Senator HARTKE. Well, you give them the courtesy of accepting the application. Mr. HENRY. And designating it for a hearing. Mr. HENRY. We would accept the application and, absent compelling affirmative showing, designate it for hearing. We did discuss a couple of instances last time in which a waiver of the policy might be obtained. I agree with you that is unlikely. Senator HARTKE. Yes. Well, I was just going to say as a practical matter, I mean, you wouldn't advise anybody to go through that useless procedure, would you? Mr. HENRY. Well, I don't know whether it would be useless or not. It would depend on what the facts were in your case. Senator HARTKE. You recall last time we discussed what the basis of this policy was. In other words, was it concentration of power, concentration of economic wealth, concentration of news dissemination. And in our attempts to secure an answer to this question we didn't come up with any real definitive reply. Do you have anything to add to the replies that we had at that time in the last session? Mr. HENRY. Yes. I would like to try to supplement it and perhaps supplement it in writing if you feel that it could or should be done. Senator HARTKE. Well, that would be fine. Mr. HENRY. Some of the questions that I was asked at the last hearing were this: Were we concerned about the concentration of economic wealth? Were we concerned about thought control because stations were editorializing? Were we concerned with just general bigness in the sense or monopoly, and so on? Now, in my answer I tried to eliminate certain of those things, and I think in rereading it I may not have stated what the affirmative rea sons were. I did eliminate economic concentration of wealth per se. As you pointed out, I believe, we would not deny a broadcasting license necessarily to General Motors or other large corporations. So it is not economic wealth in and of itself. I also said that it was not because we were afraid that the licensees would editorialize and thus impose some sort of thought control on those that were listening. I said this because we encourage editorializing—at least I do. I think if a licensee is a responsible citizenand as far as I am concerned he is-he has every right to editorialize. And, thirdly, "monopoly" is not in and of itself an answer. But I think the affirmative reason is primarily two. And they are set out in our notice of proposed rulemaking, although they are not dealt with at length. First of all, we do recognize that entry into these markets for television is limited. In other words, if you take the indications that normally attract people to a business, the capital appreciation, earnings, potential for growth, et cetera, we feel that many more people would get into television, particularly in these markets, than are now in it. So it is, in fact, limited. We control who gets into it. Not all that want to get into it can get into it. The second reason is one that I suppose we could argue aboutwhether it is sustained or not by any specific factual detail. But it is this: That communications is a powerful and influential medium and that the greater the potentiality for expression of differing views within this medium, the better. The greater the potentiality for diversity in terms of political broadcasting, editorializing, the area of controversial issues, even the selection of general programs, the more diversity the better. Now, I can cite you, I think, probably the most eloquent statement. in defense of that proposition. That is Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Associated Press. He was talking about newspapers, but we think it is equally applicable to the communications industry. And he said: However, neither exclusively nor even primarily are the interests of the newspaper industry -and here we would substitute "communications industry”— conclusive * In other words, the interests of the industry are not conclusive. *** for that industry serves one of the most vital of all general interests the dissemination of news from as many different sources and with as many different facets and colors as is possible. Senator HARTKE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask some more questions. I will submit them to you. They were on drop-ins, and so on. But I am called to the Finance Committee for a very important vote, and in view of the fact I do not want to burden this hearing with this whole discussion, I am going to adjourn the hearing at this time and hope that we can take this up in some detail at a later time. Mr. HENRY. All right. And if you would desire to submit to us any questions in writing, we would be happy to answer them. Senator HARTKE. The hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman.) (The following material was subsequently received for inclusion in the record:) Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Communications Subcommittee, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Air Transport Association, in behalf of its 43 air carrier members, heartily endorses S. 903. Antenna structures such as radio and television towers are of vital concern to our carriers who frequently must make use of airspace in the proximity of such towers in order to provide air transportation. S. 903, by requiring permittees and licensees to maintain the painting and/or illumination of broadcast towers ordered by the Federal Communications Commission until such structures are dismantled, even though they are no longer used for transmission purposes, will be helpful to the airlines and other airspace users in coping with abandoned towers as long as they remain in existence. But surely there is no justification for allowing antenna structures to impinge on aeronautical operations for very long once they cease to be licensed. Therefore, the further provision of this bill, the one making it possible to require dismantlement of an abandoned tower upon a determination by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency that there is a reasonable possibility that it may constitute a menace to air navigation, will make a significant contribution to the safety of air navigation and thus to the public interest. These things considered, we urge immediate passage of S. 903. Cordially, S. G. TIPTON. NATIONAL MARINE ELECTRONICS ASSOCIATION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Senate bill No. 1015 and House bill No. 5864 have been brought to the attention of the National Marine Electronics Association. It is my understanding that these bills concern the right of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate, as necessary, radio frequency interference producing devices that might effect the safety of human lives, etc. As chairman of the Commerce Committee I believe you have been concerned with this bill. Further, it is my understanding that hearings are now in progress on this matter. The National Marine Electronics Association is vitally concerned with this problem in regard to its effect upon safety of lives at sea. It has been our feeling that more stringent regulation of this problem is long overdue. As secretary of this group, and speaking for them, I urge you to do everything possible to tighten up the requirements concerning the elimination of radio frequency interference devices. Very truly yours, R. P. KAUFFMAN, Secretary. KIRKLAND, ELLIS, HODSON, CHAFFETZ & MASTERS, Re S. 1554. Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Communications, MY DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: On March 18, 1965, I received a copy of this committee's release on S. 1554, and on April 19 I made a letter response to Mr. Zapple stating in substance that, while I had no problem concerning the revisions proposed in sections 214 and 222 of the Communications Act, I did point out that it was not then the practice of the Commission to give public notice of the filing of such applications for extension of lines or consolidation authority. This was brought to the attention of the Commission; and by its letter of May 6, 1965 to the committee, the Commission advised that prospectively it would give public notice of applications filed by common carriers under section 214, 221, and 222 of the act, with certain exceptions as to which there is no question. The Commission is to be commended for its prompt action in this matter and for instituting the public notice practice. The grant of certificates of convenience and necessity under section 214 of the act, or of consolidation authority under section 221 or section 222 of the act, can encompass matters of great importance to communities, other carriers, or persns; and there is no question but what persons adversely affected may request a hearing upon such applications. The statute contains provisions for express notice to specified State or Federal officials, but it does not follow that other members of the public, or officials, may not also be interested in such applications. The right to a hearing in a proper case is meaningless if notice is lacking. The tendency has been to give that notice which is expressly provided for in the statute, but not to give public notice. Section 1(19) of the Interstate Commerce Act, from which section 214 of the Communications Act was taken, in 1934, provides for notice by publication in local newspapers in each county where lines are to be extended. This notice does not seem necessary in interstate communications, but some sort of public notice, which is commonplace in the case of all other types of applications filed with the Commission, would be effective and adequate, and in the public interest in my judgment. Accordingly. I would recommend that a section 3 be added to S. 1554 providing, in substance, that public notice, in such form as the Commission by regulation may prescribe, shall be given of the filing of applications for certificates under section 214 of the act and for authorizations under section 221 or section 222 of the act. The inclusion of such an amendment in terms agreeable to the Commission would resolve the ambiguity of public notice which exists in these three provisions of the statute. Your consideration of this public notice problem is sincerely appreciated. Yours very truly, DONALD C. BEELAR. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: We have been asked to comment on a letter dated June 22, 1965, addressed to you by Mr. Donald C. Beelar regarding S. 1554, a bill which would amend sections 214(b) and 222 (c) (1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to substitute the Secretary of Defense (for the Secretaries of the Army and Navy) as the person to be officially notified of the filing of certain applications with the Commission. Mr. Beelar recommends that a section 3 be added to S. 1554 to require that public notice shall be given of the filing of applications for certificates under section 214 of the Communications Act and for authorizations under section 221 or section 222 of each act. In an earlier letter dated April 19, 1965, addressed to Mr. Nicholas Zapple, counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Beelar expressed his concern regarding the failure of the Commission to give public notice of the filing with it of certain applications under sections 214 and 222 of the Communications Act. Upon consideration of the letter to Mr. Zapple, we reviewed our practices regarding the giving of notice to the public of applications filed with us, and advised Senator Magnuson that, in the future, the Commission would list in a "Public Notice" all applications filed by common carriers under sections 214. 221, and 222 of the Communications Act, except applications seeking authority to discontinue, reduce, or impair communications service. With respect to such latter applications, there appeared to be no need to list such applications in our "Public Notice" inasmuch as our rules require the carriers, themselves, to publish and post notice locally regarding such applications. Mr. Beelar states that he has no question regarding such exceptions. The Commission, of course, will continue to include the applications for certificates under section 214 and for authorizations under section 221 or 222 in its "Public Notices." Under these circumstances, there appears to be no reason for the Congress to enact the legislation recommended by Mr. Beelar. Such legislation would not require the Commission to do anything that it is not now doing in the way of providing notice to the public nor would it make available to the public any additional information not currently contained in the Commission's "Public Notices." I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter. E. WILLIAM HENRY, Chairman. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: I refer to S. 1015, a bill now pending in your subcommittee, which would amend the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to prescribe regulations for the manufacture, import, sale, shipment, or use of devices which cause harmful interference to radio reception. While the Commission takes the position, and I believe properly, that the Communications Act prohibits the use of equipment or apparatus which causes interference to radio communications, it has no specific rulemaking authority under the act to require that before equipment or apparatus is put on the market it must be properly designed to prevent harmful interference. Since the prohibition falls on the use of the offending equipment, it means that the Commission, in trying to control radio interference, is confined to apprehending the users of equipment which in most instances has been purchased in good faith on the assumption that its operation would be legal. This after-the-fact approach is quite inadequate to control the "radiation smog" which makes it increasingly difficult for any user of radio communications to obtain interferencefree reception. This problem of spectrum pollution by unwanted or unnecessary radiations is of increasing concern to the Government and is one of the matters now under study by the Joint Technical Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Electromagnetic Compatibility. While the bill as written would exempt from FCC regulation devices manufactured for use by any agency of the Government, it is my intent, should the bill become law, to issue standards to insure that Government equipment meets as a minimum any criteria or standards laid down by the Commission for nonGovernment equipment. I will be glad to testify in favor of the proposed legislation should that be your desire. Sincerely, J. D. O'CONNELL. NEW YORK, N.Y., June 22, 1965. Senator JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Communications Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: In matter of Senate bill S. 1015, the NEMA statement dated June 21, 1965, third paragraph, second sentence, should read correctly as: "However, we do believe that a clarification of Senate bill, S. 1015, in line with our understanding of the intent of the FCC, is desirable and necessary." NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Secretary, NEMA Codes and Standards Committee. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, New York, N.Y., June 22, 1965. In the matter of amendment of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to give the FCC authority to prescribe regulations for the manufacture, import, sale, shipment, or use of devices which cause harmful interference to radio reception-Senate bill, S. 1015, February 8, 1965. Senator JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Communications Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: Further to my telegram of June 22, 1965, attached are six copies of the corrected NEMA statement filed in regard to the above referenced matter. The corrected statement is identified as: "June 21, 1965 (corrected June 22, 1965)." Yours sincerely, L. D. PRICE, Secretary. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, In the matter of amendment of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to give the FCC authority to prescribe regulations for the manufacture, import, sale, shipment, or use of devices which cause harmful interference to radio reception-Senate bill, S. 1015, February 8, 1965. Senator JOHN O. PASTORE, Chairman, Communications Subcommittee, Senate Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: This statement, made in regard to the above referenced matter, is submitted by the Codes and Standards Committee of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). The codes and standards committee is a standing committee, correlating the technical standardization activities of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association is the national trade organization for the electrical equipment industry. The association serves approximately 500 of the Nation's leading manufacturers of electrical products in such divergent areas as household appliances; electrical building equipment; generation, transmission, and distribution equipment; wire and cable; lighting |