Mr. HENRY. That is correct. We are primarily interested here in reaching the marginal manufacturer who is not living up to the voluntary rules presently imposed. Senator PASTORE. Is there anybody in the room in opposition to this bill? (No response.) Senator PASTORE. I will ask it again. Is there anybody in this room in opposition to this bill? (No response.) Senator PASTORE. The Chair hears none. (The full text of the statement on S. 1015 follows:) S. 1015 To AUTHORIZE FCC TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS FOR THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORT, SALE, SHIPMENT, OR USE OF DEVICES WHICH MAY CAUSE HARMFUL INTERFERENCE TO RADIO RECEPTION S. 1015 would amend the Communications Act of 1934 by adding a new section 302. Under it the Commission would obtain authority to prescribe regulations for the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, shipment, and import of devices which cause harmful interference to radio communications or are capable of causing harmful interference to radio reception. The chief purpose of this legislation is to give the Commission adequate authority to deal with increasingly acute interference problems arising from the expanding usage of electrical and electronic devices which cause, or are capable of causing, harmful interference to radio reception. This would be accomplished by empowering the Commission to deal with the interference problem at its root source the sale by some manufacturers of equipment and apparatus which do not comply with the Commission's rules. It would require that equipment be properly designed to reduce radiation to specified and acceptable limits and, where necessary, permit the Commission to specify to the manufacturer operating frequencies before the equipment is sold to the consumer. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the number and type of devices capable of causing harmful interference to radio reception. In many instances, radiating devices lie outside the area conventionally associated with radio transmission and reception. They include such devices as high-powered electronic heaters, diathermy machines, and welders which radiate energy either purposely or incidentally to carry out their primary functions. They also include low-power devices such as electronic garage-door openers which, because of poor design or otherwise, emit radio-frequency energy beyond that needed for their functions. Even radio and television receivers may also emit some radio energy. The cumulative effect of all this undesired radiation is most apparent in large metropolitan areas. Especially in peak periods of operation of radiating devices, such areas are blanketed by a "radiation smog" which makes it increasingly difficult for many users of radio communications to obtain interference-free reception. This radiation problem is most serious in vital areas where radio is used for safety purposes, such as in air navigation control. In a number of instances, the Federal Aviation Agency has issued notices informing pilots that certain radio navigation devices are not usable in particular quadrants because the interference caused by industrial equipment makes these "navaids" unreliable. Problems in this area pose a genuine threat to safety of life, and as the volume of air traffic increases, this threat will become more acute. To police and fire departments and others using radio for public safety purposes, interference could cause errors or delays affecting the preservation of life and property. To radio listeners and television viewers, such excessive radiation also means the reception of distorted and garbled signals, or fluttering images, or pictures of a technical quality less than that possible when interference is under effective control. To those who use radio for industrial communications services, the cumulative effect of undesired radiation means increased disruption of communications services. And, finally, to those users of radio whose operations must be conducted under conditions of relatively low background interference (i.e., for the Commission's 50-664- -65--2 monitoring activities, the operation of military communications systems, or radio astronomy observations), high levels of undesired radiation force the abandonment of geographic areas of high interference, or require special efforts to detect radiating devices which are causing harmful interference. Both of these alternatives impose additional costs of operation on the Government itself. We received approximately 38,000 interference complaints during fiscal 1964. Several thousand of these complaints were attributable to the types of radiation devices we have been discussing (i.e., high-powered electronic heaters, diathermy machines, welders, electronic garage-door openers and low-powered walkietalkies). Investigation, detection, and suppression of these devices has been accomplished at the expense of other important enforcement duties and, if the trend indicated in the last 2 months continues, the cost of detection and enforcement is expected to exceed that of last year. Passage of the bill will tend to minimize what would otherwise be an urgent need for increased manpower for these purposes. Although the Commission presently has authority under section 301 of the Communications Act to prohibit the use of equipment or apparatus which causes interference to radio communications and, under section 303 (f), to prescribe regulations to prevent interference between stations, it has no specific rulemaking authority under the act to require that before equipment or apparatus having an interference potential be put on the market, it meet the Commission's required technical standards which are designed to assure that the electromagnetic energy emitted by these devices does not cause harmful interference to radio reception. This gap in the Commission's authority has undesirable results. Since the prohibition presently falls only on the use of offending equipment, the Commission, in trying to eliminate interference, is confined largely to measures applying to the use of equipment which interferes with radio communications. In most instances, the users have purchased the equipment on the assumption that its operation would be legal. Thus the Commission is frequently confronted by the question: "If I can't use this equipment, why was he permitted to sell it to me?" The Commission is also reduced to an after-the-fact approach to controlling interference. There is no basis for proceeding against an offender until the Commission has discovered the interference, either through its Field Engineering Bureau or on the complaint of some user of radio equipment. Many manufacturers have cooperated generously in assuming the responsibility to minimize interference problems. This cooperation is purely voluntary and has been most helpful. However, the responsible manufacturer who cooperates in holding down excessive radiation is at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the marginal manufacturer who prefers to ignore our rules. Legislation such as S. 1015 appears necessary to solve the problem effectively. We recognize, of course, that equipment designed to prevent radiation costs more than improperly designed equipment. But in most instances, we believe that the additional costs to manufacturers stemming from this legislation would be small in view of mass production techniques. Moreover, the proposed legislation would avoid subsequent additional expense to users. Let me turn now to a brief analysis of the details of S. 1015. It consists of three subsections in a new section 302. Subsection 302(a) describes the radiating devices which would be subject to our authority as those "*** which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to produce harmful interference to radio communications." The Commission would have authority under this subsection to prescribe rules for such devices applicable to their "manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, shipment, or use." Subsection 302(b) prohibits the use, import, shipment, manufacture, sale, or offering for sale of devices which fail to comply with the regulations duly promulgated by the Commission under the authority of section 302. Subsection 302 (c) provides for three exceptions. The first is for carriers which merely transport interfering devices without trading in them. The second exception relates to the manufacture, sale, etc., of devices which are intended solely for export. The final exception involves the use of devices by agencies of the Government. Under section 305 of the Communications Act, the Commission has no regulatory jurisdiction over stations owned and operated by the United States. The proposed subsection 302(c) recognizes this exemption from the Commission's jurisdiction. It provides, however, that such devices shall be developed or procured by the Government under standards or specifications designed to achieve the common objective of reducing interference to radio reception, taking into account the unique needs of national defense and security. The various Government agencies are fully aware of the need for suppressing objectionable interference and, in many cases, the standards adopted by individual agencies are more stringent than those which the Commission would impose. In light of these considerations, it was considered appropriate to except from the operation of this legislation devices used by the U.S. Government or its agencies, leaving it to the agencies to cooperate in achieving acceptable levels of radiation. The Director of Telecommunications Management has assured us of his cooperation in this respect. The Commission has established technical standards applicable to the use of various radiation devices. This legislation is not designed to result in the promulgation of stricter technical standards. We have adequate authority at present to adopt stricter technical standards whenever we find that the public interest requires such action with respect to the use of radiation devices. In many cases, our existing technical standards would simply be made applicable at the manufacturing level. In those few cases where we would implement this authority with new or additional technical standards, the Commission would be dealing with a kind of device recognized to be a serious source of interference; and the standards to be specified would be developed with the same close cooperation that we have heretofore received from industry. The most recent example was the generous and full cooperation given by the television receiver industry in connection with implementing the all-channel TV receiver law (Public Law 87-259, 87th Cong., 76 Stat. 150). The latter example is pertinent to any new authority given the Commission under S. 1015. As in that case, we would contemplate holding a series of industry meetings, in order to discuss informally such matters as appropriate new standards and changeover periods. As in the case of the all-channel receiver regulations, our effort would be to achieve a satisfactory consensus. Further, before promulgating any new standards, the Commission would give public notice of rulemaking proceedings, and interested persons, including all segments of the industry affected by a particular set of regulations, would have ample opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. In short, if the Commission obtains this authority, it would proceed to implement it only after a thorough study of all the problems involved, and in such a gradual way as to minimize the effect of new standards on the industry. Moreover, we do not envision prescribing technical standards for all radiation devices. Rather, we contemplate prescribing standards for those devices which in fact cause harmful interference to radio reception. We would begin with those presenting the most serious problems. Thus, it is expected that equipment, the use of which is now regulated by the Commission, such as industrial heaters, low power walkie-talkies, wireless microphones, and the receivers of garage door opener controls would be the first to receive our attention. In summary, we expect that if S. 1015 is enacted, the technical quality of radio and television reception will improve, especially in those metropolitan areas where there is now excessive radiation. The efficiency of communications service in the industrial radio band will be enhanced. And, most important, some potentially serious threats to safe air navigation and control will be alleviated. Finally, the Commission's efforts in detecting and eliminating harmful interference will be made more efficient. All this will benefit the public, the users of devices which radiate electromagnetic energy, the great majority of manufacturers who presently attempt to avoid harmful interference problems, and the users of radio communications in general. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The following is submitted as the Commission's views on amendments to S. 1015 suggested by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and Edison Electric Institute, and our views on the comments of the Electronic Industries Association. The statement on behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association was contained in a letter dated June 21, 1965, to you from L. D. Price, Secretary of the Codes and Standards Committee of NEMA. That statement expressed the belief that there is no basic conflict with the Commission's intent and reasons for establishing reasonable control over some types of radio interference devices, but offered two clarifying amendments which are italicized in the revised paragraph, as follows: "SEC. 302. (a) The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations, formulated in consultation with the affected industry representatives, governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to commercial, aircraft and public safety communications. Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, shipment, or use of such devices." The phrase "formulated in consultation with the affected industry representatives" is objectionable for two reasons. First, it may be interpreted as sharing or diluting the Commission's sole authority to make rules under the Communications Act. Second, even if it is not so interpreted, it is unnecessary and, we believe, inappropriate as a statutory requirement. Any rules promulgated in accordance with the statutory authority which S. 1015 would grant would be in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 and would be adopted only after public rulemaking proceedings in which all interested parties would have opportunity to comment and submit views. Additionally, the Commission has expressed its willingness to cooperate, as it has in the past, in such industry committees and conferences as may be helpful in achieving the aims of the legislation. The suggested limitation to devices which cause harmful interference to "commercial, aircraft, and public safety" radio communications is felt to be too restrictive. The Commission feels that the authority given to it by section 302 should be sufficiently broad to permit it to formulate rules relating to any service where interference from these devices is a serious problem. In this regard, it is believed that the language of S. 1015, "reasonable regulations" *** “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity" is a proper standard. In the June 18, 1965 statement on behalf of Edison Electric Institute, by Edwin Vennard, managing director, that group recommends that section 302 ( a ) be worded as follows: "The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations prohibiting the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, shipment, or use of devices of a specific design that has been proven to be electromagnetically incompatible in normal use with radio communication systems designed and operated in accordance with good engineering practice." The proposed wording includes the phrase "prohibiting *** devices of a specific design * * *." It is not believed that this language is appropriate, as it ignores the general nature of the rules which the Commission has promulgated or expects to promulgate in the area of interference prevention. The rules do not specify particular prohibited designs of equipment but set forth certain limits or criteria which equipment must meet in order to be acceptable for licensing or for use without the requirement of an individual license, as in parts 15 and 18 of the Commission's rules. The rules are in terms of applicable frequency, power, bandwidth, radiation limits, etc., when measured under specified conditions. They now provide design goals in terms of performance for equipment covered by our rules, but do not attempt to specify equipment designs as such. The Commission's objective is to permit the manufacturer as much flexibility and ingenuity as possible in equipment design while achieving the performance objectives. The words "has been proven" also might give future difficulty, since they could be interpreted to mean that the Commission can promulgate rules only after a device has been placed in use and has actually caused interference, even though prior consideration would have predicted interference from its use. The Commission feels that any such "after the fact" procedure is impracticable and inappropriate, and provides little advance over the present "use" approach. The ability to anticipate interference problems and to specify "design performance criteria" is a much more workable procedure and much less onerous on the public, on industry, and on the Commission. The proposed wording introduces the term "incompatible." While the terms "compatible" and "incompatible" have recently been coming into use in electronic and radio interference work at the technical level, they are not known to have received any official or legal sanction. The use of such a new term might pose future legal problems. It is thus preferable to use accepted terms such as "interference," which is now used in section 301 of the Communications Act. The term "harmful interference" now in S. 1015 has received international agreement and has been defined in the International Radio Regulations since 1947 (for current definition and procedures, see Executive I, 86th Cong., International Radio Regulations 1959, art. 1, secs. 1-93, and art. 15, secs. 15-01 to 15-15). For the reasons stated, the Commission recommends that the suggested amendments of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and Edison Electric Institute not be adopted. The July 8 letter of the Electronic Industries Association makes five points, as follows: 1. "EIA is acutely aware of the need for appropriate controls of spurious radiation in order to obtain maximum efficiency from the limited radio spectrum and is sympathetic with the Commission's efforts to limit interference with services licensed to operate within the spectrum." 2. "Many members of EIA believe the FCC has sufficient regulatory power to control unwanted radiation through voluntary standardization practices by manufacturers, and they cite the experience of the radio-television industry as an example of effective action through Governmentindustry cooperation." 3. "The problems of interference caused by spurious radiation, while growing in number, have been known to the FCC and the industry for many years. Thus, there is no emergency or recent development which requires immediate congressional approval by Congress of S. 1015." 4. "On the other hand, hasty legislation may result in the imposition of unreasonable regulations on manufacturing which will retard rather than encourage technical developments designed to limit interference from radiation." 5. "EIA respectfully suggests that the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee defer action on S. 1015 and instruct the Federal Communications Commission to confer with industry regarding the problems of spurious radiation and possible methods of controlling it after which a report and recommendations can be submitted to your subcommittee next year." We believe the Commission in its written explanation of S. 1015 and in its testimony has amply demonstrated the need for such legislation. While the voluntary cooperation of many manufacturers in minimizing interference problems is gratefully acknowledged, this has not been sufficient to solve the problem satisfactorily. We shall discuss the related points 3, 4, and 5 together. The Commission makes no claim that emergency or "hasty" action is required. On the other hand, we see nothing to be gained from delay in approving S. 1015 which simply gives the Commission authority to proceed in this area. EIA's concern with possible "unreasonable" regulations overlooks the statutory requirement of S. 1015 that any regulations on the subject be reasonable. The Commission welcomes and anticipates such conferences and meetings with industry groups as may prove helpful in solving interference problems. As indicated earlier, public rulemaking proceedings will be utilized in the formulation of specific rules in any particular area. Industry-Government discussions after S. 1015 becomes law should prove helpful in directing our efforts toward first implementing the statute in the most serious areas in need of more immediate action. Then, as specific rulemaking proposals are formulated-directed toward limited areas of the problem, comments can be more meaningfully related to specific problems rather than dealing with broad theoretical concepts. It appears that further industry discussions at this time would contribute little. In this regard, we note that EIA does not object to the statutory standard of S. 1015, but seems to be concerned with either the need for any legislation or how this lesiglation will be implemented. The Commission feels that a strong case for the legislation has been made, and that the procedures required by law in implementing the statutory authority give adequate protection to any |