 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
 Previous: The K7RA Solar Update |  Next: FCC Clarifies Renewal Procedures for Vanity Call Sign Holders |
NEWINGTON, CT, Mar 3, 2006--The FCC has offered a California licensee a deal: Give up your Amateur Radio license for two years or face further enforcement action and possible fines. Special Counsel in the FCC Enforcement Bureau Riley Hollingsworth wrote Steve L. Wingate, KG6TXH (ex-AE6QD), of Corte Madera on February 22 to review a history of enforcement correspondence to Wingate dating back to April 2004.
"The Enforcement Bureau has continued to receive complaints about the operation of your station since January 2005," Hollingsworth told Wingate. Conceding that not all of the complaints were valid or recordings genuine, Hollingsworth said evidence the FCC determined was legitimate showed a pattern of similar alleged violations "for which you were warned twice, and for which you twice gave assurances of future compliance," Hollingsworth pointed out.
Complaints about Wingate's alleged misdeeds let the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to set aside Wingate's vanity call sign and renewal applications, Hollingsworth pointed out, "and now warrant enforcement action against you." Sanctions could include license revocation and fines of from $7500 to $10,000 "or both," Hollingsworth warned.
Wingate's responses to Enforcement Bureau letters coupled with continued complaints, including recordings, and telephone conversations between the FCC and Wingate "indicate that by your own admission you have a serious problem with an impairment that prevents you from maintaining control over your station," Hollingsworth said.
"Therefore, to avoid enforcement action against your license, we are offering you the opportunity to voluntarily relinquish your operating privileges for two years so that this problem may be addressed," Hollingsworth offered. The terms of the proposed deal call on Wingate to provide documentation during the two-year period "that you are seeking treatment for your impairment."
In April 2004, the FCC issued Wingate a Warning Notice alleging deliberate interference on 75 meters that included "jamming, making threats to other operators and to law enforcement officers, and broadcasts in which you appeared incoherent." In a reply that same month, Wingate apologized for the purported infractions and stated that he would avoid such operation in the future.
The following November, Wingate got another Warning Notice for allegedly threatening various people and appearing to be "incoherent or seriously impaired." The letter included recordings of Wingate's transmissions.
"You responded by letter received December 23, 2004, stating that you had no recollection of making such transmissions," Hollingsworth recounted. "Again you assured us that you would comply with Commission rules in the future."
Hollingsworth emphasized to Wingate that if he declined to "accept this opportunity to resolve this matter," the Commission would proceed with enforcement action against Wingate's Amateur Extra class license.
Wingate has not yet taken the deal, Hollingsworth told ARRL, but he has requested copies of recordings that accompanied complaints of his most recent alleged on-air behavior.
Licensees Advised to Respond to Commission Correspondence
The FCC has held up the license renewal of a New Jersey Novice ticket holder for failing to respond to a Commission field office Citation and a Warning Notice, both dating back to 2004. Hollingsworth told Ronald A. Mondgock, KA3OMZ, of Burlington, that if he did not submit a timely reply to his February 6, 2006, letter, his application for renewal would be dismissed "and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture will be issued against you."
In February 2002, Hollingsworth wrote Mondgock regarding allegations he'd transmitted in the 75-meter phone band, which is unavailable to Novice class licensees. In July 2004, the FCC's Philadelphia Field Office cited Mondgock for allegedly failing to identify, making transmissions involving obscenity and indecency and operating on a frequency not authorized under his license.
On February 7, Hollingsworth sent a Warning Notice to Frank J. Fatigate, KB2YDO, of Hopewell Junction, New York, for allegedly failing to reply to a complaint the FCC forwarded to him nearly a year earlier. The FCC cited US Postal Service records indicating that Fatigate, a Technician licensee, refused delivery of the Commission correspondence. Subsequent attempts to reach Fatigate yielded no response. Noting that Fatigate had apparently changed his address, the FCC gave him additional time to reply or face a possible fine of up to $4000.
Hollingsworth told ARRL that he did not hear from Fatigate by the March 1 reply deadline.
Apologetic Colorado Licensee Promises to Mend Ways
After the FCC wrote Technician licensee Brandon M. Duke, KC0UWS (ex-KC0TKB), of Longmont, Colorado, January 9 advising him of a complaint alleging "deliberate interference and other rule violations on repeaters," Duke pledged to change his behavior.
In a January 26 e-mail, an apologetic Duke said he'd destroyed an audio CD containing apparently objectionable material that he'd been accused of airing. He also said he'd "refrain from jamming, interfering, kerchunking and using any repeaters."
Noting that Duke had been asked to steer clear of certain repeaters, Hollingsworth cautioned Duke that the FCC expected him to "abide by such requests." Otherwise, he could face license revocation, a fine or a modification proceeding to restrict the frequencies on which he may operate.
In his e-mail, Duke said he would refrain from using Boulder Amateur Radio Club repeaters, per the club's written request.
On January 24, Tracy Simmons of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau licensing operations in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, advised Duke that because he was "involved in an enforcement action," the Commission had set aside its earlier grant of a new sequential call sign, KC0VRS.
Duke told Hollingsworth a week later that he had withdrawn his application for a systematic call sign change two weeks or so earlier. He also said he'd applied for a vanity call sign that was never issued.
No matter his call sign, Hollingsworth cautioned, Duke was obligated to remain off the repeaters as requested.
| Previous: The K7RA Solar Update | Next: FCC Clarifies Renewal Procedures for Vanity Call Sign Holders |
