireless is  liable for a forfeiture  in the amount  of 
$117,000 for willful and repeated violations of Section 303(q) of 
the Act and Sections 17.50 and 17.51(b) of the Rules and  willful 
violations of Sections 17.4(a)(2) and 17.4(g) of the Rules.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     29.  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 LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the  amount 
of  one  hundred  seventeen   thousand  dollars  ($117,000)   for 
willfully and repeatedly violating Section 303(q) of the Act  and 
Sections 17.50 and 17.51(b) of the Rules and willfully  violating 
Sections 17.4(a)(2) and 17.4(g) of the Rules. 

     30.  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 Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W.,  Washington, 
DC 20554.28

     31.  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, and  to Sara Leibman,  Esq., 
Mintz,  Levin,  Cohn,  Ferris,  Glovsky  and  Popeo,  P.C.,   701 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20004.




                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Marlene H. Dortch
                              Secretary
_________________________

1  47  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), 17.50 and 17.51(b).
4  47 C.F.R. § 17.21.
5  47 C.F.R. § 17.4.  
6  47 C.F.R. § 17.47.
7  47 C.F.R. § 17.56.
8  47 C.F.R. § 17.48.
9   AT&T Wireless  Services,  Inc., 16  FCC  Rcd 814  (Enf.  Bur. 
2001), forfeiture ordered, 16 FCC Rcd 6805 (Enf. Bur. 2001).
10 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).
11 47 C.F.R. § 17.23.

12 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 (2002).

13 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
14 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
15 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
16 See,  e.g., SBC Communications,  Inc., 17 FCC  Rcd 7589,  7591 
(2002); Tuscola Broadcasting Co., 76 FCC 2d 367, 371 (1980).
17 The  Commission noted that Section  17.23, which was cited  by 
the Philadelphia Office  in the NOV,  generally requires  antenna 
structure owners to comply with  the FAA's painting and  lighting 
specifications and thus clearly  covered the observed  violation.  
However, the  Commission  cited  AT&T Wireless  in  the  NAL  for 
violation  of  Section  17.51(b),  which  specifically   requires 
antenna structure owners to exhibit all high intensity and medium 
intensity obstruction lighting continuously.  

18  Section 503(b)(6)(B)  provides that  the Commission  may  not 
issue a forfeiture against a person who does not hold a broadcast 
license if  the violation  charged occurred  more than  one  year 
prior to the date of issuance of the required notice of  apparent 
liability.  47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6)(B). 

19 See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).

20 The  Tampa Office did not  issue an NOV  to AT&T Wireless  for 
these violations.

21 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 

22 AT&T  Wireless did  not mention  the fact  that the  Bluffdale 
tower was voluntarily  registered or that  it had terminated  the 
registration for this tower in its response to the NOV.  

  23 See  e.g., AT&T Wireless  Services, Inc., 16  FCC Rcd  6805, 
6806 (Enf. Bur. 2001); VoiceStream  PCS I License L.L.C., 16  FCC 
Rcd 7584,  7585 (Enf.  Bur. 2001)  (both canceling  a  forfeiture 
proposed for failure  to post an  antenna structure  registration 
number because the tower was voluntarily registered).

24 See Streamlining the Commission's Antenna Structure  Clearance 
Procedure and  Revision  of Part  17  of the  Commission's  Rules 
Concerning  Construction,   Marking  and   Lighting  of   Antenna 
Structures, 11 FCC Rcd 4272 4279 (1995) (``Streamlining'').

25 Antenna  structure owners were  required to register  existing 
antenna structures during a  two-year filing period between  July 
1, 1996 and  June 30, 1998.   Streamlining, 11 FCC  Rcd at  4281.  
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. 

  26 On March 12, 2002, the FCC's Chicago, Illinois Field  Office 
issued an NOV to AT&T Wireless for failing to post the ASR number 
on or near  the base of  an antenna structure  (ASR No.  1045450) 
located in Gary, Indiana.  (File No. EB-02-CH-116).  On April  2, 
2002,  the  FCC's   Anchorage,  Alaska   Resident  Agent   Office 
(``Anchorage Office'') issued an NOV to AT&T Wireless for failing 
to notify  the Commission  of completion  of construction  of  an 
antenna structure (ASR  No. 1223858) located  in Willow,  Alaska.  
(File No.  EB-02-AN-018).   On  April  8,  2002,  the  FCC's  San 
Francisco Office issued an  NOV to AT&T  Wireless for failing  to 
post the ASR number on or  near the base of an antenna  structure 
(ASR No. 1014135)  located in Rio  Vista, California.  (File  No. 
EB-02-SF-137).  These NOVs were issued too late to be included in 
the NAL.  

  27 On  August 16, 2002, the Anchorage  Office issued an NOV  to 
AT&T Wireless for failing to post  the ASR number on or near  the 
base of an antenna structure (ASR No. 1222996) and to notify  the 
Commission of completion of construction of an antenna  structure 
located in Kenai,  Alaska.  (File No.  EB-02-AN-072).  On  August 
19, 2002, the Denver  Office issued an NOV  to AT&T Wireless  for 
failing to paint  the coaxial cable  attached to the  face of  an 
antenna structure (ASR No. 1032069) located in Colorado  Springs, 
Colorado (File No. EB-02-DV-117).

28 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.