"Dan" wrote in message
om...
Anyone have some good websites for purchasing CB's that are peaked and
tuned by knowledgable techs?
www.fcc.gov
Before the
Federal Communications
Commission
Washington, D.C.
20554
In the Matter of )
)
James R. Farlow )
EB-98-NF-438
103 Browning Drive )
Thomasville, NC 27360-3239 )
NAL/Acct. No. 915NF0001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: March 2, 2000
Released: March 3, 2000
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant reconsideration of the
Forfeiture Order[1] issued in this case for the limited purpose of
addressing one issue that Mr. James Farlow has raised in response to both
the underlying Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") and the Forfeiture
Order. The NAL proposed and the Forfeiture Order affirmed imposition of a
forfeiture against Mr. Farlow in the amount of $7,000, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, ("the Act"), 47 U.S.C.
? 503(b), and Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, ("the Rules"), 47
C.F.R. ? 1.80, for willful violation of Section 303(n) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
? 303(n), and Section 95.426 of the Rules (CB Rule 26), 47 C.F.R. ? 95.426.
For the reasons stated below, we affirm the $7,000 forfeiture amount.
2. The Bureau's Norfolk, Virginia, office received a complaint that Mr.
Farlow's citizen's band ("CB") radio was causing interference to home
electronic equipment. The complaint also contained allegations of use of a
linear amplifier by Mr. Farlow in violation of the rules governing the CB
radio service, 47 C.F.R. ?? 95.401 - 95.428. After receiving another
complaint concerning Mr. Farlow's CB radio operation, an agent from the
Norfolk Office went to Thomasville, North Carolina, to investigate the
complaint.
3. The agent confirmed that the interference was continuing and went to Mr.
Farlow's residence to inspect the CB installation. Once at the Farlow
residence, the agent noticed a truck in the driveway with a CB radio inside.
He then knocked on the door of the Farlow residence and was met by Mr.
Farlow. The agent requested permission to inspect the CB radio installation
inside the residence but Mr. Farlow refused to allow the inspection. This
fact is not in dispute. According to the agent, he then requested
permission to inspect the CB installation in the truck but was not allowed
to do so. As a consequence of the failed inspection attempts, the staff
issued an NAL for $7,000. Mr. Farlow has always maintained that he never
refused permission to inspect the truck and that the agent never requested
to inspect the CB radio inside the truck.
4. The Forfeiture Order states that Mr. Farlow "does not offer an
explanation as to why he denied the agent entry to inspect his truck." We
are granting reconsideration to acknowledge that Mr. Farlow did provide
such an explanation insofar as he contends that he did not refuse
inspection. However, although we are granting partial reconsideration to
correct the record, this action does not affect the amount of the
forfeiture. There is evidence in the record that there was a CB radio
installation in the Farlow residence. Mr. Farlow did not allow the
inspection of that installation, in itself a clear violation of Section
303(n) of the Act and Section 95.426 of the Rules. Because the NAL was
issued for $7,000, the base amount for one violation, the Forfeiture Order
affirming assessment of a forfeiture in that amount was not incorrect. The
staff addressed all the remaining issues and properly decided them in the
Forfeiture Order. We therefore affirm the staff's decision reached in the
Forfeiture Order.
5. 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 GRANTED to the extent indicated above and is otherwise
DENIED.
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David H. Solomon
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] 14 FCC Rcd 4092 (Compl. & Inf. Bur. 1999).