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                   )    
REGENT LICENSEE OF            )    Case No. 99090142 
FLAGSTAFF, INC.                    )    NAL/Acct. No. X32080029
                              )    Facility #51642
Licensee of Station KZGL(FM),      )    JJS
Cottonwood, Arizona                )    

Adopted:  September 6, 2000             Released:   September  7, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                         I. Introduction

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we 
find Regent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc. (``Regent''), licensee of 
Station KZGL(FM), Cottonwood,  Arizona, apparently  liable for  a 
six thousand dollar ($6,000) forfeiture for an apparent violation 
of 18  U.S.C.   1464  and Section  73.3999 of  the  Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.3999, by broadcasting indecent material. 

                         II. Background

     2.   The  Commission   received  complaints   concerning   a 
broadcast on KZGL(FM) on August 28, 1999.  At issue was a  remote 
broadcast from Images Video, an  adult video store in  Flagstaff, 
Arizona.  According  to  the  complainants,  during  this  remote 
broadcast, the station  interviewed ``Mila Shegol,  Queen of  the 
Nasty,'' an adult film actress.  During the interview, Ms. Shegol 
solicited listeners to  come down  to the station  for free  oral 
sex.  The  complaints also  stated  that she  said she  liked  to 
``suck c-o-c-k''  and  that  anyone coming  to  the  event  could 
``stick it  in  my  a-s-s.''  According  to  one  complaint,  she 
described herself as a  ``healthy vessel for swallowing  s-e-m-e-
n'' and described her ``tongueing techniques.''  

     3.   By letter dated  June 8, 2000,  we requested Regent  to 
comment on the complaint. Regent  filed its response on July  31, 
2000.  In its response, Regent admits that it conducted a  remote 
broadcast from the Images Video store on August 28, 1999 and that 
``inappropriate''  material  was  aired  during  that  broadcast.  
Regent  explains  that  Rowdy   Walker,  the  station's   Program 
Director, Elizabeth  Walker,  a  disc jockey  (and  Mr.  Walker's 
wife), and a salesman named Ryan conducted the remote  broadcast.  
The remote broadcast lasted from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and each 
hour consisted of three live remote segments of approximately two 
minutes  in  length.   Regent  states  that  during  the   remote 
broadcast, at the request of the video store, the Walkers  agreed 
to interview Ms. Shegol on the air.  Ms. Walker states that prior 
to placing  Ms. Shegol  on  the air,  she  told Ms.  Shegol  ``in 
specific terms  the  sort of  subject  matter and  language  that 
should be  avoided.''   Ms. Walker  reviewed  a script  from  Ms. 
Shegol's promoter that listed talking points such as the location 
of the new store,  a description of a  charity fundraiser, and  a 
telephone number where Ms. Shegol's  new video could be  ordered.  
At 7:33 p.m.,  Mr. Walker  began the interview  with Ms.  Shegol.  
The station used cell phones to conduct remote broadcasts, so Mr. 
Walker called  the station,  and Brian  Allen, who  was the  disc 
jockey on duty, patched the call through on the air.  Mr.  Walker 
introduced Ms.  Shegol and  then handed  the cell  phone to  her.  
According to Regent, at first, Ms. Shegol discussed the store and 
her new  video.  Then,  Ms. Shegol  ``began to  allude to  sexual 
topics.''  Mr. Walker states that  he attempted to take the  cell 
phone from Ms.  Shegol, but her  ``promoter'' prevented him  from 
doing so.  According to Mr.  Allen, while he recognized that  Ms. 
Shegol was using ``sexual innuendo,'' he thought Mr. Walker,  his 
superior, had made  the judgment  to keep  her on  the air.   Mr. 
Allen states that  when ``she  uttered a sentence,  in which  she 
explicitly and unmistakably referred to a sex act,'' he shut  her 
off the air.  Mr. Walker estimates that the entire broadcast with 
Ms. Shegol  lasted  two  minutes,  and that  ``no  more  than  30 
seconds'' elapsed from the  time she ``got  vulgar'' to the  time 
she was cut off.

     4.   Mr. Walker apologized on the air during the next remote 
broadcast.  Mr. and Ms. Walker also apologized on Monday  morning 
during their regular morning show.  As a result of this incident, 
Jay Mlazgar,  KZGL(FM)'s  General Manager,  instituted  a  policy 
that,  except  for  station  personnel,  emergency  workers,  and 
government officials, all conversations must be pre-recorded.

                         III. Discussion

     5.   Section 503(b)(1)(D) of the Act provides in pertinent 

     Any person  who is  determined  by the  Commission,  in 
     accordance  with   paragraph  (3)   or  (4)   of   this 
     subsection,  to  have---  violated  any  provision   of 
     section 1304, 1343, or 1464 of title 18, United  States 
     Code; shall  be  liable  to the  United  States  for  a 
     forfeiture penalty.

Pursuant  to  47  U.S.C.    312(a)(6)  and  503(b)(1)(D),   the 
Commission  has   statutory   authority   to   take   appropriate 
administrative  action  when  licensees  broadcast  material   in 
violation of 18 U.S.C.  1464, which provides criminal  penalties 
for anyone who "utters any obscene, indecent or profane  language 
by means of radio communication."  

     6.   The Commission  has defined  indecency as  language  or 
material  that,  in  context,  depicts  or  describes,  in  terms 
patently  offensive   as  measured   by  contemporary   community 
standards  for  the   broadcast  medium,   sexual  or   excretory 
activities  or  organs.   Infinity  Broadcasting  Corporation  of 
Pennsylvania, 2 FCC Rcd 2705 (1987) (citing Pacifica  Foundation, 
56  FCC 2d  94,  98  (1975),  aff'd  sub  nom.  FCC  v.  Pacifica 
Foundation, 438  U.S. 726  (1978).  The  United States  Court  of 
Appeals for  the  District of  Columbia  Circuit has  upheld  the 
Commission's authority  to  restrict the  broadcast  of  indecent 
material at times when there  is a reasonable risk that  children 
may be in the audience.  Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 
852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988).  The court subsequently concluded 
that a 10:00 p.m. to 6:00  a.m. "safe harbor" was justified as  a 
properly  tailored   means   of  vindicating   the   government's 
compelling interest  in  the  welfare of  children.   Action  for 
Children's Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. 
denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996).

     7.   Regent argues  that  it is  unclear  that there  was  a 
violation because the Commission ``has never promulgated specific 
indecency  rules  or  even  guidelines.''   In  Citicasters   Co. 
(WXTB(FM)), 15 FCC  Rcd 11906 (2000),  the Commission rejected  a 
similar argument, noting that ``[t]he Commission's `definition of 
indecency has  remained unchanged  for years,  and in  rulemaking 
proceedings as well  as in  the context of  specific rulings,  we 
have amply illustrated what broadcasters  may and may not  do.'''  
See WQAM License Limited Partnership (WQAM(AM)), 15 FCC Rcd 2518, 
2519 (2000).  Moreover, Ms.  Shegol's comments clearly appear  to 
be indecent because they  contain language that describes  sexual 
and/or excretory  activities  or  organs  in  patently  offensive 
terms.  Because  the material  aired at  around 7:30  p.m.,  when 
there was a reasonable  risk that children may  have been in  the 
audience, it is  legally actionable.   Thus, it  appears that  on 
August 28, 1999, Station KWGL(FM),  violated 18 U.S.C.  1464  by 
airing indecent programming.  

     8.   Section 503(b)  of the  Act, 47  U.S.C.   503(b),  and 
Section 1.80(a) of the Commission's  rules, 47 C.F.R.   1.80(a), 
both state that any person  who willfully or repeatedly fails  to 
comply with  the provisions  of the  Act or  the rules  shall  be 
liable for a forfeiture penalty.  For purposes of Section  503(b) 
of the Act, the term ``willful'' means that the violator knew  it 
was taking the action in question, irrespective of any intent  to 
violate  the   Commission's  rules.    See  Southern   California 
Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

     9.   The Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy Statement  sets  a 
base  forfeiture   amount   of   $7,000   for   transmission   of 
indecent/obscene materials.1   The  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement 
also specifies  that the  Commission  shall adjust  a  forfeiture 
based upon  consideration of  the factors  enumerated in  Section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  503(B)(2)(D), such as  ``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 such other matters 
as justice may  require.'' See  12 FCC  Rcd at  17110.   In  this 
case, Regent  argues that the broadcast was ``unintentional'' and 
that Regent has  a ``superb  record of  FCC compliance.''   While 
Regent may  not  have  intended  to  broadcast  the  material  in 
question, we believe  that given  the fact that  the station  was 
interviewing an adult movie actress  at an adult video store,  it 
failed to take adequate precautions to ensure that  inappropriate 
material was  not  aired.   The  station  did  not  use  a  delay 
mechanism, and it appears that some time passed between the  time 
Ms. Shegol started making explicit sexual references and the time 
Mr. Allen finally cut her off.  In light of the licensee's record 
of compliance with the Commission's rules, however, we believe  a 
downward adjustment is appropriate.   After reviewing all of  the 
circumstances, we believe a  $6,000 forfeiture is appropriate  in 
this case. 
                      IV. Ordering Clauses

     10.   ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section  503(b) 
of the  Communications  Act of  1934,  as amended,  and  Sections 
0.111, 0.311, and  1.80 of the  Commission's rules,2 that  Regent 
Licensee of Flagstaff,  Inc. is hereby  NOTIFIED of its  APPARENT 
LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE  in the amount  of six thousand  dollars 
($6,000) for willfully  violating 18  U.S.C.   1464 and  Section 
73.3999 of the Commission's rules.
     11.                                                   IT  IS 
FURTHER ORDERED,  pursuant to  Section 1.80  of the  Commission's 
Rules, that within  thirty days  of the release  of this  Notice, 
Regent SHALL PAY  to the  United States  the full  amount of  the 
proposed forfeiture  or SHALL  FILE a  written statement  seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

     12.   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. referenced above.

     13.   The response,  if any,  must be mailed  to Charles  W. 
Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,  S.W, 
Room 3-B443, Washington DC 20554 and MUST INCLUDE the file number 
listed above.

     14.   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 

     15.   Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability  under an installment  plan should be  sent 
to: Chief, Credit  and Debt Management  Center, 445 12th  Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.

     16.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice shall 
be sent, by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to  Regent's 
counsel, Kevin Boyle, Esq.,  Latham & Watkins, 1001  Pennsylvania 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004-2505. 


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

1 The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of 
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 
(1997) recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy 
2  47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.