********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect 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
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

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

In the Matter of                   )
                              )
Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc.    )
                              )
Former Licensee, KBRO(AM)          )
Bremerton, Washington              )
                              )
For a Forfeiture                   )

                         FORFEITURE ORDER


   Adopted:  June 23, 1999              Released:  June 24, 1999

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:

     1.  The Commission, by the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, acting pursuant to authority delegated by
Section 0.283 of the Commission's Rules, has before it:  (1) a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL"),
released on December 16, 1998, to Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc. ("WBM") for willful and
repeated violations of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules with respect to the operation of
Station KBRO(AM), Bremerton, Washington; and (2) a response ("Response") submitted by Fred
Lundgren ("Lundgren"), which was received on February 8, 1999.  In the NAL, we concluded that WBM
apparently violated Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  310(d),
and Section 73.3540 of the Commission's Rules by transferring control of the station's license without prior
Commission authorization.  We also concluded that WBM apparently violated Section 73.1125 of the
Commission's Rules by failing to have a meaningful managerial and staff presence at the station's main
studio.  

     2.  The NAL proposed a forfeiture of $8,000 for the unauthorized transfer of control and $7,000
for the violation of the main studio rule.  Lundgren seeks a rescission of the forfeiture.  For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that rescission is not appropriate and that the forfeiture imposed on WBM should
remain at $15,000.

                            Background

     3.  We issued the NAL because written submissions to the Commission revealed that Lundgren and
Jerome Friemel ("Friemel"), the persons who legally controlled WBM, sold without prior Commission
authorization all of their stock to Triangle on December 17, 1997.  Consistent with this action, Lundgren
resigned as president of WBM and was replaced by Frank Olsen ("Olsen"), Triangle's president. 
Thereafter, at least up to the date of the NAL, it appeared that Olsen continued to act as WBM's president,
and, as such, exercised operating control over the station.

     4.  In addition, we concluded that, beginning February 12, 1998, and continuing at least up to the
date of the NAL, WBM did not have a meaningful managerial and staff presence at the station's main
studio.  Our conclusion was based on Lundgren's response to our letter of inquiry ("LOI").  That response
indicated that WBM's only management personnel at KBRO(AM) also had similar responsibilities at
KNTB(AM), the main studio of which was some 30 miles away.  Lundgren's response also related that a
receptionist who greeted visitors to the main studio was not paid by WBM but was a paid employee of the
lessor of the building in which the KBRO main studio was located.

                            Discussion

     5.  Unauthorized Transfer of Control.  In the Response, Lundgren contends that a WBM attorney,
Ben Duncan, Esq. ("Duncan"), maintained control over WBM stock transfers and never relinquished
control to Olsen.  Lundgren supports his position with a letter dated January 22, 1999, from Duncan who
asserts that the WBM/Triangle contract was never fulfilled and that the assets and control of WBM were
never transferred to Triangle.  Lundgren also disputes that he admitted in his LOI response to having
illegally transferred ownership and control of WBM to Triangle.  Rather, Lundgren argues that he did no
more than acknowledge that he resigned as WBM's president and that Olsen replaced him.  Finally,
Lundgren cites to a record of his telephone contacts with respect to the station (and KNTB(AM)) in 1998
as evidence that he never ceded control of the station to Triangle.

     6.  Lundgren's arguments are not persuasive.  In his LOI response, Lundgren acknowledged not
only his resignation as WBM's president but also the resignation of the entire WBM board as a
consequence of the December 17, 1997, agreement between WBM and Triangle.  In addition, Lundgren's
LOI response admitted that:  (1) Triangle "has supplied continuous programming to these WBM owned
stations;" (2) Olsen and Carlos Tynes, Triangle's program director, make programming decisions; (3) Olsen
and Rene Schenk, Triangle's comptroller, together with two WBM employees, handle the finances of the
station; and (4) Olsen hires and fires personnel.  Consistent with this information, Olsen's LOI response
contained the unequivocal statement:  "At the present time [September 1998] Triangle Broadcasting
Company owns 100% of stock in Washington Broadcast Management Company."  In short, the LOI
responses made it plain that, prior to Commission authorization, Triangle, a new entity, had taken legal
control of WBM as well as control over the day-to-day operation of the station from Lundgren and Friemel. 
To the extent Lundgren remained involved with the station, he did so only as an employee of Triangle in
accordance with the December 18, 1997, employment contract that he and Olsen signed.  Moreover, we can
ascribe little value to the log of telephone calls made by Lundgren.  The great majority of those calls were
to Triangle's office in Palm Springs, California.  Lundgren does not explain how a log of such calls
demonstrates Lundgren's control over a station located in Washington.  Accordingly, we conclude there is
no basis for rescinding this aspect of the NAL, nor is there any basis for reducing the $8,000 forfeiture for
the unauthorized transfer of control..  

     7.  Main Studio.  Lundgren's Response includes a letter from Timothy C. Mauch ("Mauch"), who
addresses the NAL's conclusion that KBRO(AM) apparently was in violation of the staffing aspect of the
main studio rule.  Initially, Mauch identifies himself as the station's chief operator and de facto general
manager.  Mauch disputes the NAL's conclusion that because he and WBM's business manager, Chris
Handley ("Handley"), "float" between the KBRO(AM) and KNTB(AM) main studios, neither had an
adequate management presence.  Rather, he contends that the Commission should find that the two spent
sufficient time at both and thereby conclude that no violation occurred.  In this regard, Mauch relates that,
in addition to being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, he worked a standard five-day work week. 
However, Mauch does not state where his office or offices were nor how much time he spent at those
locations.  Mauch further states that, in any event, since October 30, 1998, there has been only one main
studio site for both stations and that he uses that site as his home base of operations.  With respect to the
NAL's findings concerning the station's receptionist, Mauch does not contest that the individual is paid by
the lessor of the building.  However, he asserts that WBM trained the individual to greet the public and
answer questions and that the cost of employing the individual is shared by several businesses and added to
the monthly rental fee paid to the property owner each month.  Moreover, he contends that the receptionist's
performance is a prerequisite of WBM's pro rata payment of the receptionist's wages through payment of
the rental surcharge.  In Mauch's view, the situation with respect to the employment of the receptionist is
similar to the one found acceptable in W-Air, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 9434 (MMB 1996).  In that case we found
that the former licensee had complied with the full-time staff presence requirement of the main studio rule
where it had employed a book store owner, who shared a common entrance with the station, greeted visitors
and attended to the business of the main studio during normal business hours.  

     8.  Having carefully considered the foregoing, we conclude that Lundgren has resolved some, but
not all, of the concerns we had about the staffing of the main studio.  Specifically, it appears that, after
October 30, 1998, at least two management personnel have been available at the KBRO(AM) main studio
during the normal business hours.  Thus, from that date forward, we conclude that no violation of the rule
has occurred.  However, prior to that time, it appears that KBRO(AM)'s main studio was attended, if at all,
only by a receptionist, not a management-level employee.  There is nothing before us to show that Mauch
and/or Handley (or any other management-level person) maintained a presence at the station's main studio
between February 12, 1998 and October 30, 1998.  Therefore, even if we consider the receptionist a
KBRO(AM) employee for purposes of staffing, we are constrained to find that the main studio periodically
was left unattended by management-level staff during that period.  We thus conclude that violations of the
staffing aspect of the main studio rule occurred and that there is no basis for rescinding or reducing the
forfeiture proposed in the NAL.  See KLDT-TV 55, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 3198 (1995); KQQK, Inc., 10 FCC
Rcd 132 (MMB 1994).  See also, W-Air, Inc., supra, where the forfeiture was rescinded because the
former licensee established that it had maintained both a management and full-time staff presence at the
station's main studio during normal business hours.         

     9.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc. FORFEIT to the
United States the sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section
310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  310(d), and Sections 73.1125 and
73.3540 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.1125 and 73.3540.  Payment of the forfeiture may be
made by mailing to the Commission a check or similar instrument payable to the Federal Communications
Commission in accordance with the instructions included with this Forfeiture Order.

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a copy of this Forfeiture Order be sent by Certified Mail
- Return Receipt Requested to Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc.


                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




                         Roy J. Stewart
                         Chief, Mass Media Bureau