The Utah VHF Society - FCC reaffirms importance of frequency coordination

FCC Reaffirms importance of Frequency Coordination
(Again and again and again...)

Excerpted From: The ARRL Letter, Vol. 19, No. 40, October 20, 2000

Want more info? Read this and more at the ARRL Web site

FCC COMMENDS BAND PLANS IN ENFORCEMENT LETTER:

FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth used the occasion of an enforcement letter to commend the value of band plans.

"Although band plans are not mandatory, they exist to enhance the required cooperation and sharing of frequencies in the Amateur Service," Hollingsworth said in an enforcement inquiry to a Connecticut ham.

The FCC wrote Advanced licensee Alan J. Koepke, K1JCL, on October 11, 2000, citing complaints received by the Commission alleging that Koepke was operating an uncoordinated AM-mode repeater on 144.65 MHz that was causing interference to coordinated repeaters in Massachusetts and New York using that frequency as an input.

"Evidence indicates that you have been coordinated, but not for that frequency configuration," Hollingsworth wrote. The ARRL Repeater Directory indicates that the Connecticut Spectrum Management Association coordinated the K1JCL 2-meter machine for output on 145.25 MHz and a 600-kHz negative offset input.

Hollingsworth says Koepke apparently has flipped the input and output frequencies for which his 2-meter repeater was coordinated, contrary to the prevailing band plan. In addition, Hollingsworth said, Koepke has been using a non-standard spacing that may be contrary to its coordination. He has asked Koepke to explain that and to answer other questions about the repeater's coordination and operation.

"A repeater operating contrary to coordination is an uncoordinated repeater," Hollingsworth told Koepke. Citing Section 97.205 of the rules, Hollingsworth said that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has the responsibility to resolve the interference."

"Band plans minimize the necessity for Commission intervention in Amateur operations and the use of Commission resources to resolve amateur interference problems," Hollingsworth wrote in expressing the FCC's position on band plans. "When such plans are not followed and harmful interference results, we expect very substantial justification to be provided, and we expect that justification to be consistent with Section 97.101."

Hollingsworth said he included the statement to reiterate where the FCC stands on the question of band plans. "You can't possibly have a rule for every circumstance," he said.

Last December the FCC dismissed an ARRL petition calling on the Commission to equate observance of voluntary band plans with "good amateur practice." The FCC said defining band plans as the ARRL had proposed "would have the
effect of transforming voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates," something inconsistent with current FCC policy.

END OF EXCERPT

Followup:

Immediately following requests for information by FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Riley Hollingsworth, Alan J. Koepke, K1JCL, removed his uncoordinated 144.65 MHz AM repeater (with reverse split) from the air voluntarily. Reportedly, Mr. Keopke's AM repeater will stay off the air while he seeks coordination of this repeater through the normal channels.

For more information about this event, check one the following sources:

Amateur Radio Newsline - CBBS EDITION #1217 - 12/8/2000

For more information, look on the ARRL Website - This search will locate several articles about the K1JCL repeater.

Excerpted from: The ARRL Letter Vol. 20, No. 41 October 12, 2001

FCC SAYS BAND PLANS DO MATTER:

The FCC recently asked three amateurs to respond to complaints alleging that they deliberately transmitted SSB on top of CW stations operating in the vicinity of 1820 to 1825 kHz. The FCC has never designated mode-specific subbands in the 160-meter amateur band. Instead, operators are asked to voluntarily adhere to the ARRL band plan, revised this past summer, which recommends a lower limit of 1843 kHz for SSB operation.

In the wake of the complaints, FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth wrote George Wehrung, W5TZ, and Dennis Clauder, KT5S--both of Texas--and Derrick Vogt, WA4TWM, of Kansas in mid-September. Hollingsworth asked each to respond to allegations from several other operators that their SSB transmissions deliberately interfered with attempts by others to operate on CW between 1820 and 1830 kHz. Copies of the complaints were sent to all three operators.

"Band plans are voluntary in nature," Hollingsworth acknowledged in each of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring the band plans."

Hollingsworth requested that Wehrung, Clauder and Vogt each reply to the complaints within 20 days.

Other articles on this matter:

Letters to 160 meter operators from the FCC.

OPERATING WHEREVER YOU LIKE ISN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA...

GREENWOOD, IN: The FCC wrote to Tech Plus licensee Dennis M. Boyle, KB9RRN, on February 9, 2001, to follow up on complaints that the licensee was operating an uncoordinated repeater on 146.585 MHz in Johnson County, Indiana, and that the repeater is interfering with simplex operations on 146.58 MHz. "Information indicates that you requested coordination but were declined due to potential interference problems," FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth wrote in a January 22, 2001, letter that also cited allegations that the licensee had "not been responsive in discussing a solution to the interference problem with complainants." Hollingsworth pointed out that under the commonly accepted band plan, frequencies between 146.40 and 146.58 are designated for voice simplex operation. "Although band plans are not mandatory, they exist to enhance the required cooperation and sharing of frequencies in the Amateur Radio Service (see §97.101)," Hollingsworth said. "Band plans minimize the necessity for Commission intervention in Amateur operations and the use of Commission resources to resolve interference problems." The licensee notified the FCC on January 28, 2001, that his repeater operation had been terminated and would not be resumed without coordination. "We accept your response, and no further enforcement action is anticipated," Hollingsworth told the licensee.

This, and other articles may be found here on the ARRL website's FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Logs & Letters.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU COORDINATE A REPATER - AND THEN MOVE IT WITHOUT RE-COORDINATION...

April 18, 2001

Mr. Richard S. Laing, Jr.
3922 Schintzius Road
Eden, NY 14057

RE: Amateur Radio license WB2JPQ

Dear Mr. Laing:

We have received a complaint that you are operating an uncoordinated repeater on 146.685 MHz and that your repeater is causing interference to coordinated repeater VE3ZAP. The Western New York and Southern Ontario Repeater Council has indicated that your repeater was coordinated but moved from its original location, increased its power and changed the call sign.

Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility resolve the interference." Our information is that you have been made aware of this problem but have declined to take any steps to correct the problem or resolve the conflict.

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), gives the Commission the authority to obtain information from applicants and licensees regarding the operation of their station. Therefore, you are requested to respond to this letter within 20 days from the above date, furnishing the following information.

1). Is your repeater coordinated? If so:

a). Furnish a copy of the coordination document

b). State the circumstances, if any, under which you are operating the repeater in a manner not consistent with the coordination.

2). If your repeater is not coordinated, or if it is coordinated but is not being operated in accordance with the coordination, state what, if any, action you have taken to obtain coordination.

3). Have you received complaints regarding the operation of the WB2JPQ repeater? If so:

a). State the details of the complaints, if they were oral, and state what action, if any, you tool to resolve them.

b). If the complaints were in writing, state what action, if any, you took in response to the complaints and furnish a copy of each complaint.

Address your response to 1270 Fairfield Road at the above letterhead address, and please be advised that Congress has made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply to a letter of this type. See Title 18, Section 1001 of the United States Code.

MORE FUN WITH UNCOORDINATED REPEATERS...

April 26, 2001
Mr. Michael E. Horn, KB8GDF
P. O. Box 219
Lenore, WV 25676

Mr. Kenneth E. Brown, KF8HL
P. O. Box 337
Davin, WV 25617

Mr. Carl E. Tussey, KB4UCE
220 Kentucky Avenue
South Williamson, KY 41503

RE: Amateur Radio license KF8HL Repeater Operation

Dear Messrs. Brown, Horn & Tussey:

On January 24, 2001, we notified you that we had received a complaint that you were operating an uncoordinated repeater on 145.390 MHz in Mingo County, West Virginia, and that your repeater was causing interference to a coordinated repeater, KC8FKP, operated by the Portsmouth Radio Club on the same frequency. The complaint stated that the Portsmouth Radio Club repeater, KC8FKP, was coordinated. We stated that the evidence indicated that you had been informed by the coordinator, SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA), and by the Portsmouth Radio Club, of the interference but that you had refused to take steps to solve the problem. SERA further informed us that your repeater was specifically denied coordination due to the interference probability with the Portsmouth repeater.

We advised you that Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference", and requested detailed information about the operation of your repeater and any coordination attempts.

We have reviewed your response and it is our determination that no enforcement action is warranted in this matter. We note that the May, June and July 2000 issues of the Repeater Journal-the Official Voice of SERA, Inc., on pages 27 and 28, list the frequency 145.390, on which the complaint alleged that KC8KFP operates, as an "Unknown Repeater." The publication describes an "Unknown Repeater" as one that has "been purged from our main listing because we do not officially know if the repeaters indicated actually exist." The publication further states that "these unknowns have not been heard from in any form for a period of three or more years" and "Various attempts to contact the persons responsible for the listings in some cases have been unsuccessful. Other cases, owners refuse to cooperate".

We further note that the August, September and October 2000 issue, as well as the November, December and January 2001 issue showed the same status for the 145.390 frequency. Furthermore, the February, March and April 2001 issue specifically listed "KC8FKP" on 145.390 as an "unknown repeater." Your unsuccessful attempts to contact the owner of the KC8FKP repeater seem to corroborate that status.

Therefore we decline to take action in this matter and have closed the case. Thank you for your response.

CC:
SouthEastern Repeater Association
P. O. Box 417
Beckley, WV 25802-0417

Portsmouth Radio Club
P. O. Box 266
Portsmouth, Ohio 45662

WHAT HAPPENS IF BOTH REPEATERS ARE COORDINATED...

April 25, 2001
Mr. Ronald A. Wright, N9EE
8849 Gum Tree Avenue
New Port Richey, FL 34653

Mr. Joseph A. Seitz, NR7Z
11833 Ottawa Avenue
Orlando, FL 32837-7717

RE: Amateur Radio repeater N9EE

Dear Messrs. Seitz and Wright:

This is in response to the September 25, 2000 complaint that the N9EE repeater on 146.64/04 MHz, located in Holiday, Florida, is causing interference to repeater K4UCF, operated by the University of Central Florida Amateur Radio club in the Orlando area. We have reviewed the complaint and the response to the complaint. Both the complaint and the response to it were very articulate and detailed, and we appreciate the time the parties devoted to providing us with the information needed to resolve this matter.

Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility resolve the interference." In this matter, it appears that the Florida Repeater Council has coordinated both repeaters and that the great height of N9EE was not a factor in the coordination. As a result, no enforcement action is warranted at this time.

It appears that the use of PL tones and a change in antenna pattern may alleviate the interference situation. We note that the Florida Repeater Council policy on interference, according to their web site, states that "If both systems are coordinated, the FRC will determine who bears the primary responsibility for correcting the interference" (see Section 16(b), Coordination Policy.)

The Commission expects the Florida Repeater Council to make such a determination and expects the parties to work together to determine whether such remedies will solve the interference problem. Please notify us if you are unable to obtain such a determination.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU DON'T GET A COORDINATION - BUT PUT THE REPEATER ON THE AIR ANYWAY...

June 4, 2001
George L. Lyon, Esquire
Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs
1111 Nineteenth Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Scott V. Swanson, Amateur Radio licensee K6PYP
Repeater operation of K6UQ, Pali Amateur Radio Club

Dear Mr. Lyon:

Enclosed is a copy of a May 29, 2001 letter sent to Mr. Swanson. We have since learned that you may be representing Mr. Swanson.

Additionally, we were informed last week that the repeater coordinating body for Mr. Swanson's area, TASMA, has granted coordination to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates repeaters under the call sign W6IER. IEARC is coordinated for the 145.46/144.86 MHz frequency pair, the same pair on which Mr. Swanson is operating K6UQ. On April 19, 2000, Swanson was denied coordination for that frequency pair. As the enclosed complaint indicates, the interference appears deliberate.

As Mr. Swanson is aware, Section 97.205 of the Commissions rules states that in the case of interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Therefore, as trustee of the K6UQ repeater, Mr. Swanson is responsible for taking whatever steps necessary to prevent interference to the Coordinated W6IER repeater.

Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mr. Swanson is requested to respond to the enclosed complaint as well as the May 29 letter within 20 days.

Please call me at 717-338-2698 if you have any questions about this matter.

Enclosures: May 29, 2001 letter (1 page)

Electronic mail messages dated June 3, 2001 (3 pages)

AND THIS IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU STILL DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY...

August 3, 2001

George L. Lyon, Esquire
Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez and Sachs
1111 Nineteenth Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Scott V. Swanson, Amateur Radio licensee K6PYP
Repeater operation of K6UQ, Pali Amateur Radio Club
Warning Notice

Dear Mr. Lyon:

By letter dated June 4, 2001, we informed you that the repeater coordinating body for Mr. Swanson's area, TASMA, had granted coordination to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates a repeater under the call sign W6IER. IEARC is coordinated for the 145.46/144.86 MHz frequency pair, the same pair on which Swanson is operating K6UQ. On April 19, 2000, Swanson was denied coordination for that frequency pair. Our letter also enclosed a complaint that indicated that K6UQ was interfering with W6IER.

Our letter pointed out that Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that in the case of interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Therefore, as trustee of the K6UQ repeater, Swanson is responsible for taking whatever steps necessary to prevent interference to the coordinated W6IER repeater.

You replied on Swanson's behalf on June 25, 2001. Swanson raised various issues relating to interference with Mexico, the mileage separation of W6IER and K6UQ, and claimed that W6IER had not been coordinated by TASMA but rather had merely "test status".

Swanson further questioned why W6IER was coordinated in view of the fact that it has line of sight with Mexico to the south.

We will not respond herein to interference issues related to Mexico since they are not relevant to interference to W6IER. As the enclosed documents demonstrate, TASMA granted coordination to W6IER for a four-month test period and stated that it would schedule the application for review at its next meeting. TASMA has informed us that the coordination is valid and that they anticipate no obstacles to granting the standard coordination.

In regard to Swanson's questioning W6IER's coordination inasmuch as it is line of sight with Mexico to the south, TASMA has informed us that W6IER is coordinated for a low antenna height and that to the south, between the site of W6IER and Mexico, are the Santa Ana Mountains and the Mt Palomar mountain range.

However, whether W6IER has test coordination, temporary coordination, experimental coordination, coordination in perpetuity or any other type of coordination, these facts remain: W6IER is coordinated, and K6UQ is not. Commission Rule 97.205 places the burden of solving interference problems upon K6UQ. To the extent K6UQ causes interference to W6IER, Swanson and the control operators operate it at their peril.

We are today referring this matter to the Los Angeles Field Office with instructions to cite the licensee of K6UQ, and control operators if appropriate, for interference as the circumstances may warrant. Swanson and any control operators should be cautioned that monetary forfeitures in such cases are normally in the range of $7,500. Depending on the evidence obtained by the Field, revocation and suspension issues may also be warranted.

Finally, information indicates that K6UQ has changed locations to 2050 Cepryan Drive in Los Angeles. Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Mr. Swanson is requested to confirm the location of K6UQ within 20 days. Swanson is also requested to notify the Commission within 10 days of any future changes in location of the repeater.

Enclosures (2): TASMA "Notice of Frequency Coordination" dated May 15, 2001

TASMA letter of May 15, 2001, signed by Technical Committee Secretary

AND THERE'S MORE...

August 16, 2001

Randall L. Miller
555 Through Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2560

RE: Amateur Radio License KE6MUG
Warning Notice--Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. Miller:

Information indicates that you are operating an uncoordinated repeater on the frequency pair 145.46/144.86 MHz. The repeater coordinating body for your area, TASMA, has granted coordination for a four-month test period to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates a repeater under the call sign W6IER and is receiving interference from your repeater.

Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that in the case of interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, the licensee of the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Therefore, you are responsible for taking whatever steps necessary to prevent interference to the coordinated W6IER repeater.

This is a Warning Notice that you must take immediate steps to eliminate the interference to the W6IER repeater. You and your control operators are cautioned that continued interference to W6IER may result in a monetary forfeitures of up to $7,500. Depending on the evidence obtained by the Field, revocation and suspension issues may also be warranted.

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 C.F.R. Section 308(b), as amended, gives the Commission the authority to obtain information from licensees regarding the operation of their station. Accordingly, you are requested to confirm the location of your repeater and to list the names, addresses and call signs of all control operators. Please furnish this information within 10 days. Please be advised that Congress has made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply to a letter of this type.

Please call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions concerning this matter.

AND AGAIN...

August 28, 2001
Mr. Angos Winke
5333 Russell Apt 301
Los Angeles, CA 90027

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KC6OKA

Dear Mr. Winke:

On numerous occasions you have been informed that the repeater coordinating body for your area, TASMA, has granted coordination to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates a repeater under the call sign W6IER. IEARC is coordinated for the 145.46/144.86 MHz frequency pair, the same pair on which have been operating a repeater (using various call signs such as but not limited to K6UQ, KE6MUG, and KF6FSD).

We have referred this matter to the Los Angeles Field Office with instructions to cite you and any other operators of the repeater, as appropriate, for interference that is being caused to W6IER. You are cautioned that monetary forfeitures in such cases are normally in the range of $7,500. Depending on the evidence obtained by the Field, revocation and suspension issues may also be warranted.

AND YET AGAIN...

November 8, 2001

Mr. Michael S. Marin
6047 John Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90805

RE: Second Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KF6FSD

Dear Mr. Marin:

On August 23, 2001, we notified you that you were operating an uncoordinated repeater on the frequency pair 145.46/144.86 MHz, and that the repeater coordinating body for your area, TASMA, had granted test coordination to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates a repeater under the call sign W6IER. IEARC was coordinated for a test period on that frequency pair. The repeater that you operated has used various call signs such as but not limited to K6UQ, KE6MUG, and KF6FSD.

We also notified you that Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that in the case of interference between a coordinated repeater and an uncoordinated repeater, the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to resolve the interference. Additionally, we warned you that continued interference to W6IER by your station would result in a monetary forfeiture of up to $7,500. We stated that, depending upon the evidence, revocation and suspension issues might also be warranted.

This serves as notice that on October 11, 2001, TASMA granted final coordination to Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club station W6EIR for a transmit frequency of 145.460 MHz and a receive frequency of 144.860 MHz. Information before the Commission indicates that interference to the W6EIR repeater from your operation is continuing. We have referred this matter to the Los Angeles Field Office for appropriate enforcement action.

You are advised that continued operation of your station, to the extent it causes harmful interference to any coordinated repeater, is at your peril. This is the last written notification you will receive before enforcement action is initiated.

November 8, 2001

Mr. Robert E. Carvel
1060 S Sherbourne Dr #305
Los Angeles, CA 90035

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KE6RPI

Dear Mr. Carvel:

Information before the Commission indicates that interference to the W6EIR repeater has been occurring from your station through a repeater on the same frequency using various call signs such as, but not limited to, K6UQ, KE6MUG, and KF6FSD. Continued interference to W6IER by your station could result in a monetary forfeiture of up to $7,500. Depending upon the evidence, revocation and suspension issues might also be warranted.

We have referred this matter to the Los Angeles Field Office for appropriate enforcement action. You are advised that continued operation of your station, to the extent it causes harmful interference to any coordinated repeater, is at your peril. This is the last written notification you will receive before enforcement action is initiated.

November 8, 2001

Mr. Danny R. Fuller
4036 W Avenue 42
Los Angeles, CA 90065

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KF6YYN

Dear Mr. Fuller:

November 8, 2001

Mr. Max E. Sudds
408 E 56 Street
Los Angeles, CA 90011

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio licenses WA6QAG, KE6SWA

Dear Mr. Sudds:

This serves as notice that on October 11, 2001, the Two-meter Area Spectrum Management Association (TASMA) granted final coordination to Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club station W6EIR for a transmit frequency of 145.460 MHz and a receive frequency of 144.860 MHz. Information before the Commission indicates that interference to the W6EIR repeater has been occurring from your station through a repeater on the same frequency using various call signs such as, but not limited to, K6UQ, KE6MUG, and KF6FSD. Continued interference to W6IER by your station could result in a monetary forfeiture of up to $7,500. Depending upon the evidence, revocation and suspension issues might also be warranted.

November 8, 2001

Mr. Angos Winke
5333 Russell Apt 301
Los Angeles, CA 90027

RE: Second Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KC60KA

Dear Mr. Winke:

On August 28, 2001, we notified you that the repeater coordinating body for your area, TASMA, had granted test coordination to the Inland Empire Amateur Radio Club (IEARC), which operates a repeater under the call sign W6IER. IEARC was coordinated for the 145.46/144.86 MHz frequency pair, the same pair on which you have been operating a repeater. The repeater that you operate has used various call signs such as but not limited to K6UQ, KE6MUG, and KF6FSD.

We also notified you that we had referred this matter to the Los Angeles Field Office with instructions to cite you and any other operators of the repeater, as appropriate, for interference that is being caused to W6IER. You were cautioned that monetary forfeitures in such cases are normally in the range of $7,500, and that depending on the evidence obtained by the Field, revocation and suspension issues may also be warranted.

You will receive shortly a notification from the Los Angeles Field Office terminating your authority to operate your repeater (whatever call sign it is using) under automatic control, pursuant to Section 97.109(d) of the Commission's Rules. Please note that automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the Engineer in Charge. Your repeater may continue to transmit using local or remote control only to the extent it does not cause harmful interference to any coordinated repeater. You are advised that continued operation of your repeater, to the extent it causes harmful interference to any coordinated repeater, is at your peril. This is the last written notification you will receive before enforcement action is initiated.

November 8, 2001

Ms. Joanne G. Scott
9339 E Beverly Blvd
Pico Rivera, CA 90660

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KF6WZM

Dear Ms. Scott:

WHY COORDINATE? TO PREVENT QRM - HERE'S AN EXAMPLE:

October 30, 2001

Mr. Richard E. Howell
104 Rollingwood Drive
Taylors, SC 29687

RE: Amateur Radio license NY4X-Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. Howell:

It has come to our attention that you are operating an uncoordinated repeater on 147.030 MHz, and that your repeater is causing interference to a coordinated repeater, KU4OL, that is coordinated for that frequency. Evidence also indicates that your repeater often keys up even if there are no legitimate communications on it, and that some of its users deliberately interfere with the KU4OL repeater.

Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference". Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), gives the Commission the authority to request information from a licensee regarding the operation of a radio station. Accordingly, you are requested to respond to this letter within 20 days from the above date, furnishing the following information.

1) Is your repeater NY4X coordinated? If so:

a) Furnish a copy of the coordination document.

b) State the circumstances, if any, under which you are operating the repeater in a manner not consistent with the coordination.

2) If your repeater NY4X is not coordinated, or if it is coordinated but is not being operated in accordance with the coordination, state what, if any, action you have taken to obtain coordination.

3) Have you received complaints regarding the operation of the NY4X repeater? If so:

a) State the details of the complaints, if they were oral, and state what action, if any, you took to resolve them.

b) If the complaints were in writing, state what action, if any, you took in response to the complaints and furnish a copy of each complaint.

ALWAYS KEEP THE COORDINATOR INFORMED, DO IT IN WRITING, AND KEEP YOUR RECORDS!

February 19, 2002

Mr. Gerald Hogue
1723 College
Conway, AR 72032

Mr. David Stone
Arkansas Repeater Council
39 Mallory Street
Morrilton, AR 72110

Mr. Tom Lee
P. O. Box 70
Jerusalem, AR 72080

RE: Amateur Radio repeaters AC5RU & KD5CYA

Dear Messrs. Hogue, Lee and Stone:

On May 24, 2000, we opened an inquiry about allegations that Tom Lee's repeater AC5RU was causing harmful interference to coordinated repeater KD5CYA, licensed to Gerald Hogue. The allegations stated that Lee's repeater was uncoordinated because the coordination had been forfeited by numerous changes in location.

We reviewed the material filed by all parties in the matter. On August 14, 2000, we notified Lee that pursuant to Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules, it was his responsibility to prevent interference to KD5CYA, inasmuch as it appeared to be the coordinated repeater. On September 14, 2000, after reviewing Lee's lengthy response, we rescinded our requirement that Lee solve the interference to the KD5CYA repeater. We pointed out that it was unclear which repeater was properly coordinated, stated that it was not an appropriate matter for enforcement action, and urged the parties to take advantage of the mediation and dispute resolution program of the ARRL. ARC declined to pursue arbitration or mediation.

Lee submitted additional information on January 5, 2001. On February 8, 2001, after receiving additional documents from all parties, we stated that although we failed to see why mediation or arbitration would not be a viable option, we nevertheless agreed to review the matter once again. In response to allegations of deliberate interference, we cautioned everyone involved to cooperate in the resolution of this matter.

After reviewing the submissions and all relevant information, we decline to intervene in this dispute. It is our position that in this case BOTH parties are responsible for solving the interference and we urge them to do so in the best interests of Amateur Radio.

We note that the AC5RU repeater was coordinated by the Arkansas Repeater Council (ARC) in April, 1998, and that the coordination letter was signed by "McCann". The coordination document stated that any changes in the repeater would void coordination.

After incidents of vandalism at the site, the AC5RU repeater moved. Lee states that he obtained verbal permission from McCann of ARC to move the repeater, and that McCann said "if it were my repeater, I'd move it." Lee did not obtain the permission in writing, however. In January 1999, Lee sent in a change of location notice and a request for new coordination to the ARC. During that period the membership of ARC changed, and Lee apparently did not receive coordination. He was told in July 1999 by ARC to move the repeater back to its original location.

On September 20, 1999, ARC "revoked" Lee's coordination, stating that "moving the repeater from its coordinated location is your primary offence". ARC stated that the move automatically voided the coordination, and that its move placed it too close to the Ava, Missouri repeater on the same frequency. Lee provided a statement, however, from the Ava repeater licensee that no interference resulted. Lee also stated that although he repeater had been moved several times for repairs, it otherwise had stayed at its coordinated location and would remain there.

Lee contends that the AC5RU repeater is coordinated, but that even if it lost its coordination, ARC should not have knowingly coordinated the KD5CYA repeater on top of AC5RU since it was an existing fully functional repeater and had been for at least three years. ARC contends that AC5RU was "de-coordinated" because it had moved many times (the exact number of moves is disputed), that it "pulled" the frequency pair and "reissued" it to KD5CYA.

Additionally, we note that ARC rejected a proposed solution whereby AC5RU would re-apply for coordination, shut down for a period of time until it was granted, and that a new frequency pair would be found for KD5CYA.

Our decision not to use enforcement resources for the solution of this matter is based upon several considerations. It is not clear which repeater is the coordinated repeater. The authority of a frequency coordinator is to recommend. It does not "assign" frequencies. It is unclear why ARC coordinated KD5CYA on top of a repeater that had been operating for quite some time and was, at least for a few years, coordinated.

On the other hand, it is undisputed that AC5RU moved at least several times. It is not clear why AC5RU did not get the permission for its first move, carried out as a result of vandalism, from McCann in writing. It is also not clear why, if AC5RU had that permission, it sent to ARC a change of location notice and a request for new coordination. It would seem that, had the coordination indeed been granted by McCann, only a change of location notice would have been necessary.

Rather than utilizing enforcement resources to resolve this problem, we will depend upon the competence and dedication of the affected licensees to resolve the matter. We emphasize, however, that repeaters are listened to widely by licensees as well as short-wave listeners all over the country. Repeaters are often a would-be licensee's first exposure to Amateur Radio. The Commission generally relies upon Amateur Radio's long tradition of resolving most of its own disputes, and its history of putting the good of the Amateur Service as a whole above individual interests.

Finally, we express our appreciation to all the parties for the time that you devoted to this matter and the very thorough and detailed information you provided. You have worked very hard to clarify all the issues in this situation.

THE FCC SAYS THE EQUIVALENT OF "DON'T MAKE ME TURN THIS CAR AROUND!!!"

March 1, 2002

Mr. John A. Parker, Jr.
564 Sugarloaf Road
Brevard, NC 28712

RE: Amateur Radio license NY4X

Dear Mr. Parker:

On November 9, 2001, we notified you that it had come to our attention that you are operating an uncoordinated repeater on 147.030 MHz, and that your repeater is causing interference to a coordinated repeater, KU4OL. The repeater you are operating is owned by you but identifies by the call sign NY4X. We also notified you that evidence indicated that the repeater often keys up even if there are no legitimate communications on it, and that some of its users deliberately interfere with the KU4OL repeater.

We informed you in our November 9 letter that Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference." We requested information from you pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), which gives the Commission the authority to request information from a licensee regarding the operation of a radio station.

In your response you stated that the NY4X repeater was not coordinated but that you were attempting to obtain coordination from the SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA). You submitted a copy of a coordination application dated November 23, 2001. You requested 60 days to obtain coordination. On December 27 you informed us that you were requesting the frequency 145.23 MHz. In a telephone conversation with this office on February 19, 2002, you stated that you had not yet obtained coordination. We informed you that he had to either obtain coordination or prevent interference to KU4OL by the end of February. As of this date, interference to KU4OL continues, and you have not obtained coordination.

You have had more than ample time to fulfill your obligation under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules. Effective upon receipt of this letter, the NY4X repeater must be shut down until you either: 1) obtain coordination; or 2) submit a detailed, specific plan to this office to prevent interference to KU4OL. Failure to shut down will result in enforcement action against your Amateur license for NY4X, and may include revocation and a monetary forfeiture of up to $7,500.

CC: Dennis Carlton, Regional Director
FCC South Central Region

AND, A FOLLOWUP LETTER:

March 1, 2002

Mr. Richard E. Howell
164 Abners Run Drive
Greer, SC 29651

RE: Amateur Radio license NY4X

Dear Mr. Howell:

On November 9, 2001, we notified you that it had come to our attention that an uncoordinated repeater was operating with your call sign on 147.030 MHz, and that the repeater was causing interference to a coordinated repeater, KU4OL. The repeater is owned and operated by John A. Parker, AG4AZ, but identifies by your consent with your call sign. We also notified you that evidence indicated that the repeater often keys up even if there are no legitimate communications on it, and that some of its users deliberately interfere with the KU4OL repeater.

Parker responded and stated that the NY4X repeater was not coordinated but that he was attempting to obtain coordination from the SouthEastern Repeater Association (SERA). He submitted a copy of a coordination application dated November 23, 2001. He requested 60 days to obtain coordination. On December 27 Parker informed us that he was requesting the frequency 145.23 MHz.

In a telephone conversation with this office on February 19, 2002, Parker stated that he had not yet obtained coordination. We informed him that he had to either obtain coordination or prevent interference to KU4OL by the end of February.

You have had more than ample time to fulfill your obligation under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules. As of this date, interference to KU4OL continues, and neither of you have obtained coordination.

Effective upon receipt of this letter, the NY4X repeater must be shut down until you either: 1) obtain coordination; or 2) submit a detailed, specific plan to this office to prevent interference to KU4OL. Failure to shut down will result in enforcement action against your Amateur license for NY4X, and may include revocation and a monetary forfeiture of up to $7,500.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter we have today sent to Parker informing him of this as well.

CC: Dennis Carlton, Regional Director
FCC South Central Region

IT'S BEST IF THE REPEATERS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE HAM BAND...

April 4, 2002

Mr. Thomas D. Batista
10124 45 Avenue
Corona, NY 11368

RE: Amateur Radio licenses KC2DDD, N2IFU-Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. Batista:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter we sent to you on February 15, 2002. The letter required a reply within 20 days, but we have not received a response from you.

Please review this letter and respond no later than April 20, 2002. Failure to reply will jeopardize your Amateur license and may subject you to a monetary forfeiture.

February 15, 2002

Mr. Thomas D. Batista
10124 45 Avenue
Corona, NY 11368

Mr. Gerardo Arias
278 Sharpe Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10302

RE: Amateur Radio licenses KC2DDD, N2IFU-Repeater Operation

Dear Messrs Batista and Arias:

It has come to our attention that you are operating an uncoordinated repeater with an output on 147.020 MHz and input on 143.020 MHz. The frequency 143.020 MHz is not allocated to the Amateur Radio Service. Our information also indicates that you use this repeater as a reverse auto-patch, that it is not being identified, and that it is causing interference to coordinated repeaters

Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules states that where there is interference between a coordinated and an uncoordinated repeater, "the licensee of the uncoordinated repeater has primary responsibility to resolve the interference". Operation on 143.020 MHz unlicensed is a violation of Section 312 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and will result in fine or imprisonment.

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), gives the Commission the authority to request information from a licensee regarding the operation of a radio station. Accordingly, you are requested to respond to this letter within 20 days from the above date, furnishing: 1) full details about the operation of the repeater; 2) the identity of control operators, if any; 3) the call signs of the users; 4) names and addresses of any unlicensed users; and 5) the location of the repeater. If the repeater is located on property that you do not own or rent, state the name and address of the landlord or site manager.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF YOU DON'T CONTROL YOUR REPEATER:

February 24, 2003

Ms. Sheri A. Gilbert
3426 E Sage Lake Road
Lupton, MI 48635

Mr. William E. Gilbert
3426 E Sage Lake Road
Lupton, MI 48635

RE: Warning Notice--Amateur Radio licenses K5YHA and K5EKP
Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert:

You are the licensees for the K5YHA/K5EKP repeater operating on 146.700 MHz. The Commission is aware of numerous rule violations on the repeater and of interference caused by the repeater to the K8GER repeater system. Violations on the repeater have consisted of failure to identify by users, use of false or misleading call signs by users, and failure to have a control operator for the repeater. In January you apparently turned the operation of the repeater over to a car rally and violations such as those above occurred for over 12 hours over a two day period.

We will supply dates and times if requested.

Since the repeater bears your call signs, it is important for you to understand that you are responsible for its proper operation. The decision to operate a repeater is a totally voluntarily one. Repeaters are a convenience in the Amateur Radio Service, not a necessity. A repeater is a station just like any other station, and under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules, all stations must have a licensee and control operator. Under Sections 97.103(a) and 97.105, control operators must ensure the immediate proper operation of a station, regardless of the type of station control. Furthermore, "automatic" control does not mean "unattended" operation.

Unattended operation is not authorized under the rules.

The repeater licensee is responsible for all recurring violations and violations that are not inadvertent, just as a licensee is responsible for a base station HF station operation in the licensee's home. You must prevent recurring and deliberate violations on your repeater by locking rule violators out, using tones, warning users, limiting its operation, or taking whatever steps necessary commensurate with your responsibility as the licensee of the station. If you are unable to do so, then you must shut down your station.

If you are unwilling or unable to prevent violations on the K5YHA/K5EKP repeater, then your operator and station license will be subject to enforcement action by the Commission. Such action may include monetary forfeiture (fine), operator license suspension or station license revocation. Forfeitures normally range from $2,500 to $10,000.

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission the authority to obtain information from applicants regarding the operation of their station. Accordingly you are requested to provide the following information within 20 days:

1. State what action, if any, you have taken to resolve the interference to the K8GER repeater. Provide copies of bills and invoices if you have had a service technician analyze the repeater. If no bills or invoices were presented, provide a report by, and the name address and telephone number of, the person servicing the repeater.

2. Describe in detail how the repeater is identified.

3. Describe what steps you have taken to ensure that users of the repeater properly identify.

4. Describe in detail how the repeater was controlled during the January car rally and list by name, address and telephone number all users during that event that did not use call signs.

Section 97.109(d) of the Commission's rules provides that when an Amateur station is being automatically controlled, the control operator need not be at the control point. The rule also states that automatic control must cease upon notification by an EIC (Engineer in Charge/now District Director) that the station is transmitting improperly or causing harmful interference to other stations; and that automatic control must not be resumed without prior approval of the EIC/District Director. You will shortly receive a letter from the FCC District Director for your area removing your automatic control privilege until this matter is resolved.

You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter.

CC: FCC, Northeastern Regional Director

February 28, 2003

Ms. Sheri A. Gilbert
3426 E Sage Lake Road
Lupton, MI 48635

RE: Amateur Repeater Station K5YHA
Order to Cease Automatic Control
Case #EB2001-524

Dear Ms. Gilbert:

Your Amateur station K5YHA is under review by the Enforcement Bureau for apparent violations of the Commission's rules, including inadequate station control and deliberate interference. This review is the subject of correspondence between you and the Enforcement Bureau.

You are hereby notified that, until this matter is resolved, K5YHA may not be operated under automatic control. Automatic control may not resume until you are so notified by this office. If K5YHA is operated under automatic control prior to notification from this office, enforcement action will be taken against your Amateur operator and station licenses for K5YHA. This action will include designation of those licenses for a revocation and suspension hearing, and a monetary forfeiture.

This order is effective upon receipt.

Sincerely,

James A. Bridgewater
District Director
FCC Detroit

CC: FCC Enforcement Bureau

A BIT CLOSER TO HOME, YET SO FAR AWAY...

March 20, 2001
Mr. Steven R. Decho
13972 S. Corner Hills Cove
Draper, UT 84020

RE: Amateur Radio license KE6FX-Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. Decho:

Monitoring information indicates that you have a repeater system operating in the Los Angeles area on 447.250 MHz that is causing interference to a coordinated repeater WA6UZS. Information indicates that your repeater is not coordinated, operates 10 kHz away from WA6UZS, sometimes operates in a beacon mode and sometimes identifies every ten minutes 24 hours a day without input. There have also been reports of dead carriers that last for weeks, a tone that lasted continuously for three weeks, weekends of 2 meter repeater rebroadcasts and a repeating CW identification that lasted for weeks. It appears that the system is operated with no apparent control operator, during which times violations of the Amateur Radio Service rules are taking place.

We are undertaking a review of this repeater system. You are requested to provide the following information under Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b). That section gives the Commission the authority to obtain information from licensees and applicants regarding the operation of their station.

1(a). List the names, addresses, call signs and phone numbers of the control operators of the KE6FX repeater.

(b). List the hours each is on duty.

2. Do you have provisions for remote control of the KE6FX repeater? If so, describe.

3. Have you received complaints about the KE6FX repeater? If so, state when you received such complaints, describe each complaint and what, if any, action you took. If the complaints were in writing, furnish a copy of each.

4. Have you received complaints about specific users of the KE6FX repeater since January 1, 2000? If so, describe each complaint and what, if any, action you took. If the complaints were in writing, furnish copies.

5. Describe in detail the methods used to exercise control, as required by the Amateur Radio Service rules, of the KE6FX repeater.

6. Describe in detail the configuration of the KE6FX system, including the location of all transmit and receive points, antennas and antenna heights, equipment make, model and serial numbers.

7. Is the KE6FX repeater coordinated? If so, furnish a copy of your repeater coordination document. If not, state what steps, if any, you have taken to obtain coordination.

You are requested to furnish this information under signature within 20 days of the above date. Address your response to 1270 Fairfield Road, at the letterhead address. Please be advised that Congress has made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply to an inquiry of this type. See Title 18, Section 1001, United States Code.

August 23, 2001

Mr. Steven R. Decho
13972 S. Corner Hills Cove
Draper, UT 84020

RE: Amateur Radio license KE6FX-Repeater Operation

Dear Mr. Decho:

On March 20, 2001 we notified you that your repeater system KE6FX operating in the Los Angeles area on 447.250 MHz was causing interference to a coordinated repeater WA6UZS. Information indicated that your repeater was not coordinated, operated 10 kHz away from WA6UZS, sometimes operated in a beacon mode and sometimes identified every ten minutes 24 hours a day without input. There were also reports of dead carriers that last for weeks, a tone that lasted continuously for three weeks, weekends of 2 meter repeater rebroadcasts and a repeating CW identification that lasted for weeks. It appears that the system was operated with no apparent control operator, during which times violations of the Amateur Radio Service rules were taking place.

We requested that you provide certain information regarding the operation of your repeater system, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. You responded on April 8, 2001, claiming that your system is coordinated. You have not shown that your repeater system is coordinated. You referred us to page 445 of the 2000-2001 ARRL Repeater Directory as a showing that you are coordinated. However, your repeater does not appear there. Furthermore, the Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association has informed us that your coordination KE6FX was abandoned and that they so notified you.

Therefore, under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules, you are responsible for preventing interference to the WA6UZS system. The beacon identifier that you have been using with no operational input, the re-broadcasting of other repeater traffic, any dead carriers, continuous tones or repeating CW identifier--such as the one presently being used--must cease immediately. Normal repeater traffic, if any, must not interfere with WA6UZS. Failure to protect the coordinated repeater WA6UZS will result in enforcement sanctions ranging from license revocation to a monetary forfeiture. Monetary forfeitures in such instances are normally in the range of $7,500.

Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), you are requested to respond to this letter within 20 days and state what steps have been taken to eliminate interference to WA6UZS. Address your response to 1270 Fairfield Road, at the letterhead address. Please be advised that Congress has made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply to an inquiry of this type. See Title 18, Section 1001, United States Code.

September 4, 2002

Mr. Steven R. Decho
13972 S. Corner Hills Cove
Draper, UT 84020

RE: Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license KE6FX-Repeater Operation
Interference to WA6UZS Repeater
Case #EB-2001-149

Dear Mr. Decho:

On August 23, 2001, we wrote you in reference to a March 20, 2001 complaint that your repeater system KE6FX operating on Mt. Disappointment in the Los Angeles area on 447.250 MHz was causing interference to coordinated repeater WA6UZS. The March 20 complaint stated that your repeater was not coordinated, operated 10 kHz away from WA6UZS, sometimes operated in a beacon mode and sometimes identified every ten minutes 24 hours a day without input.

Our August 23 letter stated that there were also reports of dead carriers that last for weeks, a tone that lasted continuously for three weeks, weekends of 2 meter repeater rebroadcasts and a repeating CW identification that lasted for weeks. Finally we pointed out that it appeared that the system was operated with no apparent control operator, during which times violations of the Amateur Radio Service rules were taking place. We requested that you provide certain information regarding the operation of KE6FX, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

We stated in our August 23 letter that, under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules, you are responsible for preventing interference to the WA6UZS system. We further stated that the beacon identifier that you were been using with no operational input, the re-broadcasting of other repeater traffic, any dead carriers, continuous tones or repeating CW identifier must cease immediately; and that normal repeater traffic, if any, must not interfere with WA6UZS. We notified you that failure to protect the coordinated repeater WA6UZS would result in enforcement sanctions ranging from license revocation to a monetary forfeiture.

You responded by letter dated September 10, 2001 raising various arguments and general complaints about frequency coordination for repeaters and other matters. You stated that "KE6FX has for the last 20 years operated as a remotely controlled base station, using frequencies above 220 MHz for remote control of a synthesized VHF transceiver, to communicate with the general Amateur population on Two meters".

You claimed that as a "remote base", KE6FX in Los Angeles does not need coordination. You have, on the other hand, submitted out of date coordination documents. You raised various objections to frequency coordination principles but without any indication whatsoever of what steps you were taking to resolve the interference.

For over two years your Mt. Disappointment KE6FX station has been characterized by lack of control and identification problems. For example, In April 2000 it broadcast a continuous tone on 447.250 for 9 days. On July 4, 2000, it broadcast a CW "P" every second, with identification every 8 to 10 minutes, for over 6 hours. On July 8, 2000, it re-broadcast repeater traffic from 145.300 all day with no other identification.

On July 25, 2000 KE6FX on Mt. Disappointment was broadcasting a dead carrier and had been doing so for over 64 hours. When the control operator was contacted, he stated that he had been "out of town and had not noticed the problem". In January 2001 KE6FX was identifying every 8 to 10 minutes twenty-four hours a day in CW without any input activity. All of these problems occurred even though you had knowledge of interference allegations.

Over the July 4 , 2002 holiday period, re-broadcast of other repeater traffic by K6CPT lasted for eleven hours while numerous attempts were made by the WA6UZS repeater personnel to contact you. In an August 27, 2002 response, you stated that over the July 4 holiday you operated the station to monitor the K6CPT Disaster Communications Service because that was "a good way to keep tabs" on any possible activations. However, you stated that you were not a DCS member, but that your control operator was a DCS member. You stated that your control operator "cannot hear K6CPT except through the KE6FX auxiliary". Finally, you stated to this office that you were aware of attempts by WA6UZS to contact you, but ignored those attempts.

A decision by an Amateur licensee to operate a repeater is a voluntary one--they are not required by the rules. It is difficult to understand why you insist upon running KE6FX on Mt. Disappointment, when you in fact reside in Utah. By your own admission, you use the station when you are in the Los Angeles area to hear other repeater traffic on K6CPT.

You cannot demonstrate current repeater coordination, but apparently continue to rely upon old coordination. Frequency coordinations are not frequency "allocations" or "assignments". They are neither lifetime grants nor are they issued in perpetuity. The real basis of this matter seems to be that you object to a recent change in spacing standards by the coordinator and do not wish to conform to them.

Whatever your KE6FX Mt. Disappointment station is, it is causing interference to WA6UZS. If your Mt. Disappointment station is a "repeater", you are primarily responsible for preventing interference to the coordinated repeater WA6UZS and you have had more than ample time to fulfill your obligation under Section 97.205 of the Commission's rules. If you consider the KE6FX Mt. Disappointment station to be an "auxiliary" station or a "remote base", the fact remains that it interferes with the WA6UZS repeater and that, as of this date, such interference continues.

Effective upon receipt of this letter, the KE6FX operation on Mt. Disappointment must be shut down until you either:

1) Obtain current coordination; or

2) Submit a detailed, specific plan acceptable to this office to prevent interference to WA6UZS.

Failure to shut down will result in enforcement action against your Amateur license for KE6FX, against any control operators of KE6FX, and may include revocation and a monetary forfeiture. Monetary forfeitures in these situations range from $7,500 to $10,000.

CC: FCC Western Regional Director

If you are considering putting up a repeater, please contact the frequency coordinator prior to commencing operation. Just because a frequency does not appear to be used in your area, that doesn't mean that operation on that frequency in your area will not cause interference!

Additionally, a list of assigned simplex frequencies may be found online here. Please read the notice at the top of this page concerning "assignment" (not coordination) of simplex frequencies.

Questions, updates, or comments pertaining to this web page may be directed to: uvhfs@utahvhfs.org

This page updated on 20030923

Return to the Utah VHF Society home page.