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.