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).


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

In the Matter of                        )
Richard E. LaPierre                )    File No. EB-00-BS-
Lady Meghan Ryan, WCX4267               )    
Seabrook, New Hampshire            )    NAL/Acct. No. 

                      FORFEITURE ORDER

     Adopted:  August 29, 2000                    Released:  
August 31, 2000   

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

     1.   In this  Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we  issue a 
$4,000  monetary  forfeiture  to  Richard  E.  LaPierre  for 
willfully and  repeatedly violating  Section 1.89(b)  of the 
Commission's  Rules (``Rules'')  by  failing  to respond  to 
written  Commission  inquiries  dated  September  28,  1999, 
October 25, 1999, December 3,  1999, and February 28, 2000.1  
The  inquiries  related  to   Mr.  LaPierre's  marine  radio 

     2.   On  May 12,  2000,  the District  Director of  the 
Commission's  Boston,  Massachusetts Field  Office  (``Field 
Office'') issued  a $4,000 Notice of  Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture (``NAL'') to Mr. LaPierre.2   
     3.   Mr. LaPierre explains that he failed to respond to 
the Field Office's Notices  of Violation, which directed him 
to respond  within ten  days, because  he was  repairing his 
vessel, Lady Meghan Ryan, and, at one, point, ``was ignoring 
all  my mail.  .  . .''   He gives  no  explanation for  not 
following the Field  Office agent's advice to  him, during a 
telephone  call that  he initiated  to the  Field Office  on 
January 12, 2000, that he  respond in writing to the Notices 
of  Violation  in  order  to avoid  a  forfeiture.   Section 
1.89(b) of the Rules provides  that if ``an answer cannot be 
sent or an acknowledgement cannot be made within such 10-day 
period   by  reason   of   illness   or  other   unavoidable 
circumstances, acknowledgment  and answer  shall be  made at 
the earliest practical date  with a satisfactory explanation 
of  the   delay.''3   Mr.   LaPierre  has  not   provided  a 
satisfactory explanation for his  delay in responding to the 
Field Office inquiries that began on September 28, 1999, and 
concluded on February 28, 2000.

     4.   Next, Mr.  LaPierre claims  that he  has rectified 
his  outstanding marine  radio station  license infractions.  
The  Field Office  issued the  NAL to  Mr. LaPierre  for his 
failure to respond to Commission  inquiries and did not cite 
him   for  his   apparent  marine   radio  station   license 

     5.   Finally, Mr. LaPierre requests  that we cancel the 
$4,000   as  it   would  cause   him  ``unneeded   financial 
punishment.'' According to the  instructions provided in the 
NAL with respect to proof for such a claim, 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.5  

Mr.  LaPierre  has  not  provided  the  necessary  proof  to 
evaluate his claim.  Indeed,  he has provided no information 
at all regarding his inability to pay.
     6.   Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act''),6 and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Rules,7  Richard  E.  LaPierre  IS  LIABLE  FOR  A  MONETARY 
FORFEITURE  in the  amount of  $4,000 for  violating Section 
1.89(b) of the Rules.

     7.   Payment  of the  forfeiture shall  be made  in the 
manner provided  for in  Section 1.80  of the  Rules8 within 
thirty  (30) days  of the  release  of this  Order.  If  the 
forfeiture is not paid within the specified period, the case 
may be referred to the  Department of Justice for collection 
pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.9  Payment may be made 
by  credit card  through  the Commission's  Credit and  Debt 
Management Center at (202) 418-1995 or 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.  X32260001.  
Requests for  full payment under an  installment plan should 
be sent to:   Chief, Credit and Debt  Management Center, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.10

     8.   IT IS FURTHER  ORDERED that, a copy  of this Order 
shall be  sent by certified mail,  return receipt requested, 
to Richard  E. LaPierre,  6 Zacarella Circle,  Seabrook, New 
Hampshire 03874.


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

1 47 C.F.R.  1.89(b).

2 Richard E. LaPierre, NAL/Acct. No. X32260001 (Enf. Bur., 
Boston Office, May 12, 2000).

3 47 C.F.R.  1.89(b).

4 Even if it were an issue, we note that remedial action to 
correct a violation, although commendable, will not nullify 
a forfeiture penalty.  See Station KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 
258, 259 (1993).

5 NAL at 4  15.

6 47 U.S.C. 503(b).
7 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, and 1.80(f)(4).

8 47 C.F.R.  1.80.

9 47 U.S.C.  504(a).

10 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.