>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:23 2024
Received: by 10.42.205.199 with SMTP id fr7mr4540712icb.6.1344266519492;
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.104.166 with SMTP id gf6ls3576384igb.3.canary; Mon, 06 Aug
2012 08:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.191.129 with SMTP id gy1mr3433199igc.0.1344266516956;
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.100.229 with SMTP id fb5msigb;
Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.76.38 with SMTP id h6mr944780paw.15.1344238886590;
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.66.76.38 with SMTP id h6mr944779paw.15.1344238886567;
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <john..._at_sbcglobal.net>
Received: from nm12-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm12-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com. [98.139.91.242])
by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id vo7si3793840pbc.1.2012.08.06.00.41.26;
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 98.139.91.242 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of john..._at_sbcglobal.net) client-ip=98.139.91.242;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 98.139.91.242 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of john..._at_sbcglobal.net) smtp.mail=john..._at_sbcglobal.net; dkim=pass (test mode) head..._at_sbcglobal.net
Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm12.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2012 07:41:26 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.55] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2012 07:41:26 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1055.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2012 07:41:26 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 266849..._at_omp1055.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 37794 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2012 07:41:25 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
h=DKIM-Signature:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Subject:References:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version;
b=LMidkXbmoHKk8bm9nokl4FIBAbaQ1u9x5xChnUVcEmTwfdAYjplT8heDNBFXvnuRIQSDd3HiI9/19Cze67ygYEB2xNe7e9mjExfTeAvEqkLRbkyUIc+PsV0Oh3MxRat+3PTHnRa7KZmgexhbMikAc2FzOqsgMOsiD9K+quOqSSg= ;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1344238885; bh=e8F5kHcMN0mhtCinnNo7UslC/+firoeoJbR+vc+AZQM=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Subject:References:From:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Date:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version; b=UHBibiecpPsS4FpuCe37BkMCuI2ImDI8XkFrEDXHdtM9QcAy2AKPqexIxffrEZZyumtfDgR10M5EC72xQbuQ0caCCQEFDV+qL1CIIYM/G+n6xN415Oos1YlZLFQgB35q6K86wfsvK2KJQJDq3j8ORCRNpjP+HmYAIxVL2Hcxnp0=
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: dWW7ycAVM1mmVFkzNhnM8Yuep6vWRx2FIUBPJDZ6uPQZlDB
O1CjsbVLbtArqzfjA8accZdhPKCDkURk3xIeFM6qnpN9Kjmz9QQOZqSHMpTb
fAAVM2uO4BuFKsNV2ML9izv.2mZT6ZzmbM5SpbObdmBa94LPwnGu69IsgXY0
fBp97hTYH2GfuDHMOMkB19Ih4aqLmYSluvvxnQK0wukOxdWNdM9.LaP.03O1
pijUW8FcIyq35OY0rBH_n.OYygp66mYgCsGqE4S3OrsNc9cBgTS0PnRDAare
QutsoLIUKtOD17Xhfic5.mdbF4dQjmb30yVtOHYm1XJxlcGed2F0b2MIUzdT
wulymVDSHJzxwt5g8P8pBpNwVkOC5SFZpfLUj6ihvl78RgpwyCAkMRfj5jWE
ohFq45e4ErTofQ8PuxzxypsCQhRH1PoqKNPdkNetx4REayNZYMz0SUV5h7ib
YDaiczWk55OFbrYjwgTW4hW5fv7ldhCEcDsnsLmvWzoK75Se0dgY5YRkF1VQ
11UiCR81f_goheKRxC6xkxPrqSFYpvIh1IyDwz9sseKAYyKoDP1Dpms8ng7G
fjEqrHMhD9KR0fehJpHWa04shM1q2KsKzfRj24HILhVIgV_2da6Gs47kvbGy
FsZn9LLiNyOXGC78MHfrI062PgGJoMEfK1z_pmA7wKoSN9Ueq81MSkn_Dqdp
Yvn70Kq6eI6S5Jv0Icy23StDSZxBNes0q3PIQTRX5AsyeI5ekmw--
X-Yahoo-SMTP: .q57L5iswBBCwI4Iz4v3Nu.qtsLL_cN748ut5XPCB2bmifc8
Received: from [192.168.1.70] (john..._at_75.43.39.194 with xymcookie)
by smtp109-mob.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 06 Aug 2012 00:41:25 -0700 PDT
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6216} FCC Upholds $7000 Forfeiture Order to California CB Operator
References: <016201cd736b$e6326650$b29732f0$_at_earthlink.net>
From: John Losea <john..._at_sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=Apple-Mail-CA4B37AE-BAE0-4826-84BD-1C237A3CEF76
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
In-Reply-To: <016201cd736b$e6326650$b29732f0$_at_earthlink.net>
Message-Id: <BAA0B782-A9BE-4931-8FDA-6EA089F4DC3D_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:41:24 -0700
To: "tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com" <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
--Apple-Mail-CA4B37AE-BAE0-4826-84BD-1C237A3CEF76
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
It sounds to me as if Jones is just a stubborn violator just stirring thing=
s up for a little attention----Jones should man-up & pay up.
Sniper
On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:39 PM, "Roger at Bugsweeps" <bugs..._at_earthlink.net> wr=
ote:
> FCC Upholds $7000 Forfeiture Order to California CB Operator
> TAGS: CB radio station, cb station, Communications Act, County Fire Depar=
tment, equipment, inspection, Merced County, radio, radio communication sys=
tem, radio equipment, radio frequency interference, radio station, the agen=
ts, Unlicensed Operation
> 07/30/2012
> After a Merced, California man refused to let FCC investigators inspect h=
is Citizens Band (CB) radio station, the FCC issued -- and upheld -- a Noti=
ce of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) for $7000 for not allowing th=
e inspection. In issuing the NAL in March 2011, the FCC found that Ira Jone=
s =E2=80=9Capparently willfully and repeatedly=E2=80=9D violated Section 30=
3(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 95.426(a) o=
f the Commission=E2=80=99s rules (CB Rule 26) by failing to permit the insp=
ection. Jones responded to the NAL, but the FCC upheld the forfeiture amoun=
t, saying that Jones=E2=80=99 arguments were =E2=80=9Cirrelevant=E2=80=9D a=
nd =E2=80=9Cunpersuasive.=E2=80=9D
> Background
> In March 2010, agents from the FCC=E2=80=99s office in San Francisco resp=
onded to a complaint regarding radio frequency interference within the radi=
o communication system equipment of the Merced County Fire Department. The =
agents observed that transmissions on 27.165 MHz -- a frequency within the =
CB radio spectrum -- appeared to match the audio distortion received on fre=
quency 154.4 MHz within the Merced County Fire Department=E2=80=99s audio r=
eceiver and speaker system. According to the FCC, this appeared to be audio=
rectification interference within the department=E2=80=99s receiver and sp=
eaker system. Audio rectification interference occurs when an electronic ci=
rcuit -- usually an amplifier -- which ideally should respond only to audio=
frequency signals, responds to external RF signals. Typically, the circuit=
picks up signals from a nearby radio transmitter in addition to the sound =
the listener wants to hear.
> The agents monitored the radio transmissions on 27.165 MHz and used radio=
direction finding techniques to locate the source of the signal and found =
it to be emanating Jones=E2=80=99 residence in Merced, California. A week l=
ater, the agents monitored frequency 27.165 MHz again and located the inter=
ference be coming from Jones=E2=80=99s residence. Later the same day, the a=
gents approached Jones=E2=80=99 residence, knocked on his door, identified =
themselves as agents of the FCC and presented their official badges and cre=
dentials; the individual answering the door identified himself as Jones. Th=
e agents told him about the radio frequency interference complaint and aske=
d him if he was the owner or operator of the CB radio station.
> Jones acknowledged that he was the operator of the CB radio station, but =
denied causing any interference to the Merced County Fire Department. The a=
gents then requested that they be allowed to inspect the CB radio station t=
o determine the cause of the interference. Jones denied the agents=E2=80=99=
request. The agents warned him that refusing to allow an inspection of a C=
B radio station is a violation of Section 95.426(a) of the FCC=E2=80=99s ru=
les and Section 303(n) of the Communications Act; they explained that these=
rules require CB operators to make their stations available to authorized =
FCC representatives for inspection. Jones again denied the request and asse=
rted that the FCC must have a search warrant to inspect his CB station. The=
agents advised him that he was required to take necessary precautions to a=
void causing radio interference by operating at power levels that do not ex=
ceed legal limits and by refraining from using a radio frequency power ampl=
ifier.
> Prior to leaving the premises, the agents issued Jones an on-scene Notice=
of Unlicensed Operation, expressly warning that refusal to allow inspectio=
n of his radio equipment violated Section 303(n) of the Communications Act =
and included the full text of Section 303(n). Jones refused to accept a cop=
y of the Notice and the agents left the document on a chair near the front =
door of the house. The agents then left the premises, but continued to moni=
tor 27.165 MHz and heard Jones describe the agents=E2=80=99 attempted inspe=
ction.
> In August 2010, in response to a another complaint from the Merced County=
Fire Department, San Francisco agents again monitored 27.165 MHz and locat=
ed the source of the interfering signal to a CB radio station operating fro=
m Jones=E2=80=99s residence. Later the same day, the agents -- along with t=
wo Merced City police officers -- approached Jones in his front yard, ident=
ified themselves as FCC agents and presented their official badges and cred=
entials. The two Merced City police officers identified the man as Jones. T=
he agents told Jones about the radio frequency interference complaint and r=
equested that they be allowed to inspect the CB radio station to determine =
the cause of the interference. Jones denied the request, again admitting th=
at although he was the owner and operator of the CB radio station, he was n=
ot the owner of the house and that he had to refuse the inspection. The age=
nts explained that refusal to allow an inspection could result in a $7000 f=
orfeiture assessment, and Jones said that he understood.
> After further conversation with the agents and the police officers, Jones=
admitted to being the owner of the house. The agents again requested that =
they be allowed to inspect the CB radio station and reiterated that his ref=
usal to allow an inspection of a CB radio station was a violation of Sectio=
n 95.426(a) of the FCC=E2=80=99s rules and Section 303(n) of the Communicat=
ions Act and subject to a forfeiture. Jones again denied the inspection req=
uest. The agents then gave him an oral warning and issued Jones a second on=
-scene Notice of Unlicensed Operation. He again refused to accept a copy of=
the Notice and the agents left the document on a wooden yard border and th=
en left the premises. Two weeks later, the San Francisco Office received an=
other complaint from the Merced County Fire Department stating that Jones h=
ad resumed CB radio station operation and interference within its radio com=
munication system equipment had also resumed.
> FCC Calls Jones=E2=80=99 Arguments =E2=80=9CIrrelevant=E2=80=9D and =E2=
=80=9CUnpersuasive,=E2=80=9D Says $7000 Forfeiture Is =E2=80=9CWarranted=E2=
=80=9D
> Jones was given until April 9, 2011 to pay the $7000 forfeiture, or file =
a written statement by that date, seeking a reduction or cancellation of th=
e amount. In his filing, Jones argued that he should not be subject to forf=
eiture because he had not seen a complaint from the Merced Fire department =
naming him as the source of the interference. =E2=80=9CThis argument is irr=
elevant to the investigation of Mr Jones=E2=80=99 violation of the Commissi=
on=E2=80=99s requirement that he make his CB station available to FCC repre=
sentatives for inspection,=E2=80=9D the FCC stated. =E2=80=9CNeither Sectio=
n 303(n) of the Communications Act nor Section 95.426(c) of the FCC=E2=80=
=99s Rules requires that a complaint be filed as a prerequisite for FCC rep=
resentatives to inspect a CB station. There is no question that Mr Jones=E2=
=80=99 CB equipment was the source of the complained-about interference. Th=
e agents used direction finding techniques to determine that the source of =
the signal associated with the interference to the Merced County Fire Depar=
tment came from Mr Jones=E2=80=99 residence. Mr Jones does not dispute that=
the San Francisco agents located the source of the interference to his hou=
se on three separate occasions.=E2=80=9D
> According to the FCC, Jones also alleged that the agents neither presente=
d appropriate identification and nor gave him oral or written warnings: =E2=
=80=9CWe find Mr Jones=E2=80=99 allegations unpersuasive. As discussed abov=
e, consistent with practice, the San Francisco agents approached Mr Jones=
=E2=80=99 house, presented their government-issued identification to him an=
d requested to conduct an inspection to determine if Mr Jones=E2=80=99 CB r=
adio equipment was the source of the interference on frequency 27.165 MHz. =
With respect to whether Mr Jones received any warnings, the response itself=
includes copies of the two Notices left by the agents. Both Notices clearl=
y state =E2=80=98agents of the Federal Communications Commission noted the =
following condition regarding the Citizen Band (CB) radio station located a=
t [Mr Jones=E2=80=99 address]: Your refusal to allow a inspection of your r=
adio equipment in violation of Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of =
1934, as amended. You are hereby warned that refusal to allow inspection of=
your radio station constitutes violation of the Federal laws cited above a=
nd could subject the owner of this illegal operation to the severe penaltie=
s provide, including, but not limited to, substantial civil forfeitures, a =
maximum criminal fine of $11,000 and/or one year imprisonment, or arrest of=
the equipment for the first offense.=E2=80=99=E2=80=9D
> Jones, in his response to the FCC, also alleged that when the San Francis=
co agents requested an inspection on August 27, 2010 with two Merced City p=
olice officers, one of the police officers suggested that a warrant may be =
necessary. =E2=80=9CMr Jones provides no information to support this claim =
and we reiterate what the San Francisco Office stated in the NAL: Commissio=
n agents are not required to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a radio s=
tation inspection,=E2=80=9D the FCC noted. =E2=80=9CAccordingly, as a resul=
t of our review of Mr. Jones=E2=80=99 Response, pursuant to the statutory f=
actors above, and in conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we c=
onclude that he willfully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Com=
munications Act and Section 95.426(a) of the FCC=E2=80=99 rules, and we fin=
d that a forfeiture in the amount of $7,000 is warranted.=E2=80=9D
> Jones has until August 25, 2012 to pay the $7000 forfeiture.
> =20
--Apple-Mail-CA4B37AE-BAE0-4826-84BD-1C237A3CEF76
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>It sounds to me as if Jon=
es is just a stubborn violator just stirring things up for a little attenti=
on----Jones should man-up & pay up.<br><br>Sniper</div><div><br>On Aug =
5, 2012, at 5:39 PM, "Roger at Bugsweeps" <<a href=3D"mailto:bugs..._at_ear=
thlink.net">bugs..._at_earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><b=
lockquote type=3D"cite"><div><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"t=
ext/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft=
Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
_at_font-face
=09{font-family:Calibri;
=09panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
=09{margin:0in;
=09margin-bottom:.0001pt;
=09font-size:11.0pt;
=09font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
=09{mso-style-priority:99;
=09color:blue;
=09text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
=09{mso-style-priority:99;
=09color:purple;
=09text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
=09{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
=09font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
=09color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
=09{mso-style-type:export-only;
=09font-size:10.0pt;}
_at_page WordSection1
=09{size:8.5in 11.0in;
=09margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
=09{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div class=3D"WordSection1"><p class=3D"M=
soNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><=
span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roma=
n","serif"">FCC Upholds $7000 Forfeiture Order to California=
CB Operator <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span lang=
=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",&=
quot;serif"">TAGS:</span></b><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0=
pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> <a href=3D"h=
ttp://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:CB%20radio%20station" title=3D"View=
all News tagged: CB radio station">CB radio station</a>, <a href=3D"http:/=
/www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:cb%20station" title=3D"View all News tag=
ged: cb station">cb station</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search=
/Tag.name:Communications%20Act" title=3D"View all News tagged: Communicatio=
ns Act">Communications Act</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/=
Tag.name:County%20Fire%20Department" title=3D"View all News tagged: County =
Fire Department">County Fire Department</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org=
/news/search/Tag.name:equipment" title=3D"View all News tagged: equipment">=
equipment</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:inspecti=
on" title=3D"View all News tagged: inspection">inspection</a>, <a href=3D"h=
ttp://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:Merced%20County" title=3D"View all =
News tagged: Merced County">Merced County</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.o=
rg/news/search/Tag.name:radio" title=3D"View all News tagged: radio">radio<=
/a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:radio%20communicat=
ion%20system" title=3D"View all News tagged: radio communication system">ra=
dio communication system</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/Ta=
g.name:radio%20equipment" title=3D"View all News tagged: radio equipment">r=
adio equipment</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:rad=
io%20frequency%20interference" title=3D"View all News tagged: radio frequen=
cy interference">radio frequency interference</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.ar=
rl.org/news/search/Tag.name:radio%20station" title=3D"View all News tagged:=
radio station">radio station</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/sear=
ch/Tag.name:the%20agents" title=3D"View all News tagged: the agents">the ag=
ents</a>, <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news/search/Tag.name:Unlicensed%20=
Operation" title=3D"View all News tagged: Unlicensed Operation">Unlicensed =
Operation</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span lang=3D"EN=
" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","s=
erif"">07/30/2012 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=
=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","seri=
f"">After a Merced, California man <a href=3D"
http://www.arrl.org/news=
/fcc-issues-california-man-7000-forfeiture-order-for-refusing-fcc-inspectio=
n"><b>refused</b></a> to let FCC investigators inspect his Citizens Band (C=
B) radio station, the FCC issued -- and upheld -- a <i>Notice of Apparent L=
iability for Forfeiture</i> (<b><i><a href=3D"
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edoc=
s_public/attachmatch/DA-11-457A1.pdf">NAL</a></i></b>) for $7000 for not al=
lowing the inspection. In issuing the <i>NAL</i> in March 2011, the FCC fou=
nd that Ira Jones =E2=80=9Capparently willfully and repeatedly=E2=80=9D vio=
lated <a href=3D"
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/inspect.html"><b>Section 3=
03(n) of the <i>Communications Act of 1934, as amended</i></b></a>, and <a =
href=3D"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2011-tit=
le47-vol5-sec95-426.pdf"><b>Section 95.426(a) of the Commission=E2=80=99s r=
ules (CB Rule 26)</b></a> by failing to permit the inspection. Jones respon=
ded to the <i>NAL</i>, but the <a href=3D"
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_R=
eleases/Daily_Business/2012/db0727/DA-12-1195A1.pdf"><b>FCC upheld the forf=
eiture amount</b></a>, saying that Jones=E2=80=99 arguments were =E2=80=9Ci=
rrelevant=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cunpersuasive.=E2=80=9D<o:p></o:p></span></p=
><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-=
alt:auto"><b><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"=
Times New Roman","serif"">Background</span></b><span lang=3D=
"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",&quo=
t;serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-ma=
rgin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"fo=
nt-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I=
n March 2010, agents from the FCC=E2=80=99s office in San Francisco respond=
ed to a complaint regarding radio frequency interference within the radio c=
ommunication system equipment of the Merced County Fire Department. The age=
nts observed that transmissions on 27.165 MHz -- a frequency within the CB =
radio spectrum -- appeared to match the audio distortion received on freque=
ncy 154.4 MHz within the Merced County Fire Department=E2=80=99s audio rece=
iver and speaker system. According to the FCC, this appeared to be audio re=
ctification interference within the department=E2=80=99s receiver and speak=
er system. Audio rectification interference occurs when an electronic circu=
it -- usually an amplifier -- which ideally should respond only to audio fr=
equency signals, responds to external RF signals. Typically, the circuit pi=
cks up signals from a nearby radio transmitter in addition to the sound the=
listener wants to hear. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=
=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" s=
tyle=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","seri=
f"">The agents monitored the radio transmissions on 27.165 MHz and use=
d radio direction finding techniques to locate the source of the signal and=
found it to be emanating Jones=E2=80=99 residence in Merced, California. A=
week later, the agents monitored frequency 27.165 MHz again and located th=
e interference be coming from Jones=E2=80=99s residence. Later the same day=
, the agents approached Jones=E2=80=99 residence, knocked on his door, iden=
tified themselves as agents of the FCC and presented their official badges =
and credentials; the individual answering the door identified himself as Jo=
nes. The agents told him about the radio frequency interference complaint a=
nd asked him if he was the owner or operator of the CB radio station. <o:p>=
</o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;ms=
o-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-=
family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Jones acknowledged th=
at he was the operator of the CB radio station, but denied causing any inte=
rference to the Merced County Fire Department. The agents then requested th=
at they be allowed to inspect the CB radio station to determine the cause o=
f the interference. Jones denied the agents=E2=80=99 request. The agents wa=
rned him that refusing to allow an inspection of a CB radio station is a vi=
olation of <a href=3D"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol5/pd=
f/CFR-2011-title47-vol5-sec95-426.pdf"><b>Section 95.426(a) of the FCC=E2=
=80=99s rules</b></a> and <b><i><a href=3D"
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/oth=
erinfo/inspect.html">Section 303(n) of the Communications Act</a></i></b>; =
they explained that these rules require CB operators to make their stations=
available to authorized FCC representatives for inspection. Jones again de=
nied the request and asserted that the FCC must have a search warrant to in=
spect his CB station. The agents advised him that he was required to take n=
ecessary precautions to avoid causing radio interference by operating at po=
wer levels that do not exceed legal limits and by refraining from using a r=
adio frequency power amplifier.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"=
style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D=
"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",&quo=
t;serif"">Prior to leaving the premises, the agents issued Jones an on=
-<i>scene Notice of Unlicensed Operation</i>, expressly warning that refusa=
l to allow inspection of his radio equipment violated Section 303(n) of the=
<i>Communications Act</i> and included the full text of Section 303(n). Jo=
nes refused to accept a copy of the <i>Notice</i> and the agents left the d=
ocument on a chair near the front door of the house. The agents then left t=
he premises, but continued to monitor 27.165 MHz and heard Jones describe t=
he agents=E2=80=99 attempted inspection.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"M=
soNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><spa=
n lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman&q=
uot;,"serif"">In August 2010, in response to a another complaint =
from the Merced County Fire Department, San Francisco agents again monitore=
d 27.165 MHz and located the source of the interfering signal to a CB radio=
station operating from Jones=E2=80=99s residence. Later the same day, the =
agents -- along with two Merced City police officers -- approached Jones in=
his front yard, identified themselves as FCC agents and presented their of=
ficial badges and credentials. The two Merced City police officers identifi=
ed the man as Jones. The agents told Jones about the radio frequency interf=
erence complaint and requested that they be allowed to inspect the CB radio=
station to determine the cause of the interference. Jones denied the reque=
st, again admitting that although he was the owner and operator of the CB r=
adio station, he was not the owner of the house and that he had to refuse t=
he inspection. The agents explained that refusal to allow an inspection cou=
ld result in a $7000 forfeiture assessment, and Jones said that he understo=
od.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt=
:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0=
pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">After further=
conversation with the agents and the police officers, Jones admitted to be=
ing the owner of the house. The agents again requested that they be allowed=
to inspect the CB radio station and reiterated that his refusal to allow a=
n inspection of a CB radio station was a violation of Section 95.426(a) of =
the FCC=E2=80=99s rules and Section 303(n) of the Communications Act and su=
bject to a forfeiture. Jones again denied the inspection request. The agent=
s then gave him an oral warning and issued Jones a second on-scene <i>Notic=
e of Unlicensed Operation</i>. He again refused to accept a copy of the <i>=
Notice</i> and the agents left the document on a wooden yard border and the=
n left the premises. Two weeks later, the San Francisco Office received ano=
ther complaint from the Merced County Fire Department stating that Jones ha=
d resumed CB radio station operation and interference within its radio comm=
unication system equipment had also resumed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=
=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"=
><b><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New=
Roman","serif"">FCC Calls Jones=E2=80=99 Arguments =E2=80=
=9CIrrelevant=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CUnpersuasive,=E2=80=9D Says $7000 Forfe=
iture Is =E2=80=9CWarranted=E2=80=9D </span></b><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"=
font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""=
><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:a=
uto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt=
;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Jones was given=
until April 9, 2011 to pay the $7000 forfeiture, or file a written stateme=
nt by that date, seeking a reduction or cancellation of the amount. In his =
filing, Jones argued that he should not be subject to forfeiture because he=
had not seen a complaint from the Merced Fire department naming him as the=
source of the interference. =E2=80=9CThis argument is irrelevant to the in=
vestigation of Mr Jones=E2=80=99 violation of the Commission=E2=80=99s requ=
irement that he make his CB station available to FCC representatives for in=
spection,=E2=80=9D the FCC stated. =E2=80=9CNeither Section 303(n) of the C=
ommunications Act nor Section 95.426(c) of the FCC=E2=80=99s Rules requires=
that a complaint be filed as a prerequisite for FCC representatives to ins=
pect a CB station. There is no question that Mr Jones=E2=80=99 CB equipment=
was the source of the complained-about interference. The agents used direc=
tion finding techniques to determine that the source of the signal associat=
ed with the interference to the Merced County Fire Department came from Mr =
Jones=E2=80=99 residence. Mr Jones does not dispute that the San Francisco =
agents located the source of the interference to his house on three separat=
e occasions.=E2=80=9D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"=
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=
=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif&qu=
ot;">According to the FCC, Jones also alleged that the agents neither prese=
nted appropriate identification and nor gave him oral or written warnings: =
=E2=80=9CWe find Mr Jones=E2=80=99 allegations unpersuasive. As discussed a=
bove, consistent with practice, the San Francisco agents approached Mr Jone=
s=E2=80=99 house, presented their government-issued identification to him a=
nd requested to conduct an inspection to determine if Mr Jones=E2=80=99 CB =
radio equipment was the source of the interference on frequency 27.165 MHz.=
With respect to whether Mr Jones received any warnings, the response itsel=
f includes copies of the two <i>Notices</i> left by the agents. Both <i>Not=
ices</i> clearly state =E2=80=98agents of the Federal Communications Commis=
sion noted the following condition regarding the Citizen Band (CB) radio st=
ation located at [Mr Jones=E2=80=99 address]: Your refusal to allow a inspe=
ction of your radio equipment in violation of Section 303(n) of the Communi=
cations Act of 1934, as amended. You are hereby warned that refusal to allo=
w inspection of your radio station constitutes violation of the Federal law=
s cited above and could subject the owner of this illegal operation to the =
severe penalties provide, including, but not limited to, substantial civil =
forfeitures, a maximum criminal fine of $11,000 and/or one year imprisonmen=
t, or arrest of the equipment for the first offense.=E2=80=99=E2=80=9D<o:p>=
</o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;ms=
o-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-=
family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Jones, in his respons=
e to the FCC, also alleged that when the San Francisco agents requested an =
inspection on August 27, 2010 with two Merced City police officers, one of =
the police officers suggested that a warrant may be necessary. =E2=80=9CMr =
Jones provides no information to support this claim and we reiterate what t=
he San Francisco Office stated in the NAL: Commission agents are not requir=
ed to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a radio station inspection,=E2=
=80=9D the FCC noted. =E2=80=9CAccordingly, as a result of our review of Mr=
. Jones=E2=80=99 Response, pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in =
conjunction with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we conclude that he willf=
ully and repeatedly violated Section 303(n) of the Communications Act and S=
ection 95.426(a) of the FCC=E2=80=99 rules, and we find that a forfeiture i=
n the amount of $7,000 is warranted.=E2=80=9D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=
=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"=
><span lang=3D"EN" style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Ro=
man","serif"">Jones has until August 25, 2012 to pay the $70=
00 forfeiture.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p=
></p></div></div></blockquote></body></html>
--Apple-Mail-CA4B37AE-BAE0-4826-84BD-1C237A3CEF76--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:23 CST