In the first quarter of 2013 (January-March), the FCC issued 23 enforcement actions. These enforcement actions are in addition to the $10,000 fine issued to Jared A. Bruegman, ex-KC0IQN, of Bolivar, Missouri, and the $25,000 fine issued to Terry L. VanVolkenburg, KC5RF, of Cocoa, Florida, as previously reported.

This past quarter, the FCC sent Warning Letters to 10 individuals regarding unlicensed transmissions, interference and repeater-related infractions:

• A radio amateur who communicated with unlicensed individuals. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Detroit Field Office.
• An unlicensed individual who made transmissions on Amateur Radio frequencies. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Dallas Field Office.
• An individual who caused interference on 10 meters while operating on 11 meters, and for making threats on the air to other Citizens Band operators. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s New York Field Office.
• An individual who operated his Citizens Band radio at excessive power levels. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Columbia Field Office.
• An individual who caused interference on the Amateur Radio bands while operating his Citizens Band radio. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Chicago Field Office.
• Another individual who caused interference on the Amateur Radio bands while operating his Citizens Band radio. This case is also under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Chicago Field Office.
• A radio amateur who communicated with unlicensed individuals. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Dallas Field Office.
• Another radio amateur who communicated with unlicensed individuals. This case is also under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Dallas Field Office.
• A radio amateur who deliberately caused interference with a group of AM operators. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Chicago Field Office.
• A radio amateur who, after refusing to follow a local repeater’s rules, was told to stay off the repeater. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Tampa Field Office.

In addition to the 10 Warning Letters sent to individuals, the FCC sent Warning Letters to four commercial entities or individuals that had conducted commercial operation on the amateur bands:

• A company whose unlicensed employees transmitted on 28.085 MHz. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Detroit Field Office.
• Another company whose unlicensed employees transmitted on 28.085 MHz. This case is also under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Detroit Field Office.
• A company whose unlicensed employees made transmissions on Amateur Radio bands. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Atlanta Field Office.
• A company whose unlicensed employees transmitted on 146.500 MHz. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Detroit Field Office.

The FCC also sent out one letter to a power company, as well as eight letters addressing RFI complaints regarding interference from various electronic devices, including plasma television sets, electric fence chargers and grow light ballasts:

• A power company was notified of complaints that its equipment may be causing harmful radio interference to radio amateurs. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Kansas City Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference by an unknown electronic device. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Chicago Field Office.
• An individual was notified of complaints regarding an electric fence charger that was causing interference to radio amateurs. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Kansas City Field Office.
• An individual was notified of complaints regarding an electric fence charger that was causing interference to radio amateurs. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Columbia Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference caused by a plasma television set. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Tampa Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference by an unknown electronic device. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Detroit Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference by an unknown electronic device. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Tampa Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference by a plasma television set. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Chicago Field Office.
• An individual was notified of a complaint from a radio amateur regarding harmful interference caused by a grow light ballast. This case is under the jurisdiction of the FCC’s Tampa Field Office.

Summaries of these enforcement actions are listed on the FCC’s Amateur Radio Service Enforcement Actions website. General infractions are listed below RFI cases; be sure to scroll all the way down the page to view them.