******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect 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 WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture of ) ) RAYMOND BASSETT ) ) File No. 920EF0020 Licensee of Paging and Radiotelephone ) Station KNLU221, Chico, California ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 6, 1999 Released: April 6, 1999 By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction 1. This is a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, against Raymond Bassett ("Mr. Bassett"), licensee of Paging and Radiotelephone Station KNLU221, Chico, California. For the reasons that follow, we find that Mr. Bassett failed to timely notify the Commission of the commencement of service of Station KNLU221 at Chico, California, in apparent violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. We conclude that Mr. Bassett is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000). II. Background 2. On March 13, 1997, the Commission authorized Mr. Bassett to construct Station KNLU221 at Chico, California. That construction permit expired on March 13, 1998. On April 21, 1998 (over 35 days after the deadline for constructing the station), Mr. Bassett filed an FCC Form 489 notifying the Commission that he had completed construction of, and commenced service from, the Chico site in a timely manner, but he did not provide a specific date on which service actually commenced. 3. Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules provided in pertinent part: "Notification requirement. Licensees must notify the FCC (FCC Form 489) of commencement of service to subscribers . . . no later than fifteen days after service begins." The Commission's policy of imposing monetary forfeitures for willful and/or repeated violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules is well established. III. Discussion 4. Pursuant to Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules, Mr. Bassett was required to notify the Commission that it had completed construction and commenced service by filing an FCC Form 489 within 15 days of its commencement of service. Mr. Bassett, however, did not file an FCC Form 489 notifying the Commission of its completion of construction and commencement of service until April 21, 1998. Mr. Bassett concedes that he did not file a timely FCC Form 489 for Station KNLU221. Mr. Bassett maintains, however, that the failure was due to administrative inadvertence, and he filed the required notification as quickly as possible upon learning of the oversight. 5. Based on the information before us, we find that Mr. Bassett failed to timely file an FCC Form 489 to notify the Commission of the completion of construction and commencement of service at the Chico, California site. This failure constitutes an apparent violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. 6. In Mr. Bassett's response, he requested a waiver of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. According to Section 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may grant such a waiver if: (i) The underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) In view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative. Mr. Bassett has not met his burden. Mr. Bassett's argument that he filed the Form 489 late because of an inadvertent oversight does not meet any of the requirements of Section 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission's Rules. As a Commission licensee, Mr. Bassett has an affirmative obligation to be informed and comply with the Commission's Rules. See J.B. Communications of Baltimore, Ltd., 31 RR 2d 1145 (1974). The purpose of the Form 489 is to notify the Commission that construction has been completed, and the frequency is in use, so that the Commission will not assign that frequency to anyone else. FCC Form 489, therefore, has an important function. 7. The guidelines contained in the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement specify a base forfeiture amount of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information. The guidelines, however, permit the Commission "to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines." The Commission determined, in cases decided before the adoption of the Forfeiture Policy Statement, that a base amount of $2,000 is justified when a licensee has failed to timely file a Form 489. We find, therefore, that a $2,000 base amount for the violation is appropriate here. Section 503(b) of the Communications Act requires 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 other such factors as justice may require." In this case, taking into consideration all of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, including, but not limited to, Mr. Bassett's voluntary disclosure of his violation to the Commission, we believe it is appropriate to reduce the amount of his proposed forfeiture to $1,000. IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses 8. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, Raymond Bassett is hereby NOTIFIED of his APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for violating Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Mr. Bassett SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/ Return Receipt Requested, to Mr. Bassett, 3174 Woodland Lane, Alexandria, VA 22309. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Myron Peck Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau