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, if available.


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

In the Matter of                )  File No. EB-98-TP-241
WGUL-FM Inc.                    )  NAL/Acct. No. 815TP0004
Radio Station WINV(AM)          )  
Inverness, FL                   )


     Adopted:  April 19, 2000           Released:  April 21, 2000 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

     1.   In this  Memorandum Opinion and  Order (``Order''),  we 
deny reconsideration of and affirm the Forfeiture Order issued to 
WGUL-FM, Inc., licensee  of Station  WINV(AM), in  the amount  of 
seven  thousand  dollars  ($7,000).   The  underlying  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability ("NAL") proposed a forfeiture in the amount of 
$10,000 against WGUL-FM,  Inc.  Upon  evaluating WGUL-FM,  Inc.'s 
response to the NAL, the Compliance and Information Bureau issued 
a Forfeiture Order1 which affirmed the imposition of a forfeiture 
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934,  as 
amended ("the Act")2 and Section  1.80 of the Commission's  Rules 
("the  Rules")3  for  willful  violation  of  Sections  11.52(d), 
11.61(a), and 73.3526(c)4 of the Rules5 but reduced the amount to 
     2.   On  March 25,  1998, agents  from the  Bureau=s  Tampa, 
Florida Field Office ("Tampa Office"), responding to a  complaint 
concerning   unintentional   emissions,   inspected    WINV(AM)=s 
operating facilities. Among other things, the inspection revealed 
violations of Sections  11.52(d) (EAS code  and attention  signal 
monitoring requirements),  11.61(a)  (tests of  EAS  procedures), 
73.1590(a)(6)   (equipment    performance   measurements),    and 
73.3526(c) (availability  of public  inspection file  for  public 
inspection) of the Rules.

     3.  On March 31, 1998, the Tampa Office issued WGUL-FM, Inc. 
an Official Notice  of Violation ("NOV")  citing the above  noted 
violations of the  Rules.  On  April 14, 1998,  the Tampa  Office 
received a written  response to the  NOV.  On June  1, 1998,  the 
District Director of the Tampa  Office issued an NAL to  WGUL-FM, 
Inc. in  the amount  of $10,000  for the  willful and  continuous 
violation of  Sections  11.52(d),  11.61(a),  73.1590(a)(6),  and 
73.3526(c) of the Rules.

     4.    WGUL-FM,  Inc.  filed  a  Request  for  Remission   or 
Reduction of Forfeiture.  The  Compliance and Information  Bureau 
issued a Forfeiture Order for  three of the violations and  ruled 
that the  forfeiture attributable  to the  Section  73.1590(a)(6) 
violation  for  equipment  performance  measurements  should   be 
eliminated.   Therefore,   the  Forfeiture   Order  reduced   the 
forfeiture amount to  $7,000 instead of  the originally  proposed 

     5.   WGUL-FM,  Inc.  filed a  Petition  for  Reconsideration 
("Petition") of the Forfeiture Order.  In the Petition,  WGUL-FM, 
Inc. argues that  the forfeiture  should be  remitted or  further 
reduced.  Regarding the violation  of Section 11.52(d),  WGUL-FM, 
Inc. argues  that  although  WRUF-FM (one  of  its  required  EAS 
sources located in Gainesville, Florida) was not being monitored, 
there was no  risk to the  listeners of WINV(AM)  because of  the 
distance between  Inverness,  Florida and  Gainesville,  Florida.  
Pursuant to the State of  Florida EAS Operational Plan,  WINV(AM) 
is required to monitor WRUF(AM)/FM and WOGK-FM.  However,  during 
the  time  of  the   inspection  neither  was  being   monitored.  
Consequently, WGUL-FM, Inc. was  clearly in violation of  Section 
11.52(d)  of  the  Rules.   WGUL-FM,  Inc.'s  opinion   regarding 
potential risk is not a basis for lowering the forfeiture.

     6.   WGUL-FM,  Inc.  further  asserts that  a  news  release 
issued by the Compliance and  Information Bureau on November  30, 
1998,6 stated that the FCC  would not begin its [EAS]  inspection 
program until February 1, 1999.  WINV(AM)'s inspection,  however, 
was conducted on March 25, 1998, the NOV was issued on March  31, 
1998, and the NAL was issued on June 1, 1998, all long before the 
news release was issued.  Therefore, WGUL-FM, Inc. could not have 
relied on  the  news release.   Further,  agents from  the  Tampa 
Office inspected  WINV(AM)  as  a result  of  a  complaint  about 
unintentional emissions.   In investigating  that complaint,  the 
EAS violations  were discovered.   Even though  the news  release 
states that  the EAS  inspection program  would not  begin  until 
February 1, 1999, nothing in the news release suggested that  EAS 
violations  discovered  prior  to  February  1,  1999,  would  be 
overlooked if they were found during an inspection conducted  for 
some other purpose, as was the case here.         

     7.   WGUL-FM,  Inc.  also argues  that  the portion  of  the 
forfeiture assessed for not having the public file available  for 
inspection should be rescinded.  Section 73.3526(c) of the  Rules 
states that  the  public  file  shall  be  available  for  public 
inspection at any  time during  regular business  hours.  At  the 
time of inspection the file was  not available.  This is a  clear 
violation of the rule.  The Forfeiture Order addressed this issue 
and determined  that  the  licensee had  not  presented  evidence 
compelling enough to warrant  reducing or rescinding the  portion 
of the forfeiture  applicable to the  public file violation.   We 
see no reason to reconsider that ruling.  

     8.  Finally,  we note  that the  $7,000 forfeiture  is  well 
below  the  combined  $17,000  base  amount  set  forth  in   the 
Forfeiture Policy  Statement for  EAS  ($8,000) and  public  file 
($9,000) violations.

     9.  Accordingly,  pursuant to  Section 405  of the  Act,  47 
U.S.C. ' 405, the petition for reconsideration of the  Forfeiture 
Order in this proceeding is hereby DENIED.            


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

      14 FCC Rcd 6106 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999).

     2 47 U.S.C. ' 503 (b).

     3 47 C.F.R. ' 1.80.

     4 This violation was previously incorrectly cited as a 
violation of Section 73.3526(d).  The incorrect rule cite has no 
impact on the case because the facts and circumstances of the 
case make it clear that the rule that was violated was Section 
73.3526(c); however, we are taking this opportunity to correct 
the cite.  This violation will be properly referred to as a 
violation of Section 73.3526(c) throughout the remainder of this 

     5 47 C.F.R. ' 11.52(d), 11.61(a), and 73.3526(c).

     6 News Release, "FCC to Increase Enforcement of EAS 
Regulations," Report No. CI 98-26, released November 30, 1998.