FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
ATLANTA OFFICE

March 19, 2004

CB Sales and Service
FILE No.: EB-04-AT-024
ATTN: Mr. Jim Norton
Sent via Certified
190E Lenlock Lane
Return Receipt requested and
Anniston, AL 36206
First Class mail

CITATION
No.: C200432480001 Released: March 19, 2004
By the Enforcement Bureau, Atlanta Office

1. This is an Official Citation issued pursuant to
Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Act'', 1 to Mr. Jim Norton, owner of CB Sales and
Service, Anniston, Alabama, for violation of Section 302(b)
of the Act, 2 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's
Rules.3

2. An investigation by the FCC's Atlanta Office
revealed that on March 11, 2004, you offered for sale at your
retail store located at 190E Lenlock Lane, Anniston, Alabama,
eight models of non-certified Citizens Band transceivers,
namely, a Galaxy model DX66V, a Galaxy model DX 73V, a Galaxy
model 48T Big Rig Series, a Galaxy model DX88HL, and a
Galaxy model DX77HML, a Galaxy DX44V, Galaxy DX33HML, and
Galaxy model DX99V. According to Commission's records, these
devices have not received an FCC equipment authorization
which is required for Citizens Band transmitters marketed in
the United States. Furthermore, these devices bore no FCC
equipment authorization labeling that is required for
Citizens Band transceivers marketed in the United States.4

3. Section 302(b) of the Act provides ``{n}o person
shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship
devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use
devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section.'' Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules
provides that ``...no person shall sell or lease, or offer
for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
or import, ship or distribute for the purpose of selling or
leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency
device unless: (1) In the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the
Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and
is properly identified and labeled...''
Jim Norton's CB Sales and Service's offer for sale of these
devices violates both sections.

4. Additionally, dual use CB and amateur radios of the
kind at issue here may not be certificated under the
Commission's rules. Section 95.655(a) of the rules states:
``...
({CB} Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur
Radio Services....will not be
certificated.)'' See also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August
17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly
foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and
amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB
operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use.
Five of the Galaxy model CB transceivers previously mentioned
were identified as having the modification done to enable
dual use of CB and amateur frequencies. These units were
Galaxy DX66V; Galaxy DX73V; Galaxy DX48T; Galaxy DX88HL; and
Galaxy DX77HML.

5. Furthermore, the Commission has revised Section
2.1204(a)(5) of its rules to prohibit all marketing and/or
offering for sale in the United States of such devices even
when the purchaser(s) had provided assurances that the
transceivers are being bought solely for export. ALL
DOMESTIC MARKETING OF SUCH DEVICES VIOLATES THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND THE COMMISSION'S
RULES.

6. Subsequent violations of the Communications Act or
of the Comission's Rules may subject the violator to
substantial monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000
foreach such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and
criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

7. Mr. Jim Norton may request a personal interview at
the closest FCC location to its place of business, namely:

Federal Communications Commission
3575 Koger Blvd., Suite 320
Duluth, GA 30096

which can be contacted by telephone at 770-935-3370. Any
written statement should specify what actions have been taken
to correct the violation outlined above. When corresponding
with the Commission, case number EB-04-AT-024 should be
referenced.

8. Any statement or information provided may be used by
the Commission to determine if further enforcement action is
required. Any knowingly or willfully false statement made in
reply to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Fred Broce
District Director, Atlanta Office


1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5)
2 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b)
3 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1)
4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.409(a) & 2.925(a)
====================================
Also from the FCC's website, A chinese restaurant has been fined $10,000
for operating without license in the 2 Meter band.
The fine comes after 2 previous warnings. Best Wok, of New Jersey was
apparently using 2 Meters to make deliveries.




(Bet THAT'll "WOK" their world!) TeeHee!


Jerry

Jerry wrote:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
ATLANTA OFFICE

March 19, 2004

CB Sales and Service
FILE No.: EB-04-AT-024
ATTN: Mr. Jim Norton
Sent via Certified
190E Lenlock Lane
Return Receipt requested and
Anniston, AL 36206
First Class mail

CITATION
No.: C200432480001 Released: March 19, 2004
By the Enforcement Bureau, Atlanta Office

1. This is an Official Citation issued pursuant to
Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Act'', 1 to Mr. Jim Norton, owner of CB Sales and
Service, Anniston, Alabama, for violation of Section 302(b)
of the Act, 2 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's
Rules.3

2. An investigation by the FCC's Atlanta Office
revealed that on March 11, 2004, you offered for sale at your
retail store located at 190E Lenlock Lane, Anniston, Alabama,
eight models of non-certified Citizens Band transceivers,
namely, a Galaxy model DX66V, a Galaxy model DX 73V, a Galaxy
model 48T Big Rig Series, a Galaxy model DX88HL, and a
Galaxy model DX77HML, a Galaxy DX44V, Galaxy DX33HML, and
Galaxy model DX99V. According to Commission's records, these
devices have not received an FCC equipment authorization
which is required for Citizens Band transmitters marketed in
the United States. Furthermore, these devices bore no FCC
equipment authorization labeling that is required for
Citizens Band transceivers marketed in the United States.4

3. Section 302(b) of the Act provides ``{n}o person
shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship
devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use
devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section.'' Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules
provides that ``...no person shall sell or lease, or offer
for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
or import, ship or distribute for the purpose of selling or
leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency
device unless: (1) In the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the
Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and
is properly identified and labeled...''
Jim Norton's CB Sales and Service's offer for sale of these
devices violates both sections.

4. Additionally, dual use CB and amateur radios of the
kind at issue here may not be certificated under the
Commission's rules. Section 95.655(a) of the rules states:
``...
({CB} Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur
Radio Services....will not be
certificated.)'' See also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August
17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly
foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and
amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB
operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use.
Five of the Galaxy model CB transceivers previously mentioned
were identified as having the modification done to enable
dual use of CB and amateur frequencies. These units were
Galaxy DX66V; Galaxy DX73V; Galaxy DX48T; Galaxy DX88HL; and
Galaxy DX77HML.

5. Furthermore, the Commission has revised Section
2.1204(a)(5) of its rules to prohibit all marketing and/or
offering for sale in the United States of such devices even
when the purchaser(s) had provided assurances that the
transceivers are being bought solely for export. ALL
DOMESTIC MARKETING OF SUCH DEVICES VIOLATES THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND THE COMMISSION'S
RULES.

6. Subsequent violations of the Communications Act or
of the Comission's Rules may subject the violator to
substantial monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000
foreach such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and
criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

7. Mr. Jim Norton may request a personal interview at
the closest FCC location to its place of business, namely:

Federal Communications Commission
3575 Koger Blvd., Suite 320
Duluth, GA 30096

which can be contacted by telephone at 770-935-3370. Any
written statement should specify what actions have been taken
to correct the violation outlined above. When corresponding
with the Commission, case number EB-04-AT-024 should be
referenced.

8. Any statement or information provided may be used by
the Commission to determine if further enforcement action is
required. Any knowingly or willfully false statement made in
reply to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Fred Broce
District Director, Atlanta Office


1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5)
2 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b)
3 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1)
4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.409(a) & 2.925(a)
====================================
Also from the FCC's website, A chinese restaurant has been fined $10,000
for operating without license in the 2 Meter band.
The fine comes after 2 previous warnings. Best Wok, of New Jersey was
apparently using 2 Meters to make deliveries.




(Bet THAT'll "WOK" their world!) TeeHee!


Jerry




i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.

"jim" wrote in message
...


Jerry wrote:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
ATLANTA OFFICE

March 19, 2004

CB Sales and Service
FILE No.: EB-04-AT-024
ATTN: Mr. Jim Norton
Sent via Certified
190E Lenlock Lane
Return Receipt requested and
Anniston, AL 36206
First Class mail

CITATION
No.: C200432480001 Released: March 19, 2004
By the Enforcement Bureau, Atlanta Office

1. This is an Official Citation issued pursuant to
Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Act'', 1 to Mr. Jim Norton, owner of CB Sales and
Service, Anniston, Alabama, for violation of Section 302(b)
of the Act, 2 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's
Rules.3

2. An investigation by the FCC's Atlanta Office
revealed that on March 11, 2004, you offered for sale at your
retail store located at 190E Lenlock Lane, Anniston, Alabama,
eight models of non-certified Citizens Band transceivers,
namely, a Galaxy model DX66V, a Galaxy model DX 73V, a Galaxy
model 48T Big Rig Series, a Galaxy model DX88HL, and a
Galaxy model DX77HML, a Galaxy DX44V, Galaxy DX33HML, and
Galaxy model DX99V. According to Commission's records, these
devices have not received an FCC equipment authorization
which is required for Citizens Band transmitters marketed in
the United States. Furthermore, these devices bore no FCC
equipment authorization labeling that is required for
Citizens Band transceivers marketed in the United States.4

3. Section 302(b) of the Act provides ``{n}o person
shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship
devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use
devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated
pursuant to this section.'' Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules
provides that ``...no person shall sell or lease, or offer
for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
or import, ship or distribute for the purpose of selling or
leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency
device unless: (1) In the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the
Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and
is properly identified and labeled...''
Jim Norton's CB Sales and Service's offer for sale of these
devices violates both sections.

4. Additionally, dual use CB and amateur radios of the
kind at issue here may not be certificated under the
Commission's rules. Section 95.655(a) of the rules states:
``...
({CB} Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur
Radio Services....will not be
certificated.)'' See also FCC 88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August
17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly
foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and
amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB
operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use.
Five of the Galaxy model CB transceivers previously mentioned
were identified as having the modification done to enable
dual use of CB and amateur frequencies. These units were
Galaxy DX66V; Galaxy DX73V; Galaxy DX48T; Galaxy DX88HL; and
Galaxy DX77HML.

5. Furthermore, the Commission has revised Section
2.1204(a)(5) of its rules to prohibit all marketing and/or
offering for sale in the United States of such devices even
when the purchaser(s) had provided assurances that the
transceivers are being bought solely for export. ALL
DOMESTIC MARKETING OF SUCH DEVICES VIOLATES THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND THE COMMISSION'S
RULES.

6. Subsequent violations of the Communications Act or
of the Comission's Rules may subject the violator to
substantial monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000
foreach such violation or each day of a continuing violation,
seizure of equipment through in rem forfeiture action, and
criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

7. Mr. Jim Norton may request a personal interview at
the closest FCC location to its place of business, namely:

Federal Communications Commission
3575 Koger Blvd., Suite 320
Duluth, GA 30096

which can be contacted by telephone at 770-935-3370. Any
written statement should specify what actions have been taken
to correct the violation outlined above. When corresponding
with the Commission, case number EB-04-AT-024 should be
referenced.

8. Any statement or information provided may be used by
the Commission to determine if further enforcement action is
required. Any knowingly or willfully false statement made in
reply to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Fred Broce
District Director, Atlanta Office


1 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5)
2 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b)
3 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1)
4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 95.409(a) & 2.925(a)
====================================
Also from the FCC's website, A chinese restaurant has been fined
$10,000
for operating without license in the 2 Meter band.
The fine comes after 2 previous warnings. Best Wok, of New Jersey was
apparently using 2 Meters to make deliveries.




(Bet THAT'll "WOK" their world!) TeeHee!


Jerry




i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.


That wouldn't make any difference, would it? They are making their case
against the sale and use of these so-called "export" radios inside the USA.
Actually, it WAS the issue of unlicensed users of the Amateur bands that
caused the curent enforcement emphasis. Had the "freebanders" stayed out of
the ham bands, I doubt there would be an eyebrow raised. When the folks
start
treading on licensed spectrum, THAT is what causes the
ruckus.

Jerry

i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.



That wouldn't make any difference, would it? They are making their case
against the sale and use of these so-called "export" radios inside the USA.
Actually, it WAS the issue of unlicensed users of the Amateur bands that
caused the curent enforcement emphasis. Had the "freebanders" stayed out of
the ham bands, I doubt there would be an eyebrow raised. When the folks
start
treading on licensed spectrum, THAT is what causes the
ruckus.

Jerry


agreed jerry. that was my point. screw with the amateur bands and you get
spanked. freebands is a different story.

jim wrote in message ...

i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.



That wouldn't make any difference, would it? They are making their case
against the sale and use of these so-called "export" radios inside the USA.
Actually, it WAS the issue of unlicensed users of the Amateur bands that
caused the curent enforcement emphasis. Had the "freebanders" stayed out of
the ham bands, I doubt there would be an eyebrow raised. When the folks
start
treading on licensed spectrum, THAT is what causes the
ruckus.

Jerry


agreed jerry. that was my point. screw with the amateur bands and you get
spanked. freebands is a different story.

From: (Snoopydawg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.cb
Subject: FCC Cites "Export" Seller and fines another company for
Unlicensed Operation
References:



NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.39.205.112

jim wrote in message ...

i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.



That wouldn't make any difference, would it? They are making their case
against the sale and use of these so-called "export" radios inside the USA.
Actually, it WAS the issue of unlicensed users of the Amateur bands that
caused the curent enforcement emphasis. Had the "freebanders" stayed out of
the ham bands, I doubt there would be an eyebrow raised. When the folks
start
treading on licensed spectrum, THAT is what causes the
ruckus.

Jerry


For what it is worth the FCC needs tto give the 11-meter band back to
hams. They also need to move the truckers to the family band in the Hi
VHF. This would allow them to get controll of the 11 meter band. I
have said this for years. I cannot beleive that they would put such a
service on a band that is so full of propragation. Then develop that
150 mile rule. Man that goes against all of human nature.We all know
that if we here a voice far away we are going to want to know if that
person whom that voice belongs to can here us. What a trasp the FCC
setup in 1958. So to gain control of the problem the FCC needs to put
a license class out there that requires no test. Allow them to talk on
11 meters then allow the hams with the help of local officals in the
area to control the band. And anyone that gets to far out of line gets
reported.Then allow the system to do its work. It would take half as
long to clean up the cancer as it took to grow. Heck to put a stop to
the illeagal freebanding give the people what they want. Open up 25
MHZ to 30 MHz. I have never heard anything there but CB ham and
freebanders. The best way to stop radio pirates is to make what they
do leagal. That would take the excitment from it and I think it will
stop.
agreed jerry. that was my point. screw with the amateur bands and you get
spanked. freebands is a different story.

Terms and Conditions - Posting Style Guide - Posting FAQ

©2002 Google

wrote:
For what it is worth the FCC needs tto give the
11-meter band back to hams.


Never happen.


They also need to move the truckers to the

family band in the Hi VHF. This would allow

them to get controll of the 11 meter band.



That isn't what prevents "control" of the eleven meter band. The FCC
were very much in control of the eleven meter band in the seventies and
guess what? Cbers had the band, not hammies.



I have said this for years. I cannot beleive that

they would put such a service on a band that

is so full of propragation.




Agreed. But you are asking the impossible. For wha you ask, the US
government would be admitting a mistake. Never happen.


Then develop that 150 mile rule. Man that

goes against all of human nature.We all know

that if we here a voice far away we are going

to want to know if that person whom that voice
belongs to can here us. What a trasp the FCC

setup in 1958. So to gain control of the

problem the FCC needs to put a license class

out there that requires no test.



Already have one. The Nocode. The "test" was devised by Bazooka Joe.
Look what it brought us on the air and in usenet. More trouble than
good,,,oh, there are exceptions, as always.



Allow them to talk on 11 meters then allow the
hams with the help of local officals in the area

to control the band.



**** poor idea for a myriad of reasons.


And anyone that gets to far out of line gets

reported.



Like the thought police? Look at Oxendine,,,,
a nation full of monitors LOL...


Then allow the system to do its work. It would

take half as long to clean up the cancer as it

took to grow



The 'cancer" is in self-appointed monitors like yourself. You're still
****ed 'cause we can DX HF and you're stuck on your self-ruined freqs.


. Heck to put a stop to the illeagal freebanding

give the people what they want. Open up 25

MHZ to 30 MHz. I have never heard anything

there but CB ham and freebanders. The best

way to stop radio pirates is to make what they

do leagal. That would take the excitment from

it and I think it will stop.



You get "excitement" from operating your radio? Projecting your feelings
and emotions onto others, does not mean they share your views. You are
always in the minority and realize such, otherwise, you wouldn't go to
such effort at hidng your hammie status....not all are ashamed of their
call,,only losers.

"Snoopydawg" wrote in message
om...
For what it is worth the FCC needs tto give the 11-meter band back to
hams. They also need to move the truckers to the family band in the Hi
VHF.

Oh suuuuure.. all the truckers across the country will just turn in their
CB's for VHF radios. Yeah. Right.

Then we'll just have to get the rest of the freebanding world not to talk on
11 meters, and everything will be great!

http://www.geocities.com/nostoppinak...?1080242063610


HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW!!!!!

Jim(3carroll@optonline noticed:
i didn't see any reference to freeband freq's just mention of amateur
freq's. wonder if the the fcc is avoiding the gray area concerning
freebanding in this case.

That wouldn't make any difference, would it?


-
(Jerry) replied:

They are making their case against the sale

and use of these so-called "export" radios

inside the USA. Actually, it WAS the issue of

unlicensed users of the Amateur bands that

caused the curent enforcement emphasis.




Actually, Riley was a quoted on several occasions as saying hammie
*complaints* and local jurisdictions (in regards to HR #whatever) being
informed of their ability to react to interference was the catalyst. I
know you have this thing about truckers interfering on hammie bands, but
the fact of the matter is, a super small percentage of truckers on
hammie bands
was not responsible for any enforcement "emphasis". In fact, the only
"emphasis" appears to stem from self appointed radio kopps on patrol.
The FCC merely follows up on well worded complaints that have shown good
cause. In fact, there is no real "emphasis" on anything at the FCC,
despite your recent contributions. Compare the stats from last year, or
the year before, or the year before that. The hammie busts are the same,
the unlicensed busts didn't budge, and the only FCC radio related
enforcements that have increase in any manner is the amount of fines
levied against commercial radio stations.




Had the "freebanders" stayed out of the ham

bands, I doubt there would be an eyebrow

raised.




Your hardon for freebanders is showing, Jerry. Freebanders do not
intrude on hammie bands,,,in the same manner you are loathe to call one
who has a nocode call and acts the ass on usenet and on the air a true
hammie, many operate and feel the same for the term of freebander,
myslef included. Since there are so many, yourself at the foreforont,
hellbent on painting freebanders with a wide brush, this would be a good
time to educate you on that of which you are so deluded.
Freebanders, at least the ones I have come across and associated with
since the seventies, are for the most part, meticulous operators who are
very polite and are comprised of operators, both licensed and
non-licensed, from around the world. They are for the most part,
courteous and non-intrusive. and do NOT intrude on hammie bands, despite
your best attempts at presenting them in the same light as hammie band
invaders. Shame on you for your intentional deceit. You seem a little
put out lately, Jerry. Everything ok?



When the folks start

treading on licensed spectrum, THAT is what

causes the ruckus.

Jerry



Balderdash. Parts of 11 meter ARE licensed to various entities who have
chosen to abandon their choice of spectrum. Same as a vacant lot..cops
drive by and see a bunch of kids playing football or baseball in a
vacant lot,,,yes, the cops know they can technically arrest the kids for
trespassing, yet they use their sound judgement, as the children are not
damaging anything andthe owner did not compaint, no action is taken.
You are akin to the little old lady who watches unsupervised children
playing a sandlot game and continuolusly calls the cops about the noise
they are making (children laughing) and the remote possibility that your
window MAY get broken.
Thank GOD the FCC adopted a sane approach to such activities and does
not share your position.