"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

Regards,
Len.

wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" writes:
wrote:

Why does it have to be relevant? If the participants in the ARS
really want to impose a swimming requirement, then so what?

Luckily, the "participants" in the ARS do NOT get to impose any
requirements at all. The FCC makes the rules and, as a government
entity, it has NO justification to make requirements that can not be
justified.

Agreed; the government lacks this power. I think you'll find that the
demands of the ARS licensees could constitute "justification", if the
FCC so desired. It is, ultimately, regulating a big club after all.
It's very strange business, really.

The limits of power for government agencies is
found in 5 USC 706 that provides:

"To the extent necessary to decision and when presented,
the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law,
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and
determine the meaning or applicability of the terms
of an agency action."

"The reviewing court shall -
(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or
unreasonably delayed; and
(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action,
findings, and conclusions found to be -
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or
limitations, or short of statutory right;
(D) without observance of procedure required by law;
(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case
subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or
otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency
hearing provided by statute; or
(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the
facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court."

"In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall
review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party,
and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error."

The Morse code exams are unnecessary [arbitrary].
5 USC 706(2)(A).

The only thing strange thing about this is how long the
ITU and FCC allowed this nonsense to continue.

Larry, kc8epo