The American Petroleum Institute submitted Comments on H.R. 13015, the Communications Act of 1978, to this Subcommittee. Since that time the American Petroleum Institute has followed closely the development of this new legislation, H.R. 3333, and, while several of our objections to the original legislation have been ameliorated, our principal difficulty with the theoretical approach embodied by the 1978 bill, and carried over into the Subcommittee's 1979 offering, continues--we remain firm in our contention that a complete rewrite of the 1934 Communications Act is unnecessary and ill-timed.

The 1934 Act and the 1962 Communications Satellite Act have functioned well as flexible tools to guide the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Courts in their efforts to respond to the realities of a rapidly evolving telecommunications marketplace. In those areas where the existing law has proved an inadequate signpost on the confusing road of regulation, the Congress can and should respond to the need for new legislative language through the mechanism of selective amendment. We maintain that the inability of existing law to respond to isolated situations does not indicate fundamental inadequacies in that law nor does it warrant wholesale revision. We point

specifically to the substantial body of law that has evolved over the years as the example that most fundamental issues have been aired and resolved--that the response mechanism

is available and adequate.

Finally, API believes that amendment and/or clarification of the 1934 Act in specific areas is in the public

interest for it is the simpler, less expensive and less chaotic approach.

Statement of Jeanne Mueller,

Executive Director

of

HF International

On Behalf Of The

Radio Users of the Citizen Band Radio Service

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Jeanne Mueller, and I am Executive Director of HF International, an organization which represents approximately ninety-seven thousand Single Sideband Users in the Citizen Band Radio Service. I wish to confine my comments today to those provisions in Title II and Title IV on the proposed legislation that could effect thirty million radio users of the Citizen Band Radio Service.

On July 2, 1979, I was invited to give testimony on these issues by Mr. Charles Jackson, but due to a mis-understanding no testimony was taken. Therefore, upon

the request of Mr. Charles Jackson, I now will submit a written statement on matters relating to this area of communication.

I would also like to express my gratitude to you for allowing this testimony to be entered into record.

For several years now, the growth of the Citizen Band Radio Service has increased to the point that control and discipline have lost its effectiveness within government. Lack of respect and understanding of the rules and regulations seem to be the major problems which face the FCC on a daily basis. License applications for the CB service are still averaging in the thousands per month and TVI complaints still dominate the enforcement division. Therefore, attention must be directed in this area for a better prospective in regulation and educational programs for the radio user.

This in no way should be interpreted that the Federal Communications Commission is not doing there job, but rather to show that this area of government needs the assistance of the radio users as well as adequate funding to better serve the needs of the public.

Since the FCC introduced new leadership to the public, a definite change of attitude in a positive nature has been received by the radio users in the Citizen Band Radio Service. One thing that has been absent for a long time now is the opportunity for the CB users to be heard within the structure of government. This concept is now in the process of being established and even though it has not been completely formulated as yet, improvement in atitude is already becoming apparent.

There is no doubt that the Communications Act of 1934 was overdue for rewrite, but I do not believe that the proposal (HR 3333) is administratively feasible, nor is it in the best interest of the public. The complete rewrite of HR 3333 strings things out to far and the only thing that can be seen is that the Communications Act of 1934 must be kept up-dated with today's technology. It also is apparent that the Communications Act would have to be reviewed periodically and updated.

Another point which is quite visible is waste of taxpayer's money that has been used in the past two years in the construction of this bill, plus the additional costs that still would be entailed before the entire concept was established. Citizen Band Radio operators have as much of a vested interested in the Communications Act as any other means of communications, therefore again, it would be much more sensible to continue with the Communications Act of 1934, allowing amendments and review. Tax dollars could then be applied to the Federal Communications Commission to improve the areas of communication.

Section 211. The proposal to re-name the Federal Communications Commission to "Communications Regulatory Commission " (CRC) is totally out-of-line with today's concept of governmental information within the average CB radio user. People identify with the FCC and renaming the commission would cause not only added expense but would also be detrimental in effectively regulating the frequency spectrum. The public would not identify with " CRC" for many years to come, and any problems that now exist in enforcement would only be compounded by this drastic change in government.

A statement made by Mr. Jackson, that " twenty million dollars" would be saved per year is not acceptible. It is quite obvious that more money would be spent during a year educating the public as to who " CRC" is, rather than any other function they would be performing. This again, only strengthens the feeling that this bill does not provide adequate provisions to bring about its intended solution.

Sec. 414. Fees are important to the Citizen Band Radio Service, as well as every other area of communications. Fees should cover any and all non-commercial

radio station license application. Also, these fees should not hinder common applications of Amateur or Hobbyist type operators, rather it should cover administrative cost. It is the belief of Citizen Band Radio Users that the concept should remain one of " paying our own way" and that the definite need to have fees reinstated is a necessity for the improvement of the communication structure.

I am in complete agreement with ARRL in this issue and I quote: " If the Commission is to be directed to reestablish a fee system, it appears desirable that any and all fees be based upon the cost of processing applications and administering the particular service. ( un-quote).

Section 242 (b) At present, the Federal Communications Commission can not accept " voluntary" contributions without reinbursement. prohibited by 31 USC - 665(b). The need for the public to be active participates in government is essential in the establishment of government relations with the people. The assets out way the liabilities in the area and could also serve as a useful tool in bringing new found structure and respect back into the "communications community".

This is one area which I do support in this bill, but it can work just as well if amended under the now existant " Communications Act of 1934, which is strongly recommended.