 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
![Previous (earlier) Story](/images/sty-down.gif "W1HQ Comes "Back to Life" at ARRL HQ"){kind=small} Previous: W1HQ Comes "Back to Life" at ARRL HQ |  Next: Kids Day, NPARC Style |
On February 12, the FCC issued a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) to William F. Crowell, W6WBJ (ex-N6AYJ), of Diamond Springs, California to determine if his application for renewal of his Amateur Radio license should be granted. The HDO stated: "The record before [the FCC] indicates that Crowell has apparently willfully and repeatedly engaged in and continues to engage in unlawful Commission-related activities, including, but not limited to, intentionally causing interference and/or interruption, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur frequencies. Based on the information before us, we believe that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of misconduct raises a substantial and material question of fact as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee. Accordingly, we hereby designate his application for hearing." Crowell initially filed his renewal application February 28, 2007.
Crowell has been in the Commission's sights for years. On August 21, 2000, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau informed Crowell that, "monitoring information indicated that he had engaged in deliberate interference to radio communications in progress on the 75-meter band over the preceding several months in violation of Section 97.1 of the Commission's Rules." Per the FCC's instructions, Crowell responded to this letter, but the Commission found his response "irrelevant and frivolous," and issued a Warning Notice on November 28, 2000, cautioning Crowell that "imaginary, make-believe or fictitious conversation with communications in process constitutes interference and degrades the services for legitimate users."
The FCC received additional complaints regarding Crowell between 2003 and 2006, alleging, among other things, that Crowell "deliberately interfered with and/or interrupted ongoing radio communications." On May 15, 2006, the FCC directed Crowell to respond to the complaints. On June 10, 2006, Crowell submitted a lengthy response wherein he "disputed the Commission's constitutional authority to regulate the content of amateur radio communications and specifically denied that the complained-of communications violated any Commission rules." Based on its review of Crowell's response, the FCC concluded that the issue of whether Crowell's license renewal should be designated for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
The Commission continued to receive complaints alleging that Crowell was "intentionally causing interference and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur radio frequencies." On April 3, 2007, the FCC informed Crowell that the issue of whether his renewal application should be granted had been "'referred to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for review based upon continuing complaints of deliberate interference, including repeated interruptions of ongoing communications and other complaints regarding character qualifications,'" and that the complaints were being reviewed.
Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the FCC is required to "designate an application for evidentiary hearing if a substantial and material question of fact is presented regarding whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The character of an applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers in determining whether the applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee. Violations of the Communications Act and/or the Commission's Rules are predictive of licensee behavior and directly relevant to the Commission's regulatory activities."
The HDO informed Crowell that Section 333 of the Act and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules provide that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of licensed stations. Section 97.113(a)(4) and (b) of the Commission's Rules specifically prohibits transmission of music, obscene or indecent words, and one-way communications on amateur frequencies. Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules and Section 1464 of the Criminal Code also prohibit transmission of obscene, indecent, or profane language."
Since 2000, Crowell has been warned by the FCC to refrain from intentionally interfering with and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting one-way communications and music and using indecent language on the air. "Notwithstanding these warnings, the evidence before us indicates that Crowell has and continues to engage in such activities in flagrant and intentional disregard of the Act and the Commission's Rules. We find that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of conduct raises questions as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. Crowell's history of FCC-related transgressions and apparent contempt for the Commission's regulatory authority are patently inconsistent with his responsibilities as a licensee and belie any suggestion that he can be relied upon to comply with the Commission's rules and policies in the future. Consequently, we will commence a hearing proceeding before an administrative law judge to provide Crowell with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his above-captioned application should be granted," the HDO continued.
The issues to be put before an Administrative Law Judge concerning Crowell include:
• To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, by intentionally interfering with and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications.
• To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(b) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting one-way communications on amateur frequencies.
• To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting indecent language.
• To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting music.
• To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether Crowell is qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee.
• To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the Amateur Radio license renewal application filed by Crowell should be granted.
Crowell has until March 3, 2008 (20 days from the mailing of the HDO) to respond to the HDO. "If he fails to file a written appearance within the twenty-day period, or has not filed prior to the expiration of the twenty-day period, a petition to dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the twenty-day period, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge SHALL DISMISS the captioned application with prejudice for failure to prosecute," the HDO states.
| Previous: W1HQ Comes "Back to Life" at ARRL HQ | Next: Kids Day, NPARC Style |
