Ham Operator Must Pay in First-Responder Interference Case

A ham radio operator in Idaho must pay a record $34,000 penalty for causing interference with communications during a fire suppression effort.

That’s the ruling from the Federal Communications Commission in the case of Jason Frawley, licensee of amateur station WA7CQ.

When the commission issued its notice of liability 2-1/2 years ago, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wrote: “You can’t interfere with public safety communications. Full stop. So today we propose the largest fine of its type for this interference that put fire suppression and public safety itself at risk.”

Frawley acknowledged that he operated on a frequency without authorization but argued that he did not interfere with government communications and was trying to help. He asked for a cancellation or reduction but the commission has rejected his appeal.

It’s not clear why the FCC took so long to finalize the penalty.

When the forfeiture finally was adopted the day after Christmas, Commissioner Nathan Simington dissented but did not release a reason. Radio World has followed up with his office and will report any response.

The details

The FCC said that in 2021, Frawley willfully and repeatedly operated without authorization and interfered with radio communications of the U.S. Forest Service, which was attempting to direct operations of fire suppression aircraft working a 1,000-acre wildfire on national forest land near Elk River, Idaho.

The FCC said that over a two-day period, Frawley transmitted eight times without authorization on a frequency allocated to government use.

The Forest Service complained about transmissions on 151.145 MHz. According to its case summary, the frequency is in the Public Safety Pool that was being used by the Forest Service and the Idaho Department of Lands to coordinate the firefighting.

“The complaint stated that the individual had caused radio frequency interference to communications with the U.S. Forest Service firefighter’s fire suppression aircraft,” the FCC wrote.

“The complaint alleged that, on July 17 and 18, 2021, the individual had interrupted fire suppression activities and had begun advising the firefighters and aircraft personnel of hazards at a radio repeater site located at Elk Butte. The complaint also stated that the individual had identified himself on the radio as ‘comm tech’ and his location as the Elk River airstrip.”

The FCC said that on July 18, the fire operations section chief left the scene of the fire, drove to the airstrip and told Frawley to cease operations on the frequency.

In 2022 the FCC issued its notice of liability, as we reported at the time.

In response, Frawley did not contest that he had operated unauthorized on a government frequency.

But he said he made six transmissions, not eight; that the total duration of the transmissions including the firefighters’ responses was less than one minute; and that he did not cause interference to ongoing communications.

He said he made the transmissions with “good faith and non-malicious intent to help,” that he hadn’t been given a warning before being fined, that he had a history of compliance, and that he can’t afford to pay the penalty. He submitted tax forms as evidence.

Frawley said his actions should not be handled like those of someone who had malicious intent or deliberately jammed signals. Instead an admonishment would be more appropriate.

Decision upheld

But the FCC is unmoved: “We have fully considered the arguments and accompanying financial information set forth in Frawley’s NAL response and subsequent filings, but we find none of them persuasive,” the commission has ruled.

It said the base forfeiture is $10,000 per violation for each of the two days that Frawley operated without a license on 151.145 MHz and $7,000 for each of the two days that he caused interference to authorized stations. It added that it had actually chosen not to adjust the penalty upwards, as it has done in certain past cases.

Further, while the FCC acknowledged that one of its criteria for reducing a penalty is “good faith or voluntary disclosure,” it said it has no precedent for applying “good faith” intention in a case involving first responders. Even if it had, the commission ruled, this instance “was particularly serious and could have had significant negative consequences for first responders, who were fighting a significant wildfire.”

Also, “Frawley asserts that he is no longer engaging in unauthorized transmissions on public safety frequencies and, moreover, that the ‘wide publicity’ surrounding this matter has already deterred similar behavior by himself and others.” But the FCC said his case is different from those where a violator took affirmative steps to remedy an ongoing or persistent violation, like providing a missing application or installing missing equipment. “We decline to grant a downward adjustment based solely on a violator’s inaction.”

And the commission said that although Frawley’s financial documents on their own could support a reduction, “given the totality of the circumstances and facts before us, we find his ability to pay is outweighed by the nature of the violations themselves and their potential threat to public safety communications.”