Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1675 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Steven A. Skalecki
Milwaukee, WI
)
)
)
)
)
)
File Number: EB-06-CG-064
NAL/Acct. No: 200832320001
FRN:  0017228933
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted: October 4, 2011 Released:  October 6, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (“MO&O”), issued pursuant to section 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),1 and section 1.106 of the Commission’s rules,2 we 
deny the Petition for Reconsideration (“Petition”) 3 filed by Steven A. Skalecki (“Mr. Skalecki”) in response 
to the Forfeiture Order issued by the Enforcement Bureau’s Northeast Region (the “Region”).4 The 
Forfeiture Order imposed a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $10,000 for Mr. Skalecki's willful and 
repeated operation of an unlicensed broadcast station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended (“Act”).5 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is denied.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On December 14, 2007, the Enforcement Bureau’s Chicago Office issued a Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”) to Mr. Skalecki for operation of an unlicensed broadcast station 
on the frequency 92.9 MHz in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.6 As detailed in the NAL, agents from the Chicago 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 405.
2 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.  
3 See Letter from Steven H. Jesser, counsel for Steven A. Skalecki, to Paula Michele Ellison, Acting General 
Counsel, dated April 14, 2009, which we are treating as a timely-filed Petition for Reconsideration.  At the staff’s 
request, Skalecki also submitted supplemental information.  See “Order of Events Leading to the Issuance of Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) by Steven A. Skalecki,” dated June 22, 2009 (“NAL Order of Events”) 
and “Order of Events on Sonny Soviato (tenant who rented @ 9026 W. Burdick Avenue),” dated July 2, 2009 
(“Sonny Soviato Order of Events”).  The Petition for Reconsideration and the supplements will be referred to 
collectively as the “Petition.”
4 Steven A. Skalecki, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 3061 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (“Forfeiture Order”).
5 47 U.S.C. § 301. 
6 Steven A. Skalecki, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200832320001 (Chicago Office, 
rel.  Dec. 14, 2007).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1675 
2
Office determined that, despite receipt of a Notice of Unlicensed Operation,7 Mr. Skalecki continued to 
operate an unlicensed station on 92.9 MHz from his property at 9026 W. Burdick Avenue in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin between March 25, 2006 and May 28, 2007.8 In the Forfeiture Order, the Region affirmed the 
findings in the NAL and rejected Mr. Skalecki’s claims that he did not have any broadcast equipment at 
9026 W. Burdick Avenue and that the broadcasts on 92.9 MHz were coming from another nearby 
property.9  
3. In the Petition, Mr. Skalecki requests an evidentiary hearing under section 503(b)(3)(A) 
of the Act.10 In the alternative, Mr. Skalecki requests cancellation of the proposed forfeiture and reiterates 
his claims in response to the NAL that he did not operate a radio station on 92.9 MHz at his residence and 
that the only equipment he operated from his residence was his weather monitoring equipment.11 In 
addition, Mr. Skalecki now claims that he was at work during the times the FCC agents determined that a 
station was operating from his residence and that an individual named Sonny Soviato (“Mr. Soviato”) was 
operating the station without his knowledge during the dates in question.12
4. Mr. Skalecki reports that he first met Mr. Soviato in December 2005 at a local restaurant.  
Mr. Soviato “wanted to spread the Word of the Lord via freedom of speech” and asked Mr. Skalecki if he 
had a place for him “to set up his computer equipment for this purpose.”13 Mr. Skalecki states that Mr. 
Soviato asked “to rent my home intermittently. . . particularly on Sundays and on other religious days for 
a total of up to 6 or 7 days each month” at a rate of forty dollars per day.14 Mr. Skalecki further reports 
that when Mr. Soviato installed his equipment, Mr. Soviato connected his own computer to a router 
module, which was connected to a small “black box,”15 which in turn was connected to Mr. Skalecki’s 
weather transmission cable.16 Mr. Skalecki reports that he “suspected Sonny’s [Mr. Saviato’s] 
equipment” as early as March 2007, which is approximately one year prior to the date Mr. Skalecki filed 
his response to the NAL.  According to Mr. Skalecki, Mr. Soviato assured him he was transmitting on the 
  
7 On April 17, 2006, the Chicago Office issued a Notice of Unlicensed Operation (“NOUO”) to Mr. Skalecki for his 
unlicensed operation of an FM broadcast station on the frequency 92.9 MHz from his property in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin.  The NOUO warned that unlicensed operation of a radio station violated the Act and the Rules and that 
continued operation could subject the operator to further enforcement action.
8A comprehensive recitation of the facts and history of this case can be found in the NAL and the Forfeiture Order, 
which are incorporated here by reference.  
9 Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 3063.  
10 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(A).
11 See NAL Order of Events and Sonny Soviato Order of Events.  In response to the NAL, Mr. Skalecki stated that he 
does not live at 9026 W. Burdick Avenue and that the house “is minimally furnished, since it is used for weather 
observation only.  The 50 ft. pole in the backyard is used for weather monitoring purposes.”  See NAL at 1.  In the 
NAL Order of Events, Mr. Skalecki refers to the property at 9026 W. Burdick Avenue as his “residence.”  Because 
Mr. Skalecki does not deny owning the property at 9026 W. Burdick Avenue, it is irrelevant whether he lives there 
and we will refer to the property therein as his residence.
12 See NAL Order of Events and Sonny Soviato Order of Events.
13 See Sonny Soviato Order of Events at 1.
14 Id.
15 Mr. Skalecki explains that the “black box” contained a circuit board and “dip switches and knobs for adjusting the 
audio level.”  See Sonny Soviato Order of Events at 1.
16 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1675 
3
Internet only, but Mr. Skalecki now reports that he believes the “black box” was the “broadcast culprit on 
92.9 MHz which I was not aware of at the time.”17  
III. DISCUSSION
5. Petitions for reconsideration are granted only in limited circumstances.  Absent “a 
material error or omission in the underlying order,” or unless a petitioner raises “additional facts not 
known or not existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity to present such matters,” reconsideration 
is not warranted.18 “A petition for reconsideration that reiterates arguments . . . previously considered and 
rejected will be denied.”19 For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petition.  
6. First, it repeats arguments previously considered and rejected.  The Region previously 
addressed in the Forfeiture Order Mr. Skalecki’s claim that an unlicensed radio broadcast station was not 
operating from his property at 9026 W. Burdick Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.20 In rejecting Mr. 
Skalecki’s claim that the station was operating from a nearby property, the Region noted that the only 
evidence he provided in support of his claim was a list of nine dates on which he states he observed a 
station operating on 92.9 MHz from a nearby residence at South 93rd Street and West Oklahoma Avenue.  
Absent evidence that the agents’ direction findings and field strength measurements were in error, the 
Region found that there was no basis for rejecting the agents’ determination that an unlicensed broadcast 
station operated from 9026 W. Burdick Avenue, a property owned by Mr. Skalecki.21  
7. Second, as to the facts Mr. Skalecki presents here for the first time regarding Mr. Soviato, 
we find that such facts could have been presented to the Bureau in response to the NAL and 
reconsideration on the basis of such facts is not warranted.  Mr. Skalecki reports that he first began to 
“suspect [that] Sonny’s [Mr. Soviato’s] equipment” may be responsible for the broadcast transmissions 
emanating from his house in March 2007, which is almost one year before he filed the response to the 
NAL.  In his response to the NAL, Mr. Skalecki makes no mention of Mr. Soviato or the possibility that 
someone else might be operating a station from his house.  Given that Mr. Skalecki has failed to present 
any evidence that these facts were unknown or otherwise unavailable at the time of his response to the 
NAL, we will not consider them here.22
8. We also deny Mr. Skalecki’s request for an evidentiary hearing under section 
503(b)(3)(A) of the Act,23 which states that “[a]t the discretion of the Commission, a forfeiture penalty 
  
17 Id.
18 Christian Family Network, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 18369, 18371, para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 
2008); accord Bible Broadcasting Network, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 2259 (Audio Div. 
2011). 
19 Christian Family Network, 23 FCC Rcd at 18371, para. 8.
20 Steven Skalecki, Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 3063.  
21 Id.
22 We also have reason to believe that “Sonny Soviato” may be an alias for Mr. Skalecki.  On June 8, 2007, six 
months before issuance of the NAL, the Chicago Office received a letter allegedly from Mr. Soviato regarding three 
alleged low power stations operating in the Milwaukee area and asking if he can “get a license for a low power 
station.” The letter provided a return address of 3151 S. Lenox Street in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which is Mr. 
Skalecki’s prior residence.  During the period of time at issue here, such residence was registered as a trust in the 
names of Arthur and Clara Skalecki, Francis J. Skalecki, and Steven Skalecki.  Agents also noted the remarkable 
similarities between Mr. Soviato’s signature on the June 8, 2007 letter and Mr. Skalecki’s signature on his responses 
to the NOUO and the NAL.
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(A). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1675 
4
may be determined against a person .. after notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the 
Commission or an administrative law judge….”24 Section 1.80(g) of the Rules25 states that procedures for 
hearings “will ordinarily be followed only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the 
assessment of a forfeiture….”  Section 1.80(g) of the Rules further states that “these procedures may be 
followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of 
justice.”  Accordingly, the “reference to a notice of opportunity for hearing mentioned in section 1.80(g) 
of the Rules is a discretionary provision available to the Commission that is not normally utilized when 
only monetary forfeiture matters are involved.”26 We conclude that an evidentiary hearing is not required 
in this case, which involves solely a monetary forfeiture.  Mr. Skalecki received notice regarding the legal 
and factual bases for the violation and proposed forfeiture in accord with the forfeiture provisions of the 
Act, and has been afforded an opportunity to respond and present exculpatory arguments and evidence.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended,27 and section 1.106 of the Commission’s rules (“Rules”),28 that the Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Steven A. Skalecki IS DENIED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.
10. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act, and sections 0.111, 
0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules,29 Steven A. Skalecki IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for violations of section 301 of the Act.
11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in section 1.80 of the 
Rules within thirty (30) days of the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  If the forfeiture is 
not paid within the period specified, the case may be referred to the Department of Justice for 
enforcement pursuant to section 504(a) of the Act.30 Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit 
card, check, or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The 
payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Payment by check or 
money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 
63197-9000.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-
MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to 
ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment 
by credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC 
Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters 
“FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan 
should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures. Steven A. 
Skalecki shall also send electronic notification to NER-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is 
made.
  
24 Id.
25 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(g). 
26 Arcom Communications, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 20061, 20063 (Enf. Bur. 2005); see also Computer Data, 
Inc., Order, 9 FCC Rcd 263 (Field Operations Bur., 1994). 
27 47 U.S.C. § 405.
28 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
2947 U.S.C. §§ 301, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80(f)(4).
3047 U.S.C. § 504(a). 
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1675 
5
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent 
by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Steven A. Skalecki at his address of 
record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau