******************************************************** 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 ) ) PINPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) ) File No. 920EF0022 Operator of Paging and Radiotelephone Service ) Stations WRD356 (McCook, Nebraska), ) WRV253 (Trenton, Nebraska), WQZ619 ) (Moorefield, Nebraska), WSI691 (Imperial, ) Nebraska), and KKB694 (McCook, Nebraska) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: May 6, 1999 Released: May 7, 1999 By the Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction 1. The Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, has under consideration: (a) a Notice of Apparent Liability, DA 99-589 (released March 30, 1999) directed against PinPoint Communications, Inc. (PinPoint), and (b) a "Request for Reduction of Forfeiture Penalty" filed April 20, 1999 by PinPoint. In the NAL, we found that PinPoint was apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 for acquiring control of the above-captioned stations without prior Commission consent, in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons discussed below, we reduce the forfeiture amount from $10,000 to $6,000. II. Background 2. On April 9, 1998, an application was filed for Commission consent to the assignment of the above- captioned licenses from Mid-State Systems, Inc. (Mid-State) to PinPoint. The cover letter accompanying the application stated: "PinPoint Communications, Inc. has recently purchased the assets of Mid-State Systems, Inc. and are [sic] in the process of transferring everything into our name." The application was resubmitted with microfiche copies on July 28, 1998. PinPoint had orally informed the Commission that the acquisition of Mid- State's assets to PinPoint had been completed on October 8, 1997, that Mid-State no longer existed as a corporation, and that PinPoint controlled and operated Mid-State's stations after that date. The referenced assignment application remains pending. 3. In the NAL, we found that PinPoint's conduct constituted an apparent violation of Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules. We tentatively concluded, based upon our analysis of the factors required by Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, that the appropriate proposed forfeiture amount was $2,000 for each of the five stations in question, or a total of $10,000. 4. In its "Request for Reduction of Forfeiture Penalty," PinPoint now informs the Commission that neither Station WQZ619 in Moorefield, Nebraska, nor Station WSI691 in Imperial, Nebraska was operating when the transaction with Mid-State was consummated. PinPoint also represents that it has not operated either of those stations "at any time." On April 13, 1999, PinPoint submitted the licenses for WQZ619 and WSI691 to the Commission for cancellation. III. Discussion 5. Initially, we note that PinPoint does not dispute the tentative conclusions in the NAL that it acquired control of Stations WRD356, WRV253, and KKB694 without prior Commission approval, in violation of Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, with respect to these stations, we conclude that PinPoint engaged in unauthorized transfers of control, violated Section 310(d) of the Act and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules, and, as a consequence, is liable for a forfeiture. 6. With respect to Stations WQZ619 and WSI691, however, PinPoint now reports that it never operated those stations because the stations were not operational when PinPoint acquired Mid-State's assets. Under these circumstances, we agree that there was no unauthorized transfer of control of the two stations. We note, however, that in April 1998, PinPoint had filed an application for authority to assign the licenses for Stations WQZ619 and WSI691 to PinPoint, even though it now admits the stations were not operational. We caution PinPoint that, in the future, it should exercise greater care in its filings with the Commission. 7. In the NAL, we tentatively concluded that a forfeiture of $2,000 for each of the five stations, for a total of $10,000, was appropriate. In light of its disclosure that two of the stations were not operational, PinPoint requests "a proportionate reduction" in the forfeiture amount. We agree and believe it is appropriate to relieve PinPoint of its forfeiture liability for the two non-operational stations because PinPoint never operated these facilities. Accordingly, the forfeiture will be reduced from $10,000 to $6,000, an amount that reflects PinPoint's liability for having engaged in unauthorized transfers of control of the three remaining stations. IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses 8. Based on the foregoing, we conclude it is appropriate to assess a forfeiture of $6,000 against PinPoint for its violations of Section 310(d) of the Act, and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules. 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the "Request for Reduction of Forfeiture Penalty" filed on April 20, 1999 by PinPoint Communications, Inc. IS GRANTED to the extent indicated. 10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that PinPoint Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of six thousand dollars ($6,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.137 of the Commission's Rules. 11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to PinPoint's counsel, B. Lynn F. Ratnavale, Esq., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, Chartered, 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Catherine W. Seidel Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau