********************************************************    
                                         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    )
                               )    
NEVADA WIRELESS                )   File No. 920EF0018
                               )   
Licensee of Paging and Radiotelephone, Station    )
KNKI331, Carson City, Reno, Silver Springs,  )
and Stateline, Nevada                   )



                   MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
 

 Adopted:  August 6, 1999               Released:  August 10, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

                         I. Introduction

     1.  In this Order, we deny a request, filed on April 6, 1999, by Nevada Wireless, licensee of the above-
captioned station, to reduce or rescind the $7,000 forfeiture proposed in a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture issued on March 22, 1999.  We find that Nevada Wireless failed to timely notify the Commission
of the commencement of service of Station KNKI331, in violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's
Rules.  We conclude that Nevada Wireless is liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand dollars
($7,000).

                          II. Background

     2.  Nevada Wireless completed construction and commenced operation of Station KNKI331 at four
authorized locations on August 30, 1997.  Pursuant to Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules, Nevada
Wireless was required to notify the Commission on FCC Forms 489 of the  commencement of service of
Station KNKI331 within 15 days after the station began operating.  Thus, Nevada Wireless was required to
file FCC Forms 489 for Station KNKI331 no later than September 14, 1997.  Nevada Wireless, however, did
not file FCC Forms 489 for the station at those locations until March 19, 1998, more than six months late. 
As a consequence, this office issued the referenced NAL against Nevada Wireless, proposing a forfeiture of
$7,000 for Nevada Wireless' apparent violation of Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules.

                         III.  Discussion    

     3.  In its April 6, 1998, response to the NAL, Nevada Wireless does not deny that it filed the FCC
Form 489 in an untimely manner.  Rather, it argues that it was unaware that it was required to notify the
Commission of modifications to an existing system that do not extend the station's existing contours.  Nevada
Wireless also claims that its violation did not cause harmful interference or disruption to other operators
because Station KNKI331 is a rural system with no co-channel users within 125 miles.  Lastly, Nevada
Wireless maintains that Station KNKI331's gross monthly revenues are far below the proposed forfeiture
amount.  Consequently, Nevada Wireless states that if it were required to pay the full amount, it would no
longer be cost-effective to run the system, and cessation of service would not serve the public interest.  

     4.  We reject Nevada Wireless' arguments that its forfeiture should be reduced because it was unaware
of its obligation to file an FCC Form 489 for its construction modification.  It is the Commission's policy to
"impel . . . licensees to become familiar with the terms of their licenses and the applicable rules, and to adopt
procedures, including periodic review operations, which will ensure that stations will be operated in substantial
compliance with their licenses and the Commission's rules."  Additionally, "[I]nadvertence . . . is at best,
ignorance of the law, which the Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance."  We also reject
Nevada Wireless' claim that reduction or rescission of the forfeiture is warranted because the violation did not
cause interference.  Gravity of harm, or lack thereof, is a factor that is listed in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,
which the Bureau took into consideration when it issued the NAL against Nevada Wireless.

     5.  Finally, Nevada Wireless has not demonstrated that $7,000 in forfeitures would threaten its ability
to serve the public. Nevada Wireless does not claim that it is unable to pay the forfeiture; rather, it maintains
that the proposed forfeiture amount is excessive, compared to the revenues of its rural facilities.  In determining
an appropriate forfeiture amount, the Commission considers a company's ability to serve the public and pay
the forfeiture.  In that regard, the Commission uses gross revenues as a yardstick to assess the company's
financial condition.  In addition, income derived from other affiliated operations, as well as the financial status
of the station(s) in question, can be taken into account.  Nevada Wireless was required to support its request
that the forfeiture be reduced with a "detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may
be pertinent."  In this case, Nevada Wireless has merely provided a one-page narrative containing a brief
conclusory statement; it has provided no financial information whatsoever.  Without this required information,
we must conclude that Nevada Wireless has failed to demonstrate how a $7,000 forfeiture would threaten its
ability to serve the public, and we thereby decline to reduce or rescind the forfeiture.

               IV.  Conclusion and Ordering Clauses

     6.  For the reasons stated above, we conclude that Nevada Wireless' arguments are insufficient to
justify reduction or recision of the forfeiture.  Consequently, we conclude that a $7,000 forfeiture is
appropriate.
  
     7.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, that Nevada Wireless SHALL FORFEIT
to the United States the sum of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for repeatedly violating Section 22.142(b)
of the Commission's Rules. 

     8.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent, by Certified Mail/ Return
Receipt Requested, to Jim Boyer, President, Nevada Wireless, 593 Overmyer Road, Sparks, Nevada 89431.

                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                    Myron C. Peck
                    Deputy Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division
                    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau