WPC 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxX/Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4/4MCL) Room 744HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,,Y!zX@2w@ ZP33|PHP LaserJet 4/4MCL) Room 744HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,,Y!zPTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2Z@@C@ y.C8*XC\  P6QP.y.G8*XG4  pQ7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.7UC2XxXU4  pQXW!0(X h0\  P6QhPI(!XI,(\  P6Q,PR EnvironmentPathWPO"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[[[[_ee*C`_.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2@@5@uR"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddof Forfeiture (NOF) for $7,500 on November 24, 1992. Q.M. Tomlinson, Inc. (petitioner) has  xiappealed this forfeiture. The petitioner contends that the forfeiture is excessive because it cannot afford to pay the forfeiture amount.  X)!- III. DISCUSSION ă   x3. As an initial matter, we note that, in assessing the $7,500 forfeiture, the Norfolk Field  X#- xOffice followed the forfeiture guidelines established in the Commission's Policy Statement,  X$- xStandards for Assessing Forfeitures, (Policy Statement), 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993). On July 12,  X%- xL1994, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the forfeiture guidelines.  United States  X&- xTelephone Assn. v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994). On reconsideration, CIB has reassessed  xthe forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory guidelines set forth in Section 503 of the Act, 47  xzU.S.C.  503 (b)(2)(D). In particular, Section 503 (b) of the Act requires that the Commission "q(,))ZZ3'"  xx"take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and with respect  x[to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require." 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).   x4. On appeal, the petitioner first argues that the monetary forfeiture amount is excessive  xand it is unable to pay the forfeiture. In support of its claim that it is unable to pay the  xforfeiture, the petitioner submits a Statements of Income page from its 1991 Financial report.  xLIn both the NAL and NOF, we indicated that allegations of an inability to pay a forfeiture must  xbe supported by objective evidence such as a financial statement. The Statements of Income  xpage submitted by the petitioner references an Accountants' Report that was not submitted. No  x[notes are attached to the Statement of Income page, yet the page indicates that the "Notes to  xFinancial Statements are an integral part of these statements". Without the supporting  xLinformation, we find that this submission is insufficient to support the petitioner's claim that it is unable to pay a forfeiture.   x5. Second, the petitioner argues that it did not willfully violate the Commission's rules  xby failing to allow inspection. Stating that its company is located in an industrial area with a  xhigh crime rate, the petitioner contends that its employee's refusal to allow inspection was  xreasonable in light of the circumstances. The petitioner states that a business across the street  xwas burglarized a week prior to the FCC attempted inspection, that the petitioner's employee  xworked alone in the reception area, and that the petitioner's employee had never witnessed or  xheard of an inspection of the company's radio during her sevenyear tenure. The petitioner also  x\argues that its employee made a good faith effort to comply with the Commission's rules by  xcalling the radio servicing company after denying the inspection to see if the FCC conducts inspections.   x6. As the petitioner concedes in its appeal, the FCC's right to inspect a station is one  xof the cornerstones of the FCC's ability to ensure compliance with the Communications Act and  X|- xthe Commission's rules. Norfolk Southern Railway, 11 FCC Rcd 2, (DA 952480, released:  x\January 19, 1996 (CIB). As a licensee, the petitioner must allow inspection at any time the  xradio is in operation upon a reasonable request of an authorized FCC representative. 47 U.S.C.  x 303 (n); 47 C.F.R.  90.439. Whether the employee works alone, or has witnessed or heard  x[of an FCC inspection is not relevant. In addition, the petitioner is accountable for the actions  X - xlof its employees. Triad Broadcasting Inc., 96 FCC 2d 1235 (1984). The petitioner, as the  xlicensee, is responsible for ensuring that its radio station is operated in compliance with the Act  xand rules. This responsibility includes ensuring that its employees are cognizant of the licensee's  xobligations. Calling the service company to ascertain whether the event reflected a bona fide  xinspection request underscores the licensee's failure to properly inform its employees of its FCC  xobligations as a licensee. A refusal to allow inspection or a significant delay in allowing the  xinspection can often shelter egregious violation and is thus a serious violation. The petitioner  xpresented no evidence that the FCC's agent's request was unreasonable. As both the NAL and  xNOF clearly state, the FCC agent presented his FCC investigator badge and identified himself  xas a Commission employee upon entering the reception area. As a federal government  x\investigator, the FCC employee had been trained in the proper procedure for presenting his"#',N(N(ZZ%"  xfederal credentials to the general public. From the petitioner's submissions, it is unclear why the  xemployee refused the inspection due to concern for her safety when her affidavit states that she  x<frequently worked alone for a construction business in an industrial corridor for seven years, and  xthat her office included a reception area in which "men often come into the office reception  xarea unsolicited looking for work". Given that she was alone on the date of the attempted  xinspection, she apparently continued to work alone even though she states that she was aware  xxof recent burglaries that occurred nearby. Because her own statement reflects that the employee's  xresponsibilities included dealing routinely with male members of the general public who were  xznot familiar to her, it is unclear why her concern for her safety heightened on the day of the  x<attempted inspection. In the circumstances, we conclude that the employee's actions constituted a violation of the Commission's rules.   {x7. We have reviewed the Commission's records and find no record of prior violations by  x\the petitioner. After evaluating the facts and circumstances in the case under the statutory  xguidelines, we conclude that the violation warrants assessment of the forfeiture in the amount of $5,000.  Xy-0 IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  XK-  x8. IT IS ORDERED THAT , pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, U.S.C. 503(b), and  X4- xSection 1.106 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration is GRANTED  X-in part, DENIED in all other respects, and the monetary forfeiture amount is reduced to $5,000.  X-  x9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT within thirty (30) days of release of this Order,  x=Q.M. Tomlinson, Inc. must pay the forfeiture amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or file  xan Application for Review of the Bureau's Order pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.115. Payment may  xbe made by check, credit card, or money order payable to the Federal Communications  X-Commission.  yO - xKԍ Requests for installment plans should be mailed to: Chief, Billings and Collections, Mail Stop 1110A2, 1919  xM Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Payment of the forfeiture in installments may be considered as a separate  xYmatter in accordance with Section 1.1914 of the Commission's Rules. Please contact Chief, Billings and Collections for information regarding payment by credit card. Please place NAL/Acct. No. 215NF00023 on the remittance and mail it to: XxX` ` X XFederal Communications Commission(# XxX` ` X XPost Office Box 73482(# XxX` ` X XChicago, Illinois 606737482(# Applications for Review should be submitted to :" ,N(N(ZZ" XxX` ` X XCompliance Division, CIB(# XxX` ` X XMail Stop 1500E3/AJC(# XxX` ` X XFederal Communications Commission(# XxX` ` X X1919 M St. N.W.(# XxX` ` X XWashington, D.C. 20554(# XxX` ` X Xattn: NAL/Acct. No. 215NF00023 (#  xForfeiture penalties not paid within 30 days may be referred to the U. S. Attorney for recovery in a civil suit. 47 U.S.C. 504(a).  X -  x10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a copy of this Order shall be sent to Q.M. Tomlinson, Inc. and counsel by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested.  X -x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhBeverly G. Baker  X4-x` `  hhChief, Compliance and Information Bureau