Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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).

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



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

In the Matter of                )
                                )
Rego, Inc.                      )    File No. EB-01-CG-139
Licensee of Station WGEZ(AM)   )     NAL/Acct. No. 200132320002  
Beloit, Wisconsin               )
                                   

                        FORFEITURE ORDER 

Adopted:  September 17, 2001            Released:  September  19, 
2001

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

1.        In  this  Forfeiture  Order  (``Order''),  we  issue  a 
  monetary forfeiture in the amount of six thousand five  hundred 
  dollars ($6,500) to Rego, Inc. (``Rego''), licensee of  Station 
  WGEZ(AM),  Beloit,   Wisconsin,  for   willful  violations   of 
  Sections  11.35(a),  73.1400(a)(1)(ii) and  73.1800(a)  of  the 
  Commission's Rules (``Rules'').1  The noted violations  involve 
  Rego's failure  to install and  maintain operational  Emergency 
  Alert  System (``EAS'')  equipment, failure  to have  a  remote 
  control system  at the main studio  able to provide  sufficient 
  transmission  system  monitoring and  control  capability,  and 
  failure to maintain a station log.

2.        On July 13, 2001,  the Commission's Chicago,  Illinois, 
  Field Office (``Chicago  Office'') issued a Notice of  Apparent 
  Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Rego for a forfeiture  in 
  the  amount of  six thousand  five hundred  dollars  ($6,500).2  
  Rego filed a response to the NAL on July 27, 2001.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

3.        On March 21, 2001, agents from the Commission's Chicago 
  Office  inspected  WGEZ.  During  the  inspection,  the  agents 
  observed, among other  rule violations, that WGEZ did not  have 
  operational EAS equipment  installed and was unable to  monitor 
  EAS transmissions; did not have a remote control system at  the 
  main  studio able  to  provide sufficient  transmission  system 
  monitoring and control  capability; and did not have a  station 
  log.  

4.        On March 27, 2001, the  Chicago Office issued a  Notice 
  of  Violation  (``NOV'')  citing  Rego  for  these  and   other 
  violations observed  during the  inspection.  On  May 1,  2001, 
  Rego responded to the NOV.  In its response, Rego  acknowledged 
  the violations, but stated  that at the time of the  inspection 
  it was in  the process of correcting deficiencies that  existed 
  when  it purchased  the station  in July  2000.   Specifically, 
  Rego  stated that  it was  not aware  that the  station  lacked 
  operational EAS  equipment and remote  control equipment  until 
  it hired an operational  manager in February 2001, and that  it 
  immediately took  steps to  acquire and  install the  necessary 
  equipment.   Rego  further  stated that  at  the  time  of  the 
  inspection  the  EAS and  remote  control  equipment  had  been 
  ordered and was awaiting delivery and installation.  Rego  also 
  indicated   that   immediately   after   the   inspection,   it 
  established  the  requisite  station  logs,  that  the   remote 
  control equipment  was installed  on March 24,  2001, and  that 
  the EAS equipment was installed on April 14, 2001.

5.        On July 13, 2001, the  Chicago Office issued an NAL  in 
  the amount  of $6,500 to Rego  for failure to have  operational 
  EAS  equipment installed,  failure  to have  a  remote  control 
  system   at   the  main   studio   that   provided   sufficient 
  transmission  system  monitoring and  control  capability,  and 
  failure  to maintain  a station  log  in willful  violation  of 
  Sections  11.35(a),  73.1400(a)(1)(ii) and  73.1800(a)  of  the 
  Rules.   The  NAL noted  that  the  aggregate  base  forfeiture 
  amount for these  three violations is $12,000,3 but  determined 
  that a  50% reduction in  the base forfeiture  amounts for  the 
  two equipment-related  violations was appropriate because  Rego 
  had ordered new EAS  and remote control equipment prior to  the 
  inspection.  On July  26, 2001, the Commission received  Rego's 
  response to the NAL.  In the response, Rego's President,  Betsy 
  Trimble, states that she was not aware that the EAS and  remote 
  control equipment was not operational when she took control  of 
  the  station in  July  2000 and  that  she did  not  learn  the 
  equipment was  not operational until  she hired an  operational 
  manager in February 2001.  Ms. Trimble further states that  she 
  never owned  any business before  and lives over  an hour  from 
  the station, that she  relied upon her general managers to  run 
  the station,  and that  she fired  them when  she learned  that 
  they  were neglecting  their jobs.   In addition,  Ms.  Trimble 
  asserts  that the  EAS and  remote control  equipment had  been 
  ordered  and were  awaiting installation  at  the time  of  the 
  inspection.  Finally, Rego has submitted the first page of  its 
  federal tax return for 2000, presumably to demonstrate that  it 
  is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture.

                      III.      DISCUSSION

6.        The forfeiture  amount in  this  case was  assessed  in 
  accordance with Section 503 of the Communications Act of  1934, 
  as  amended (``Act''),4  Section 1.80  of the  Rules,5 and  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)   (``Policy  Statement'').   In  examining   Rego's 
  response,  Section  503(b)   of  the  Act  requires  that   the 
  Commission take into account the nature, circumstances,  extent 
  and  gravity  of  the  violation  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.6

7.        Section 11.35(a) of the  Rules requires that  broadcast 
  stations  install  EAS encoders,  EAS  decoders  and  attention 
  signal  generating   and  receiving  equipment   so  that   the 
  monitoring and transmitting functions are available during  the 
  times    the    stations    are    in    operation.     Section 
  73.1400(a)(1)(ii)  of  the  Rules  requires  that  the   remote 
  control   system  at   the  main   studio  provide   sufficient 
  transmission system monitoring and control capability so as  to 
  ensure compliance with Section 73.1350 of the Rules.7   Section 
  73.1800(a)  of  the  Rules  requires  that  licensees  of   all 
  broadcast stations maintain a station log.

8.        Rego acknowledges that it did not have operational  EAS 
  equipment from July 2000, when it took control of the  station, 
  until April 14,  2001.  Section 11.35(b) of the Rules  provides 
  temporary authority  to operate for 60  days pending repair  or 
  replacement  of EAS  equipment.8  If  the equipment  cannot  be 
  repaired or replaced  within 60 days, an informal request  must 
  be  made to  the  District Director  of  the FCC  Field  Office 
  serving the area in which the broadcast station is located  for 
  additional   time  to   repair  or   replace  the   equipment.9  
  Therefore,  Rego was  required  to replace  WGEZ's  EAS  system 
  within 60  days of the time it  took control of the station  or 
  make  an informal  request  to  the District  Director  of  the 
  Chicago Office for  additional time to replace the EAS  system.  
  Rego   did  neither.    Instead,  it   operated  WGEZ   without 
  functional EAS equipment for approximately eight months.   Rego 
  also  acknowledges that  it  did not  have  operational  remote 
  control  equipment or  maintain a  station log  from July  2000 
  until  March   2001.   Accordingly,  we   conclude  that   Rego 
  willfully  violated Sections  11.35(a),  73.1400(a)(1)(ii)  and 
  73.1800(a) of the Rules.10

9.        While Rego's President states that she has never  owned 
  a  business  before  and  that  she  relied  upon  her  general 
  managers  to  run the  station,  we  do not  believe  that  the 
  licensee's inexperience  as a  broadcaster or  its reliance  on 
  its  employees  supports mitigation  of  the  forfeiture.   The 
  Commission has  long held that  it is the  responsibility of  a 
  licensee to familiarize  itself and comply with the  applicable 
  statutes and Commission  rules and policies, regardless of  the 
  length of  time it has been  engaged in broadcasting.  See  Bay 
  Television,  Inc.,  10  FCC  Rcd  11509,  11511  (1995);   J.B. 
  Broadcasting of Augusta, Ltd.,  41 FCC 2d 507, 508 (1973).   In 
  addition,   it  is   well   established  that   licensees   are 
  responsible  for the  acts and  omissions of  their  employees.  
  See MTD, Inc., 6  FCC Rcd 34, 35 (1991); Gaffney  Broadcasting, 
  Inc., 23  FCC 2d 912,  913 (1970).  Moreover,  we have  already 
  taken Rego's good faith  efforts to comply with the rules  into 
  account in  setting the  forfeiture amount.  As  stated in  the 
  NAL,  we  reduced  the base  forfeiture  amounts  for  the  two 
  equipment-related violations 50%  because Rego had ordered  new 
  EAS and remote  control equipment prior to the inspection.   We 
  do not  believe that  any further reduction  of the  forfeiture 
  amount on this basis is warranted.

10.       Finally, we do not  believe that Rego has  demonstrated 
  that  it is  unable  to  pay the  proposed  $6,500  forfeiture.  
  Rego's financial documentation is incomplete insofar as it  has 
  provided only  the first  page of  its federal  tax return  for 
  2000.   Without  a  complete  tax  return,  we  are  unable  to 
  accurately assess Rego's  ability to pay the forfeiture.11   In 
  any  event, the  Commission has  held that  a licensee's  gross 
  income is generally the best indicator of its ability to pay  a 
  forfeiture.  See  PJB Communications of  Virginia, Inc., 7  FCC 
  Rcd 2088  (1992).  In view of  the gross revenues indicated  by 
  the first  page of Rego's tax  return, we cannot conclude  that 
  Rego is unable to pay the $6,500 forfeiture.

11.       We have examined Rego's response to the NAL pursuant to 
  the  statutory  factors above,  and  in  conjunction  with  the 
  Policy  Statement as  well.   As a  result  of our  review,  we 
  conclude  that Rego  has provided  no basis  for rescission  or 
  mitigation of the proposed monetary forfeiture and that  $6,500 
  is the appropriate forfeiture amount.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

12.       Accordingly, IT IS  ORDERED that,  pursuant to  Section 
  503(b) of the  Act,12 and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and  1.80(f)(4) 
  of the Rules,13 Rego, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY  FORFEITURE 
  in the  amount of  six thousand five  hundred dollars  ($6,500) 
  for failure to install and maintain operational EAS  equipment, 
  failure to  have a  remote control  system at  the main  studio 
  able to provide  sufficient transmission system monitoring  and 
  control capability,  and failure to maintain  a station log  in 
  willful violation  of Sections 11.35(a), 73.1400(a)(1)(ii)  and 
  73.1800(a) of the Rules.

13.       Payment of the forfeiture shall  be made in the  manner 
  provided for  in Section 1.80  of the Rules  within 30 days  of 
  the  release of  this Order.   If the  forfeiture is  not  paid 
  within the  period specified, the case  may be referred to  the 
  Department  of  Justice  for  collection  pursuant  to  Section 
  504(a) of the Act.14  Payment shall be made by mailing a  check 
  or  similar instrument,  payable to  the order  of the  Federal 
  Communications  Commission,   to  the  Federal   Communications 
  Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482.   The 
  payment  should  note  the  NAL/Acct.  No.  referenced   above.  
  Requests for full  payment under an installment plan should  be 
  sent to: Chief,  Revenue and Receivables Operations Group,  445 
  12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.15
14.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that  a copy of this Order  shall 
  be sent  by Certified  Mail Return Receipt  Requested to  Rego, 
  Inc.,  c/o Betsy  Trimble, 6161  N. Berkeley  Blvd,  Milwaukee, 
  Wisconsin  53217, and  to  its counsel,  Jack  Richards,  Esq., 
  Keller and Heckman, LLP,  1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500  West, 
  Washington, D.C. 20001.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

  1 47 C.F.R.  11.35(a), 73.1400(a)(1)(ii) and 73.1800(a).

  2 Notice  of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct.  No. 
200132320002 (Enf. Bur., Chicago Office, released July 13, 2001).

  3  Under  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), 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.   

  4 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  5 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

  6 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

  7 47 C.F.R. 73.1350.

  8 47 C.F.R.  11.35(b).

  9 47 C.F.R.  11.35(c).

  10  Section 312(f)(1)  of  the  Act provides  that  ``the  term 
`willful,' when used with reference to the commission or omission 
of any  act,  means the  conscious  or deliberate  commission  or 
omission of such act, irrespective  of any intent to violate  any 
provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission 
....''  47 U.S.C.   312(f)(1).  This  definition applies to  the 
term ``willful''  as used  in  Section 503(b)  of the  Act.   See 
Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

  11 Normally, tax returns for the most recent three-year  period 
would be  required.   See  NAL  at    13.   However,  Rego  just 
purchased the station in July 2000.     

  12 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

  13 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).

  14 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

  15 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.