Click here for Microsoft Word Version

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

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

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

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

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


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

In the Matter of                        )
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.            )    File Number EB-
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.      )
4th Floor                     )
Washington, D.C. 20036             )    NAL/Acct. No. 

                      FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: March 16, 2001                      Released: March 
19, 2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
monetary  forfeiture  in  the amount  of  fourteen  thousand 
dollars  ($14,000)  against  AT&T  Wireless  Services,  Inc. 
(``AT&T Wireless'')  for willfully and  repeatedly violating 
Section 17.4(g) of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The 
noted  violations involve  AT&T Wireless's  failure to  post 
antenna structure registration (``ASR'') numbers at the base 
of several of its antenna structures.
     2.   On  January  16,   2001,  the  Chief,  Enforcement 
Bureau, issued a Notice  of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') for 
Forfeiture  in  the  amount  of  eighteen  thousand  dollars 
($18,000).2  AT&T Wireless filed  a response on February 14, 

                       II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   During  routine  inspections  of  AT&T  Wireless's 
antenna  structures, from  April  20, 2000,  to December  7, 
2000, agents from several  of the Enforcement Bureau's Field 
Offices found nine antenna structures  that did not have ASR 
numbers posted as required.

                      III.  DISCUSSION

     4.   AT&T Wireless  does not  contest that nine  of its 
antenna structures  did not have their  ASR numbers properly 
posted  as  set  forth  in Section  17.4(g)  of  the  Rules.  
Instead, AT&T Wireless challenges the selection of $2,000 as 
the  base  forfeiture  amount  for a  violation  of  Section 
17.4(g)  of the  Rules, contends  that  it did  not have  to 
register two  of its antenna structures,  and raises several 
factors in mitigation of its violations. 

     5.   As an  initial matter,  AT&T Wireless  argues that 
the base forfeiture amount for failure to post an ASR number 
should  be  $1,000,  not   $2,000.   The  Bureau's  proposed 
forfeiture  was  based  on   the  Commission's  decision  in 
American Tower Corp.,3 in which  it determined that a $2,000 
base  forfeiture amount  was  appropriate for  this type  of 
violation.4   As the  Bureau  is bound  by the  Commission's 
determination, we will not  address AT&T Wireless's argument 
in this case.
     6.   AT&T Wireless argues, for  the first time, that it 
had  voluntarily registered  two of  its antenna  structures 
located in Glenallen, Alaska and Denver, Colorado (i.e., the 
antenna  structures  did  not   meet  the  Federal  Aviation 
Administration's notification  requirement).5  Since  it was 
not  required to  register  these  antenna structures,  AT&T 
Wireless argues  that we should  not fine it for  failing to 
post the antenna structure registration numbers.  We agree.

     7.   After reviewing the  coordinates, height, and type 
of AT&T  Wireless's Glenallen and Denver  antenna structures 
and noting  that the Federal Aviation  Administration issued 
``no hazard'' determinations for both, we conclude that AT&T 
Wireless  was  not  required  to register  the  two  antenna 
structures.  Therefore, in  this  case, we  will reduce  the 
proposed forfeiture by $4,000.

     8.   We find  that AT&T Wireless's  remaining arguments 
in  support of  reduction  of the  proposed forfeiture  lack 
merit.   First,  AT&T  Wireless   argues  that  out  of  its 
``thousands  of  towers,''  Commission  agents  ``apparently 
uncovered a  very small percentage  of non-compliance .  . . 
.''6   Furthermore, AT&T  Wireless  claims  that, given  its 
corporate compliance  program, allegedly in place  for close 
to five years prior to our issuance of the NAL, and the lack 
of  what  AT&T   Wireless  characterizes  as  safety-related 
infractions, we should conclude  that the ASR number posting 
violations  are  ``minor.''   We   are  not  persuaded.   In 
American Tower Corp., the Commission discussed the potential 
impact on public  safety that an ASR  number violation might 
have.7   In addition,  despite  its allegedly  long-standing 
corporate compliance  program, from April of  2000, the time 
that we first  notified AT&T Wireless that  it was violating 
Section 17.4(g)  of the  Rules, our  agents found  six other 
violations (not  counting the  Glenallen and  Denver antenna 
structures) of  the same  rule, the  last of  which occurred 
more than  one-half year later  in December of  2000.  These 
repeated violations of safety rules are not minor.8  

     9.   AT&T Wireless also contends  that we should reduce 
the proposed forfeiture ``because  there can be many reasons 
why a previously-posted ASRN is `missing' when an inspection 
occurs, including  vandalism and weather.''9   AT&T Wireless 
argues  that  we  cannot  find that  it  willfully  violated 
Section  17.4(g)  of  the   Rules  without  ruling  out  the 
possibility that the violations  resulted from vandalism and 
weather, and argues  that we should credit  it for allegedly 
initially complying with the  rule.  AT&T Wireless, however, 
presents  no evidence  that either  vandalism or  weather or 
both played  a part in  the missing ASR  numbers.  Moreover, 
while   conceding   that   an   ``ASRN   registrant   should 
periodically  monitor its  ASRN postings  to learn  of those 
that are missing,''10 AT&T  Wireless proffers no evidence of 
its inspection regime (i.e., when  it posted the ASR numbers 
and  when it  last inspected  them).  Indeed,  AT&T Wireless 
admits  that  it  does  not  have  records  to  support  its 
assertions  that its  employees  posted the  ASR numbers  in 
conformance with  the Commission's  Rules and  its corporate 
compliance plan.11  

     10.  After  reviewing  the  record  in  this  case,  we 
conclude  that   no  further   reduction  of   the  proposed 
forfeiture  is warranted.   In  conclusion, after  reviewing 
Section  503(b)(2)(D)  of  the Communications  Act  of  1934 
(``Act''),12 as  amended, Section  1.80 of the  Rules,13 the 
facts, and AT&T Wireless' opposition  to the NAL, we believe 
that a $14,000 forfeiture is appropriate.  

                    IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     11.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to 
Section 503(b) of the Act, as amended,14 and Sections 0.111, 
0.311,  and  1.80(f)(4) of  the  Rules,15  AT&T Wireless  IS 
LIABLE FOR  A MONETARY FORFEITURE  in the amount  of $14,000 
for willfully  and repeatedly  violating Section  17.4(g) of 
the Rules  requiring it to post  ASR numbers at the  base of 
its antenna structures.16

     12.  Payment  of the  forfeiture shall  be made  in the 
manner provided for  in Section 1.80 of  the Rules,17 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.18  Payment  may be 
made by  mailing a check  or similar instrument,  payable to 
the order  of the ``Federal Communications  Commission,'' to 
the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box  73482, 
Chicago, Illinois  60673-7482.  The payment should  note the 
NAL/Acct.  No. 20013276001  referenced above.   Requests for 
full payment  under an installment  plan should be  sent to: 
Chief, Revenue  and Receivables  Operations Group,  445 12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.19
     13.  IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED  that copies of  this Order 
shall be sent by Certified  Mail Return Receipt Requested to 
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 
Washington,  D.C.  20036,  and  to its  counsel,  Howard  J. 
Symons, Esq., Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, 
P.C., 701 Pennsylvania Avenue,  N.W., Suite 900, Washington, 
D.C. 20004. 



                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

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

     2 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 01-87 
(Enf. Bur., rel. Jan. 16, 2001).

     3 American Tower Corp., FCC 01-9 (rel. Jan. 16, 2001).
     4 Id. at  9.
     5 See 47 C.F.R.   17.7.  AT&T Wireless made no mention 
of  this  argument  in  its  responses  to  the  Notices  of 
Violation  regarding   the  Glenallen  and   Denver  antenna 

     6  AT&T  Wireless  Opposition  to  Notice  of  Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture at 4 (filed Feb. 14, 2001).
     7 American Tower Corp., at  9.
     8 Of course, the violations  are ``minor'' in the sense 
that they are less serious than violations that would result 
in a  higher forfeiture  (e.g., failure to  light or  mark a 
tower as  required).  But  they are not  minor in  the sense 
that AT&T Wireless  suggests, i.e., no forfeiture  at all is 
     9  AT&T  Wireless  Opposition  to  Notice  of  Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture at 5.

     10 Id. at 5 n.8.
     11 Id.
     12 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

     13 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
     14 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

     15 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
     16 47 C.F.R.  17.4(g).

     17 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

     18 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

     19 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.