since it is presently impossible for a communications company to know, or find out, about certificate applications or authorizations for the construction of lines or the commencement of operations which may be injurious or even competitively destructive. Public notice is required in the case of the ICC, as I recall. Since section 214 contemplates the right of an aggrieved carrier or other person to a hearing, this is circumvented by the Commission's failure to give public notice. The right of notice is implicit and essential to the right to a hearing. Sincerely, Don, DONALD C. BEELAR. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: A copy of a letter dated April 19, 1965, from Mr. Donald C. Beelar, addressed to Mr. Nicholas Zapple, counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee, has been referred to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Beelar is concerned about the failure of the Commission to give public notice of the filing with it of certificate applications under sections 214 and 222 of the Communications Act of 1934. We have reviewed our practices in this respect. Currently, we list in our "Public Notice" all such applications involving acquisitions. In the future, although not for the reason suggested by Mr. Beelar, the Commission will list in a "Public Notice" all applications filed by common carriers under sections 214, 221, and 222, except applications seeking authority to discontinue, reduce, or impair communication service. With respect to these latter applications, there appears to be no need to list such applications in our "Public Notice," inasmuch as our rules require the carriers to publish and post notice locally regarding such applications. Your interest in this matter is appreciated. BEN F. WAPLE, Secretary. KIRKLAND, ELLIS, HODSON, CHAFFETZ & MASTERS, Re S. 1554. NICHOLAS ZAPPLE, Staff Counsel, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR NICK: Many thanks for your note of May 17 inquiring about the possible submission of a statement on the above bill. Also, I was delighted to learn from your letter of May 10 that the Commission has commenced giving public notice weekly of the filing of applications for certificates of convenience or necessity covering construction or extension of lines, or mergers. This is a good procedure which should be useful to Government agencies in addition to the Department of Defense, such as GSA, and, of course, very useful to interested carriers and members of the public. The innovation of this public notice practice, as beneficial as it may be, does not, in my judgment, obviate the advisability of an amendment to S. 1554 providing for public notice. I will endeavor to prepare a short statement in support of this view before the June 23 hearing. My interest in urging that public notice be given of the filing of such applications was based solely upon the right to know of such filings and not at all occasioned by any problem in obtaining information from staff personnel processing such applications. To the contrary, staff personnel have extended courtesies to persons needing such information, and would, in my judgment, be assisted by a regular public notice procedure. Sincerely, Don, DONALD C. BEELAR. Mr. JACK WAYMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Director, Consumer Products Division, Electronic Industries Association, 1721 DeSales Street NW., Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WAYMAN: At your request, members of the FCC staff met with your representatives in the Office of the Chief of Engineer on June 3, 1965, to discuss the radio interference bills now pending in Congress-S. 1015 and H.R. 5864particularly with respect to the considerations and criteria that the Commission would apply in rulemaking proceedings if it is given the authority sought in the pending bills. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the purpose of the proposed legislation. The Commission strongly believes that the proposed legislation would serve the public interest and be to the best interest of the responsible manufacturer. Since we know from past dealings the high degree of responsibility of the manufacturers comprising your association, we would hope that they would cooperate in securing passage of this much needed legislation. On June 5, 1958, Senator Magnuson wrote to Chairman Doerfer relative to the problem of interference and sought the recommendations of the Commission for legislative action, citing the Commission's responsibility to Congress to transmit recommendations that are deemed to be necessary or desirable. These bills, currently pending, are the result of our recommendation. Under present law, the Commission prescribes by rule the extent to which electrical equipment must limit the emission of radiofrequency energy in order to prevent interference to authorized radio services. The regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, apply only to the users of equipment. The Commission has no authority to regulate the manufacture, shipment, or sale of equipment capable of producing interference to radio reception. The purpose of the pending bills is to extend our authority and thereby permit the Commission to apply its regulations directly to the manufacture and sale of the equipment. Thus the fundamental difference between the existing and the requested additional authority is to permit regulation of equipment capable of causing interference to radio reception before this equipment is sold to the public. Our criteria and considerations in evaluating the interference potential of such equipment will remain as they now are. It should be clear that it is manifestly impossible to locate and correct each individual piece of equipment producing interference, whereas it is reasonably feasible to regulate the manufacture and distribution of such equipment. Thus it is our primary objective to require manufacturers and sellers to comply with the regulations which are now applicable only to the user. Enforcement of regulations under present law requires the Commission to institute, against offending users, cease-and-desist proceedings wherein the Government has the burden of proving that the equipment in question is in fact being used by the respondent and is in fact causing harmful interference to authorized radio services by emitting radiofrequency energy. As an example, to establish beyond question in a legal proceeding that a piece of equipment is the source of interference to aircraft communications, our staff is required to ride a plane to observe interference and carefully synchronize with a crew on the ground the observed interference and the operation cycle of the equipment under suspicion to establish that it is this equipment and no other that is causing harmful interference. This is not only an onerous burden to the Commission but it is a highly ineffective method of protecting legitimate radio users from the destructive effects of interference, since the protection is accomplished only after the occurrence of the interference which places life and property in jeopardy until it is found and stopped. The Federal Aviation Agency has repeatedly complained to the Commission of the dangerous situation created by spectrum pollution, particularly that which results from industrial heaters employing radiofrequency energy, and has urged a solution which would eliminate the cumbersome procedure now required. With respect to the manner of regulation that might be effected under the proposed bills, our staff discussed the Commission's past record of regulation in a number of areas: radiation limits for television receivers, our type acceptance program for licensed transmitters, the regulations adopted to implement the all-channel legislation. In each case, the Commission has given full consid eration to industry problems and has been extremely careful to avoid regulations that would be unreasonable or incompatible with the existing state of the art. As you know, our present regulations have been developed over a long period of time in full cooperation with industry representatives. We would also stress that any rule which the Commission adopts is subject to well-defined procedures specified by law, in which all interested parties are invited to participate. These procedures call for formal notice of proposed rulemaking, provide ample time for comments and countercomments and, when necessary, provide for oral argument and hearing. During the course of proceedings, it is not uncommon to engage in informal Government-industry conferences, equipment tests, and observations. We would anticipate that such conferences would be held in the course of rulemaking proceedings to implement the pending legislation if it is enacted. To summarize, the Commission's past record of reasonableness and cooperation with industry should carry assurance about its future regulations. We can reasonably assure you that the pending legislation, if approved, will be used basically to require compliance by manufacturers and sellers with regulations now applicable only to users. Certainly it is the mutual concern of the Commission and members of your organization that an early and practical solution be found to the mounting problem of spectrum pollution. While I trust that this will clarify the questions raised in your industry by the pending legislation, the Commission will be glad to hold further meetings with association representatives to work out differences and to delineate clearly the thrust and scope of the legislation and regulations adopted under it. This letter was adopted on the 9th of June 1965. By direction of the Commission: E. WILLIAM HENRY, Chairman. Hon. JOHN O. PASTORE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Co.. Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Suite 5202, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the Southern California Edison Co., I submit herewith 50 copies of our views on S. 1015 now pending before your subcommittee. We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearing record on this proposed legislation. Very truly yours, ALAN M. NEDRY. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. The Southern California Edison Co. appreciates the opportunity to submit its views on S. 1015, which would amend the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to regulate the manufacture, import, sale, shipment, or use of devices which cause harmful interference to radio reception. Before proceeding to our technical comments on this proposed legislation, it may be of interest to briefly review the size and scope of the company, The Southern California Edison Co. is a California corporation engaged as a public utility in the supply of electricity in the central and southern portions of the State of California and the western portion of the State of Nevada. The company owns and operates an interconnected steam and hydroelectric generating system located in central and southern California, consisting of 36 hydroelectric stations with a total effective operating capacity of approximately 839,000 kilowatts and 12 steam electric generating stations having a total operating effective capactiy of approximately 5,307,000 kilowatts. In addition, under contract with the United States, Edison Co. has available for its use approximately 316,000 kilowatts of effective operating capacity at the Hoover Dam powerplant on the Colorado River, certain of the units of which it operates as an agent of the United States. The company also owns a part of a steam electric generating plant in the State of Arizona which is operated by another utility. The population of the territory served by the company is estimated to be approximately 6,500,000 persons. The operation of a large electric utility system has given the company extensive experience and specialized knowledge in the field of electromagnetic compatibility development, and the designing into the construction and operation of our system, radio interference suppression. Based on this experience, and in reference to the proposal now before this committee, we believe that the comments offered here may be of interest in considering this legislation. We confine our comments and constructive criticism to that aspect of this legislation which may adversely affect standard industry apparatus used in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy for public service. LACK OF DEFINITION In our judgment, S. 1015 is not sufficiently definitive as to the areas in which new regulatory powers would or should be applied. There is no distinction between regulation over devices which potentially could emit a brief burst of interference and interference at rare intervals as contrasted to devices which radiate continuously. Thus, devices which may emit only a brief burst of interference are of no consequence, and yet under the language of the bill, it would appear to be illegal to manufacture equipment of such limited interference capability. Such lack of definition also illustrates the technical problems in trying to make statutory distinctions between such devices. S. 1015 would also give the Federal Communications Commission authority or right to regulate the "interference potential of devices." The ambiguity of the word "potential" is obvious and yet such ambiguity could create the difficult problems of regulation, application, and interpretation. Interference is significant only as a matter of degree and related geographic location. For example, the common household light switch is a "potential" source of interference and yet under the terms of this bill such switches would require suppressive circuitry. Such lack of definitive creteria and the implications of regulating that which does not justify regulating could place an unjustifiable economic burden on the people. Radio interference becomes of significance only when it occurs in an area where radio communications are affected and then only when such interference is harmful. The generation of interference in other areas is of no practical concern and would not affect the public welfare. However, under the terms of this legislation the authority proposed to be vested in the Federal Communications Commission could require that vast sums of money be spent on radio interference suppression where such suppression would serve no useful purpose to the public and yet the cost of such added facilities would ultimately be borne by the consumers of electric energy. DISCRIMINATORY PROVISION We believe that the bill is discriminatory in that agencies of the Federal Government would be excepted under the language which states that the law is not applicable to the Federal Government "or to devices for use by the Government of the United States or any agency thereof." If the Congress believes that radio communication interference should be regulated, there should be no distinction as to the ownership or source of the interference. An interference producing fluorescent light, or other device, under Government ownership should be treated or regulated on the same basis as privately owned devices. INTERFERENCE VERSUS COMPATIBILITY The Federal Communications Commission in its 1963 annual report to the Congress has referred to the extremely important concept of "electromagnetic compatibility." It is obvious that the Commission is relying completely on the concept of "electrical compatibility" rather than the idea of "interference elimination" as a part of compatibility. We believe this to be most important and extremely significant for the Commission recognizes, as does the electric power industry, that however generated, the essence of all interference problems is one of "electromagnetic compatibility." However, in the request for additional regulatory powers, the Federal Communications Commission makes no reference to "compatibility." Here what is 50-664-65- 9 to be regulated is "interference potential." We submit that this concept is impractical and cannot, in the present state of the art, be achieved either by present forms of Commission regulation or by the design of the apparatus. However, "compatibility" by design is being achieved. A practical illustration can be found in the extensive but costly achievements of the military services where, due to extreme variable environments, the problem is most acute and diversified. In the electric power industry "compatibility" is achieved by incorporating the radio influence factor as a first fundamental in the conductor design of high voltage electric power transmission lines. This factor takes into account all the parameters involved in the matter of fitting a transmission line into the receiving environment of the general public. (Radio and television signal to ambient levels.) The omission of the "compatibility" concept in the bills is a serious defect and one which must be remedied if such authority is to be vested in the Federal Communiations Commission or give that regulatory agency the attainment of what appears to be its basic intent. A further aspect of "electromagnete compatibility" is that to deal effectively with these problems on an evenhanded and consistent basis would require the hiring of highly specialized and technically sophisticated personnel by the FCC. This would also require extensive laboratory instrumentation in many parts of the country and associated technical personnel of a magnitude that we believe would be most difficult and impractical for any one Government agency to maintain and justify. For example, the FCC personnel would not only have to be technically informed and proficient in the electrical design of razors, but they would have to be equally cognizant of all the design parameters involved in rotating machinery insulation, electric components, and the myriad combinations involved in the design of all types of appliances and electrical apparatus. Therefore, unless all devices of "potential" interference capability are tested and approved prior to sale, many such devices would still reach the consumer market and be sold prior to the discovery of the interference problem. We believe that to set up testing laboratories or other facilities to insure the type of compliance needed would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Southern California Edison Co. suggests that the Federal Communications Commission is making substantial progress in dealing with "electromagnetic compatibility" problems in the radio spectrum ambient and through its various departments and under its present statutory authority is adequately protecting the public interest in this area. In serving the public as efficiently and effectively as we know how, we will continue to assist the FCC in the problem of locating and remedying interference situations and will continue this activity as a part of the obligation we assume in serving the public. We therefore suggest that this voluntary program is presently achieving the desired end and there is no need for the legislation under consideration which would compel regulation in a problem area that can best be handled through a voluntary program. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE Edison Electric Institute herein presents its views on S. 1015, a bill to 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. The Edison Electric Institute includes among its members 184 operating elec tric power companies serving over 48 million customers. This is over 97 percent of all the customers of the investor-owned electric power supply industry and some 76 percent of our Nation's users of electricity. The operating companies of the electric power industry have for years cooperated voluntarily in the investigation and elimination of sources of radiation that interfere with radio reception. Edison Electric Institute through its technical committees provides for the exchange of information among its members and for development work on this subject as well as others important to their |