_______________Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1619
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re )
Telepersonal Communications, Inc. ) File No. 620EF009
Licensee of Paging and Radiotelephone )
Service Station KNK0761 in Miami, )
North Miami, Green Acres, Tavernier, )
Boca Raton, and Palm City, Florida )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted: September 26, 1996; Released: September 27, 1996
By the Chief, Enforcement Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. The Chief, Enforcement Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, pursuant to 
delegated authority, has before him a response to the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
DA 96-1180 (released July 25, 1996) ("NALF"), filed by Telepersonal Communications, Inc. 
("Telepersonal"), on August 22, 1996.' For the following reasons, we find no justification for 
reducing or rescinding the proposed forfeiture.
2. The NALF determined that Telepersonal was apparently liable for a forfeiture in the 
amount of $3,000 for having repeatedly violated Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. 
Specifically, the NALF concluded that Telepersonal had failed to timely file an FCC Form 489 
for each of the three frequencies on which Station KNK0761 operates. The NALF indicated that 
although each of the three violations warranted a forfeiture of $2,000 (for a total of $6,000), the 
total forfeiture amount should be reduced in half to $3,000 in recognition of Telepersonal's 
voluntary disclosure of the violations. The final forfeiture amount also was based on an 
examination of the mitigating factors set forth in Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended.
3. Telepersonal does not dispute .that it violated Section 22.142(b) of the Rules. 
However, Telepersonal maintains that because it was permissible to file only one FCC Form 489 
for Station KNK0761, rather than a separate FCC Form 489 for each of the three authorized 
frequencies on which Station KNK0761 operates, it should be held liable, if at all, for only one
1 Telepersonal's pleading is incorrectly styled as a "Petition for Reconsideration" of the NALF. However, 
Section 1.80(0(3) of the Commission's Rules contemplates the submission of a "response" to an NALF, not a 
"petition for reconsideration."
12268
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1619
rule violation. Thus, Telepersonal argues that, at most, the Commission should impose a 
forfeiture of $2,000, with such amount being reduced in half to $1,000 to reflect Telepersonal's 
voluntary disclosure. Additionally, Telepersonal maintains that the NALF failed to consider its 
past record of compliance with the Commission's Rules. According to Telepersonal, when this 
factor is taken into account, the forfeiture amount should be further reduced to $500.
4. There is no merit to Telepersonal's arguments. Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's 
Rules requires licensees to timely notify the Commission of the commencement of service to 
subscribers. Such notification is required for each authorized transmitter. In the instant case, 
Telepersonal was authorized to operate on three different frequencies, utilizing as many 
transmitters. It was required to timely notify the Commission when each transmitter was placed 
in service. Telepersonal, however, did not timely notify the Commission when any of its three 
transmitters commenced operations. Accordingly, it must be held that Telepersonal violated 
Section 22.142(b) on three separate occasions. It is of no consequence that Teleper:>onal could 
have availed itself of a single FCC Form 489 to notify the Commission about the operational 
status of its three transmitters. The number of violations that Telepersonal committed was 
appropriately based on the number of operating transmitters for which Telepersonal failed to 
provide the required notification, not the number of FCC Forms 489 that Telepersonal may have 
opted to file. Furthermore, we reject Telepersonal's argument that the forfeiture amount should 
be reduced because the NALF failed to consider the company's past record of compliance with 
the Commission's rules and regulations. Section 503(b) of the Act requires the Commission to 
consider, among other things, a licensee's history of prior offenses in setting the amount of a 
forfeiture. The Commission expects, at a minimum, that all licensees will comply with its rules 
and regulations. Telepersonal's dearth of prior offenses is a factor which, in this instance, 
properly mitigated against a more severe .sanction. While the NALF did not express!v reference 
Telepersonal's past record, all of the factors set forth in Section 503(b) were considered in 
proposing the initial forfeiture amount.
5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that Telepersonal Communications, Inc. SHALL 
FORFEIT to the United States the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for three violations of 
Section 22.142(b) of the Commission's Rules. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made by 
mailing a check or similar instrument made payable to the Federal Communications Commission, 
to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. The 
payment should reference the captioned file number.
12269
Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1619
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent by Certified Mail 
Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for Telepersonal:
Henry A. Solomon, Esq.
Haley, Bader & Potts
4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 900
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1633
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
(—•N. <-—
Howard C. Davenport 
Chief, Enforcement Division 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
12270