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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   September 30, 2009

   Miguel C. Danielson, Esq.

   Danielson Legal

   (address withheld)

   Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

   Re:  EB-09-GB-0192

   Dear Mr. Danielson:

   On June 22, 2009, the Federal Communications Commission notified (name
   withheld) that it had received complaints from (name withheld) that
   equipment operated by (name withheld)'s electric fence might be causing
   harmful radio interference to his amateur radio equipment. The complainant
   in this matter is:

   (Name withheld)

   (Address withheld)

   Willow, New York 12495

   The Commission has the responsibility to require that such problems be
   rectified within a reasonable time if the interference is caused by faulty
   consumer equipment. Under Commission rules, certain types of equipment are
   classified as "unintentional emitters." These devices generate radio
   frequency energy but do not intentionally radiate it. Examples include
   computers, radio receivers and television sets. Other types of devices are
   classified as "incidental emitters." These devices do not intentionally
   generate any radio-frequency energy, but that may create such energy as an
   incidental part of their intended operation. Common examples include
   aquarium heaters, certain portable telephones, alarm control panels,
   fluorescent light ballasts, doorbell control circuits and so forth. Some
   unintentional emitters are imported and do not comply with Commission
   certification standards, and thereby result in interference to other radio
   services. Woodstock's electric fence may be one of those devices. If the
   device is an approved one, it should have a silver FCC label on the unit
   showing a certification number. Even an approved device, however, can only
   be operated legally if it is not causing harmful interference to a
   licensed radio service.

   To help you better understand your client's responsibilities under
   Commission rules, here are the most important rules relating to radio and
   television interference from incidental radiators:

          Title 47, CFR Section 15.5 General conditions of operation.

   (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is
   subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that
   interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an
   authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional
   radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an
   incidental radiator.

   (c) The operator of the radio frequency device shall be required to cease
   operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that
   the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume
   until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

               Title 47, CFR Section 15.13 Incidental radiators.

   Manufacturers of these devices shall employ good engineering practices to
   minimize the risk of harmful interference.

          Title 47, CFR Section 15.15 General technical requirements.

   (c) Parties responsible for equipment compliance should note that the
   limits specified in this part will not prevent harmful interference under
   all circumstances. Since the operators of Part 15 devices are required to
   cease operation should harmful interference occur to authorized users of
   the radio frequency spectrum, the parties responsible for equipment
   compliance are encouraged to employ the minimum field strength necessary
   for communications, to provide greater attenuation of unwanted emissions
   than required by these regulations, and to advise the user as to how to
   resolve harmful interference problems (for example, see Sec. 15.105(b)).

   The complainant has attempted unsuccessfully to resolve this problem and
   as a result the matter has been referred to our office. The Commission
   prefers that those responsible for the proper operation of equipment
   assume their responsibilities fairly. This means that your client should
   resolve the interference caused by the device and make necessary
   corrections within a reasonable time. The June 22, 2009 letter
   specifically stated, however, that if it became necessary for the
   Commission to facilitate a resolution, the Commission might investigate
   possible rule violations and address appropriate remedies, including
   monetary forfeitures.

   On July 21, 2009, you responded to the letter on behalf of your client,
   (name withheld). In that response, you indicated that as a result of the
   first letter sent by the Commission in August of 2006, (name withheld)
   checked all of its connections and replaced some worn insulators. You did
   not, however, provide any details of recent attempts to resolve (name
   withheld)'s noise. Rather, you noted that (name withheld) has "installed
   their equipment exactly to the manufacturer's specifications and certainly
   to standards tremendously higher than the average farmer would ever bother
   doing."

   Such a response is not acceptable. As indicated above, even an approved
   and properly installed device may only be operated legally if it is not
   causing harmful interference to a licensed radio service. In this
   instance, (name withheld) reports that as of August 24, 2009, the noise
   remains and has not decreased at all. One possible solution would be for
   (name withheld) to purchase a fence energizer, the cost of which is $100.
   (Name withheld) has used this particular solution with other fence owners
   in the area with great success.

   In order to avoid enforcement action on this matter, you have thirty (30)
   days from the date of receipt of this letter to respond to this office at
   the following address: 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325. The
   response must contain a statement of the specific action(s) taken to
   identify and eliminate the source(s) of (name withheld)'s radio
   interference. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact
   me at 717-338-2577.

   Sincerely,

   Laura L. Smith, Esq.

   Special Counsel

   Enforcement Bureau

   cc: New York Field Office

   Northeast Regional Director

   Fines normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.