Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
Rego, Inc., c/o Betsy Trimble. ) File No.
Licensee: WGEZ )
Beloit, Wisconsin ) NAL/Acct. No.
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Released: July 13,
By the District Director, Chicago Office, Enforcement Bureau:
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).
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.
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
(a) dDid not have the station authorization posted and
readily available at the station.
(c) dDid not have the capability for the transmitter
control personnel to turn off the transmitter at all
(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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.