Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************




                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

                                )
In the Matter of                )
                                )
Rego, Inc., c/o Betsy Trimble.  )            File             No. 
EB-01-CG-139
     Licensee: WGEZ             )
Beloit, Wisconsin               )            NAL/Acct.        No. 
200132320002

                                
           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                             Released:  July 13, 
               2001

By the District Director, Chicago Office, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  Introduction

     1.In  this  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture 
(``NAL''), we find that Rego, Inc., c/o Betsy Trimble (``Rego''), 
licensee of Radio Station WGEZ, has apparently violated  Sections 
11.35(a), 743..1400(a)(1)(ii), and 73.1800(a) of the Commission's 
Rules (the ``Rules'').1  These violations occurred as a result of 
the failure of Radio Station WGEZ, located in Beloit,  Wisconsin, 
to have operational  Emergency Alert  System (``EAS'')  equipment 
installed,  failure  to   have  sufficient  transmission   system 
monitoring and control capability and  failure to have a  station 
log.  We conclude that Rego is apparently liable for a forfeiture 
in the amount of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500).

                         II.  Background

     2.On  January  12, 2001,  the  Chicago  Office  received  an 
anonymous complaint alleging Radio Station WGEZ was operating  in 
violation of various FCC Rules.

     3.On March 21, 2001, agents from the Federal  Communications 
Commission's (``FCC'')  Chicago  Office inspected  Radio  Station 
WGEZ to verify compliance with the Rules.  The inspection of  the 
station revealed that WGEZ:
     (a)  Did not have  operational EAS  equipment installed  and 
          was unable to  monitor EAS  transmissions. The  station 
          failed to transmit and log the required EAS tests,  and 
          failed to make the appropriate entries in the broadcast 
          station log  detailing  the  cause of  the  failure  to 
          receive the required EAS tests and activations.
     (b)  Did not have a remote control system at the main studio 
          able  to   provide   sufficient   transmission   system 
          monitoring and control capability to ensure  compliance 
          with Section 73.1350 of the Rules.2
     (c)  Failed to maintain a station log.
     (a)  
.
     Other violations noted  during the inspection  of WGEZ  were 
     that the station:were:
     (a)  dDid not have descriptions and diagrams documenting the 
          measurement of the  antenna resistance on  file at  the 
          station.
     (a)  dDid not  have  the station  authorization  posted  and 
          readily available at the station.
     (b)  
     (c)  dDid  not  have  the  capability  for  the  transmitter 
          control personnel to  turn off the  transmitter at  all 
          times.
     (e)  fFailed to maintain the antenna input power at not less 
     than 90% of the authorized power.
     (f)  fFailed  to  designate  a  person  to  serve  as  chief 
     operator.
       These  turquoise  items  would  be  better  stated  in  an 
       ``Other  violations noted were?.''  sentence so  as not  to 
       give  the  impression  that they  were  part  of  the  NAL 
       assessment
     4.On March  27, 2001,  a Notice of  Violation (``NOV'')  was 
issued to  Rego for  failure to  have operational  EAS  equipment 
installed, failure to perform EAS tests, failure to file a letter 
of notification with the FCC  in Washington, DC, that the  direct 
method was being  used to  determine power, failure  to have  the 
station license  and authorizations  posted so  they are  readily 
available and  easily  accessible,  failure  to  have  sufficient 
transmission system monitoring and control capability, failure to 
maintain the input power at no less than 90%, failure to maintain 
a station log, and failure  to have a designated chief  operator. 
The NOV  cited Rego  for non-compliance  with Sections  11.35(a), 
11.61(a)(1)(v),.   11.61(a)(2)(i)(A),    73.54(d),    73.1230(b), 
73.1350(b)(2), 73.1400(a)(1)(ii), 73.1560(a)(1), 73.1800(a),  and 
73.1870(a) of the Rules.3

     5.On May 1, 2001, the Chicago office received a response  to 
the NOV from the Law Offices  of Keller and Heckman, LLP,  Rego's 
legal representatives.   In their  reply, they  acknowledged  the 
various oversights and discrepancies associated with the station.  
However, they stated at  the time of the  inspection Rego was  in 
the process of correcting the deficiencies that existed when they 
purchased the station.  They requested the Commission to consider 
the good faith measures taken by Rego prior to and following  the 
inspection.  The reply also indicated  Rego had corrected all  of 
the violations cited in the NOV. 

                        III.  Discussion

     6.Section 11.35(a) of the Rules requires broadcast stations 
to ensure that EAS Encoders, EAS Decoders and Attention Signals 
generating and receiving equipment is installed and functioning.  
Additionally, broadcast stations must determine the cause of any 
failure to receive the required EAS tests or activations 
specified in Sections 11.61(a)(1) and (2) of the Rules,4 and make 
the appropriate entries in the broadcast station log.  Section 
73.1400(a)(1)(ii) of the Rules requires the remote control system 
at the main studio must provide sufficient transmission system 
monitoring and control capability so as to ensure compliance with 
Section 73.1350 of the Rules.  Section 73.1800(a) of the Rules 
requires licensees of each station to maintain a station log.

     7.The Commission assesses monetary forfeitures pursuant to  Section 
503(b) of  the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as  amended,  (the 
``Act'')5 as  implemented  in  Section 1.80  of  the  Rules.6   A 
forfeiture may be  assessed against a  person who the  Commission 
finds to have willfully7 failed to comply with the provisions  of 
the  Act  or  the  Rules.   Forfeiture  amounts  are  decided  in 
accordance  with   Section  503(b)(2)   of  the   Act8  and   the 
Commission's forfeiture guidelines in  Section 1.80(b)(4) of  the 
Rules.9

     8.Based  on  the  evidence before  us,  we  find  that  Rego 
willfully  violated  Sections  17.35(a),  73.1400(a)(1)(ii),  and 
73.1800(a) of  the Rules  by failing  to have  a functioning  EAS 
system, failing to  have a  remote control  system installed  and 
failure to maintain a station log.  Pursuant to The  Commission's 
Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of  the 
Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd  17087 
(1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (``Forfeiture Policy 
Statement''), the base  forfeiture amount for  EAS equipment  not 
installed or operational  is $8,000, the  base forfeiture  amount 
for violation of transmitter control and metering requirements is 
$3,000, and the  base forfeiture amount  for failure to  maintain 
required records  is $1,000.   The  aggregated amount  for  these 
forfeitures is  $12,000.  In  assessing the  monetary  forfeiture 
amount, we must also take into account the statutory factors  set 
forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of  the Communications Act of  1934 
(``ACT''), as amended, which  include the nature,  circumstances, 
extent, and gravity of the violation(s), and with respect to  the 
violator,  the  degree  of  culpability,  any  history  of  prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and  other such matters as justice  may 
require.10  Recognizing that Rego had ordered new remote  control 
and EAS  equipment  prior to  the  inspection, we  deem  a  fifty 
percent reduction  in the  forfeiture amount  for the  violations 
associated with the equipment is appropriate.  After applying the 
Forfeiture Policy  Statement and  the  statutory factors  to  the 
instant case, we believe a $6,500 forfeiture is warranted. 

                      IV.  Ordering Clauses

     9.Accordingly,  IT  IS ORDERED  THAT,  pursuant  to  Section 
503(b) of the  Act, and  Sections 0.111,  0.311 and  1.80 of  the 
Rules,11 Rego, Inc., c/o Betsy Trimble is hereby NOTIFIED of  its 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of six thousand 
five hundred dollars ($6,500) for failure to have operational EAS 
equipment installed, failure to have a remote control system that 
provided sufficient  transmission system  monitoring and  control 
capabilities at  the  main  studio, and  failure  to  maintain  a 
station log, in violation of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1400(a)(1)(ii) 
and 73.1800(a) of the Rules.

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this  NOTICE 
OF APPARENT LIABILITY,  Rego, Inc., c/o  Betsy Trimble SHALL  PAY 
the full  amount  of the  proposed  forfeiture or  SHALL  FILE  a 
written  statement  seeking  reduction  or  cancellation  of  the 
proposed forfeiture.

     11.  Payment of  the forfeiture  may be  made by  mailing  a 
check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the  Federal 
Communications Commission, to the Forfeiture Collection  Section, 
Finance  Branch,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  P.O.  Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.  The payment should note the 
NAL/Acct. No. 200132320002.

     12.  The  response,  if  any,  must  be  mailed  to  Federal 
Communications  Commission,  Enforcement  Bureau,  Technical  and 
Public Safety Division, 445  12th Street, S.W., Washington,  D.C. 
20402 and MUST INCLUDE THE NAL/Acct. No. 200132320002. 

     13.  The Commission will not consider reducing or  canceling 
a forfeiture in response  to a claim of  inability to pay  unless 
the petitioner  submits: (1)  federal tax  returns for  the  most 
recent  three-year  period;  (2)  financial  statements  prepared 
according to generally accepted accounting practices  (``GAAP''); 
or (3)  some  other  reliable and  objective  documentation  that 
accurately reflects  the petitioner's  current financial  status.  
Any claim  of inability  to pay  must specifically  identify  the 
basis for the claim by  reference to the financial  documentation 
submitted.

     14.  Requests for payment of the full amount of this  Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to: Chief,  Revenue and  Receivables Operations  Group, 445  12th 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.12

     15.  IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED THAT  a copy of  this NOTICE  OF 
APPARENT LIABILITY  shall  be  sent  by  Certified  Mail,  Return 
Receipt Requested,  to Rego,  Inc., c/o  Betsy Trimble,  6161  N. 
Berkley  Blvd.,  Milwaukee,  WI   532171309  Old  Orchard   Road, 
Vincennes, IN  47591-0242.   A copy  of this  NOTICE OF  APPARENT 
LIABILITY shall be sent by First Class Mail to the Law Offices of 
Keller and Heckman,  LLP, 1001  G Street, N.W.,  Suite 500  West, 
Washington, D.C.  20001.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                              G. Michael Moffitt
                              District Director
                              Chicago Office
_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a), 73.1400(a)(1)(ii), and 73.1800(a).
2 47 C.F.R.  73.1350.
3 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a)(1)(v),. 11.61(a)(2)(i)(A), 73.54(d), 
73.1230(b), 73.1350(b)(2), 73.1560(a)(1), and 73.1870(a).
4 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a)(1) and (2).
5 47 U.S.C.  503(b).
6 47 C.F.R.  1.80.
7 Section 312(f)(1), which also applies to Section 503(b), 
provides: [t]he term ``willful'', when used with reference to the 
commission or omission of any act, means the conscious and 
deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of 
any intent to violate any provisions of the Act or any rule or 
regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act or by a 
treaty ratified by the United States.  See Southern California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).
8 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2).
9 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4).
10 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D); see also Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01.
11 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, and 1.80.
12 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.