******************************************************** 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 Application of ) ) PINPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) File No. 920EF0028 ) For Local Multipoint ) Distribution Service Licenses ) To Serve BTA185, Hastings, Nebraska ) And BTA270, McCook, Nebraska ) ) NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE Adopted: April 15, 1999 Released: April 15, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. Introduction 1. This action constitutes 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 PinPoint Communications, Inc. (PinPoint). PinPoint was the high bidder for authorizations to serve the above-captioned BTAs in the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) auction (Auction No. 17), which was completed on March 26, 1998. Specifically, we find that PinPoint failed to timely submit its "long-form" application (FCC Form 601), in apparent violation of Sections 1.1207 and 101.1106 of the Commission's Rules. II. Background 2. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice announcing the winning bidders in the LMDS auction (LMDS Public Notice) on March 26, 1998. The information before us indicates that PinPoint filed its long-form application six days after the long-form application filing deadline. PinPoint attached a waiver request (Request) to its long-form application, explaining that its failure to meet the long-from filing deadline was inadvertent, and that it had made good faith efforts to meet the LMDS auction filing deadlines. On September 22, 1998, the Bureau's Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) denied PinPoint's Request, dismissed its long-form application, and imposed default payments on PinPoint. PinPoint filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on October 21, 1998, and submitted a supplement to its Petition (Supplement) on November 5, 1998. The Division has released an Order, concurrent with the instant Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, reversing its earlier decision, reinstating PinPoint's long- form application, and conditionally granting PinPoint's LMDS licenses. III. Discussion 3. Sections 1.2107(c) and 101.1106 of the Commission's Rules provide that each successful bidder for an LMDS license must submit a long-form application within ten business days after being notified by Public Notice that it is the winning bidder. The purpose of the long-form application is to provide vital information concerning winning bidders and their qualifications to be Commission licensees. Acceptance of a winning bidder's long-form application triggers the period for filing petitions to deny. Accordingly, timely filing of a long-form application is important to the efficiency of the competitive bidding licensing process. PinPoint was required to file its long-form application on April 9, 1998. However, PinPoint did not file its long-form application until April 15, 1998, six days after the long-form filing deadline. 4. 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 amount, depending on the presence of various factors. In this case, however, we do not see any basis for departing from the base forfeiture amount. Accordingly, we find that this base forfeiture amount of $3,000 is appropriate under the circumstances. IV. Conclusion and Ordering Clauses 5. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80, PinPoint Communications, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of three thousand dollars for violating Sections 1.2107(c) and 101.1106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R  1.2107(c), 101.1106. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.80, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, PinPoint Communications, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture, or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Notice shall be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to PinPoint Communications, Inc. 611 Patterson, Cambridge, Nebraska, 69022-0490, and to counsel for PinPoint Communications, Inc., Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, 1111 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau