The FCC has affirmed a total of $21,000 in fines it proposed last year to
levy on Glenn A. Baxter, K1MAN, of Belgrade Lakes, Maine. The FCC's
Forfeiture Order (NoF), released March 29, comes nearly 10 months after a
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the case. The FCC has
alleged that Baxter violated several sections of the Part 97 Amateur Service
rules.

"The noted violations of the rules involve interference with the ongoing
communications of other Amateur Radio stations, failure to exercise station
control, transmission of communications in which Baxter had a pecuniary
interest, and transmission of communications that constituted impermissible
broadcasting," the FCC said. The NoF reiterates specific allegations
outlined in the NAL last June.

The FCC also has concluded that Baxter "apparently willfully and repeatedly"
failed to file required information pursuant to an Enforcement Bureau
directive. In two warning notices in 2004, FCC Special Counsel in the
Enforcement Bureau Riley Hollingsworth directed Baxter to provide
information on how K1MAN was controlled and the identity of the station's
control operator.

"The Boston [FCC] Office found that Mr. Baxter's statements that '[n]o
correction actions are necessary' and '[n]o changes are needed with regard
to station control' failed to comply with the Bureau's demand for station
information, the FCC said in the NoF.

Replying to the June 2005 NAL, Baxter denied any liability for the
forfeiture amount, the FCC said. According to the Commission, Baxter cited
the fifth and sixth amendments to the US Constitution and requested "all
documentation regarding the alleged apparent liability" and "a trial like
hearing before the full Commission." Baxter did not submit "any substantive
responses" to the alleged violations recited in the NAL, the Commission
said.

The FCC denied Baxter's request for a hearing. According to the
Communications Act, the FCC said, providing a hearing is at the Commission's
discretion, and a hearing is "not normally utilized when only monetary
forfeiture matters are involved."

Its procedures, the FCC noted, do not deprive Baxter of his right to due
process, because the Communications Act provides that any forfeitures issued
in accordance with its procedures are "ultimately subject to a trial de novo
in federal district court" should Baxter not pay the fine beforehand. A
licensee's decision to forego presentation of arguments and evidence in
response to an NAL "does not create a right to a hearing," the Commission
contended in the NoF.

The FCC further noted that the fifth and sixth amendments to the US
Constitution "address the rights of defendants in criminal cases" and said
Baxter's reliance on those amendments to support his hearing request "is
misplaced."

"Baxter received notice regarding the legal and factual bases for the
apparent violations and proposed forfeiture and has been afforded an
opportunity to respond 'why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed,'"
the FCC said. According to the NoF, Baxter, while denying any liability,
"has chosen not to present any specific exculpatory arguments or evidence in
response to the violations set forth in the NAL."

Baxter has 30 days from the release of the order to pay the $21,000 or
appeal. If the forfeiture is not paid within that time, the FCC can refer
the case to the US Department of Justice for collection. A copy of the NoF
is on the FCC Web site
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.pdf.

Baxter's Amateur Radio license expired last October 17, but according to the
FCC, he has continuing operating authority since he filed a timely renewal.
His renewal application remains under review based on complaints filed and
on FCC correspondence regarding the operation of his station. The forfeiture
action is separate.