**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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **DISCUSSION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
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.