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).
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Chadmoore Communications Group ) File No.
Specialized Mobile Radio Station WPFQ582 )
NAL/Acct. No. 920EF0063
Memphis, Tennessee )
PTT Maple, Inc. ) File No. 99-
Specialized Mobile Radio Stations WPHQ434, )
NAL/Acct. No. 920EF0064
WPDB639, WPKN858, and WPKN861 )
Memphis, Tennessee )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: August 24, 2000 Released: August 28,
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order (``Order'') rescinds
two proposed monetary forfeitures: a proposed forfeiture issued
to Chadmoore Communications Group (``Chadmoore''), former
licensee of Specialized Mobile Radio (``SMR'') Station WPFQ582,1
in the amount of $8,000 for apparent willful and repeated
violations of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (``the Act''),2 current Section 1.903(a) of the
Commission's Rules (``the Rules''), and former Section 90.113 of
the Rules3; and a proposed forfeiture issued to PTT Maple,
licensee of SMR Stations WPHQ434, WPDB639, WPKN858, and WPKN861,
in the amount of $30,000 for the same apparent violations. The
proposed forfeitures were assessed for Chadmoore's and PTT
Maple's alleged operation of the above-captioned stations from a
site not authorized by their licenses.
2. On October 18, 1999, the Chief of the former Enforcement
and Consumer Information Division of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (``Wireless Bureau'') issued Notices
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amounts of
$8,000 and $30,000 to Chadmoore4 and PTT Maple,5 respectively,
for the referenced violations. Chadmoore and PTT Maple filed a
joint response to the NALs on November 17, 1999.
3. The above-captioned licenses authorized Chadmoore and
PTT Maple to operate their stations on frequency 854.2375 MHz
from 7434 Raleigh LaGrange Road, Memphis, Tennessee (``authorized
site''). The Commission's Atlanta, Georgia, Field Office
(``Field Office'') received a complaint indicating that Chadmoore
was operating the above-captioned stations from a location other
than the authorized site. The Field Office investigated that
complaint and, on July 31, 1998, determined through monitoring
observations that Chadmoore and PTT Maple were operating the
above-captioned stations from 5100 Poplar Avenue, Memphis,
Tennessee (``the Clark Tower site''), a location that their
licenses did not authorize. In a joint response to the Field
Office's September 2, 1998, letter of inquiry, Chadmoore and PTT
Maple admitted, by letter dated September 18, 1998, that they had
relocated the above-captioned stations from the authorized site
to the Clark Tower site.
4. On September 23, 1998, and December 3, 1998, the Field
Office again monitored the above-captioned stations and
determined that those stations were still operating from the
Clark Tower site. On October 18, 1999, the Wireless Bureau
released the referenced NALs against Chadmoore and PTT Maple for
willful and repeated violations of Section 301 of the Act,
current Section 1.903(a) of the Rules and former Section 90.113
of the Rules. The Wireless Bureau increased the amount of
Chadmoore's proposed forfeiture from the base forfeiture amount
of $4,000 for operation from an unauthorized location to $8,000
because of Chadmoore's alleged failure to take prompt remedial
action following its receipt of the Field Office's letter of
inquiry. The Wireless Bureau also increased the amount of PTT
Maple's proposed forfeiture from the base forfeiture amount of
$4,000 for operation from an unauthorized location to $30,000
because of several cited aggravating factors: multiple stations,
repeated violations and PTT Maple's alleged failure to take
prompt remedial action following its receipt of the Field
Office's letter of inquiry.
5. In their joint response to the NAL Chadmoore and PTT
Maple seek rescission or reduction of the proposed forfeitures.
Chadmoore and PTT Maple argue that by filing an application on
September 23, 1998, to permit the captioned stations to operate
from the Clark Tower site they did take prompt remedial action
following receipt of the Field Office's letter of inquiry.
Chadmoore and PTT Maple state further that their violations were
inadvertent, and at the time of the monitoring by the Field
Office their operations were, in effect, legalized by the
presence of their pending application before the Commission.
6. Section 90.693(b) of the Rules6 permits an ``incumbent
licensee''7 to relocate its transmission site without prior
Commission approval if the relocation does not result in
expansion of the station's 22 dBm V/m interference contour.8 See
American Beeper Company of the Virgin Islands, 15 FCC Rcd 5295
(2000). Since the issuance of the NAL, the Wireless Bureau has
done a contour analysis establishing that Chadmoore's and PTT
Maple's operation from the Clark Tower site does not expand their
stations' original 22 dBm V/m interference contours. We find,
therefore, that Chadmoore's and PTT Maple's operation from the
Clark Tower site was permitted under Section 90.693(b) of the
Rules. Upon review of the particular circumstances in this case
and in accordance with the discretion afforded to the Commission
by Section 504 of the Act9 and implemented by Section 1.80(i) of
the Rules,10 we have determined that rescission of the proposed
forfeitures is warranted.
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 504(b)
of the Act11 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,12
that the Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued
against Chadmoore and PTT Maple ARE RESCINDED.
8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, a copy of this Order shall
be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
Chadmoore Communications Group and PTT Maple, Inc., 2875 E.
Patrick Lane, Suite G, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
1 Chadmoore was the licensee of SMR Station WPFQ582 from June 13,
1998, until September 29, 1998. On September 29, 1998, PTT
Maple, Inc., (``PTT Maple'') became the licensee of the station
pursuant to an assignment application. PTT Maple is apparently a
wholly owned subsidiary of Chadmoore. Because we are rescinding
the proposed forfeiture for the reasons described in this Order,
we need not decide Chadmoore's responsibility for any violations
which occurred during PTT Maple's ownership of the station.
2 47 U.S.C. § 301.
3 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.903(a) and 90.113. On February 12, 1999, the
requirement that stations operate in accordance with a valid
station authorization was moved from Section 90.113 of the Rules
to Section 1.903(a) of the Rules. See In the Matter of the
Biennial Regulatory Review - Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24,
26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to
Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing
Service in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, 13 FCC Rcd
21027 (1998). Section 90.113 of the Rules was applicable from
May 6, 1998, to February 11, 1999.
4 Chadmoore Communications Group, 14 FCC Rcd 17649 (WTB 1999).
5 PTT Maple, Inc., 14 FCC Rcd 17645 (WTB 1999).
6 47 C.F.R. § 90.693(b).
7 The above-captioned licenses are site-specific 800 MHz SMR
licenses. All such licenses were granted before December 15,
1995, or were granted on the basis of applications filed before
that date. Chadmoore and PTT Maple, therefore, qualify as
``incumbent licensees'' under Section 90.693(a) of the Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 90.693(a).
8 Section 90.693(b) also contains a requirement for Commission
notification subsequent to changes in technical parameters. In
this Order, we do not address the question of Chadmoore's and PTT
Maple's compliance with the notification requirement because
failure to comply with that requirement would not alter the fact
that the changes in the captioned stations' technical parameters
did not require Commission approval. See American Beeper Company
of the Virgin Islands, 15 FCC Rcd 5295 (2000).
9 47 U.S.C. § 504.
10 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(i).
11 47 U.S.C. § 504(b).
12 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80.