Marzec alleges, and Power does not dispute, that the Power license does not currently authorize Power to operate mobile units. Nor does Power dispute that he continues to conduct mobile operations on the contested frequency. Based on the above, we find that Marzec has demonstrated that Power violated the terms of his license by conducting mobile operations. We now turn to Power's affirmative defenses to Marzec's claim. Power also overlooks the intent of the rules upon which he relies, which presume that any mobile unit carried pursuant to their requirements will be authorized under the license.
Power has no authority to carry mobile traffic in the first place.
Thus, Power's operation of the mobiles at issue in this case violates his license. That rule limits the authority of Part 90 licensees by prioritizing emergency communications, and does not affirmatively grant carriers authority to ignore their license restrictions. The Commission has designated certain frequencies as available for public safety or occasional use, and the disputed channel is not one of these. Power's other affirmative defenses essentially rely on attacking the legitimacy of Marzec's license and have no bearing on the question of whether Power carried unauthorized mobile traffic in violation of his license. For example, Power asserts that Marzec lacks standing to file a formal complaint because Marzec allegedly was not properly licensed by the Commission.