The Bureau of the Budget has advised that while there would be no objection to the presentation to the committee of such report as the Board may deem appropriate, the Departments of Justice and Agriculture, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission have been advised that the Bureau has no objection to the submission of their favorable reports to the committee. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH P. ADAMS, Acting Chairman. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., January 27, 1956. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PRIEST: This is in reply to your committee's request for the Commission's comments on H. R. 6631, a bill to provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission. Enclosed are copies of the Commission's comments concerning this bill. The Commission will be pleased to furnish any additional information or comments concerning this proposal which your committee may desire. The Bureau of the Budget has informed us that it has no objection to the submission of these comments. Sincerely yours, GEORGE C. MCCONNAUGHEY, Chairman. COMMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON S. 2128 TO AMEND SECTION 9 (b) OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 29, 1950 S. 2128, insofar as it is applicable to this agency, would amend the provisions of law governing the issuance of temporary stays or suspensions of certain types of Commission actions in suits brought to review such actions pursuant to the provisions of section 402 (a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Sepcifically it would amend the third sentence of subsection (b) of section 9 of the act of December 29, 1950 (64 Stat. 1132, 5. U. S. C. 1039), which is the act governing the procedure for court actions brought under section 402 (a) of the Communications Act, by substituting the language "after reasonable notice" for the existing language "after not less than 5 days' notice". The effect of the amendment would be to permit the United States courts of appeals to grant temporary stays or suspensions of Commission orders pending hearing on application for interlocutory injunctions on less than 5 days' notice, provided that reasonable notice of the hearing on a temporary stay or suspension is first given to both the agency and the Attorney General. The bill recognizes both that circumstances may exist in which the public interest may require a temporary stay upon less than 5 days' notice, and, at the same time, that no temporary stay should be issued unless the agency and the Department of Justice have first been given notice of the request for a temporary stay and an opportunity to present argument to the coutrs in appropriate circumstances as to why any stay might be harmful to the public. It The Commission believes that the proposed amendment is a salutary one. eliminates the rigidity of the existing language with respect to temporary stays and suspensions of Commission actions while, at the same time, insuring the Commission and the Department of Justice a reasonable opportunity to make any presentation they deem essential. Consequently, the Commission has no objection to the enactment of the proposed bill. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D. C., January 25, 1956. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PRIEST: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1955, requesting a report on H. R. 6631, a bill to provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission. This Department has no objection to enactment of this bill. The bill provides that in cases where irreparable damage would otherwise occur the court of appeals, upon reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General, may order a temporary stay or suspension, for a period of not more than 60 days, of orders issued by specified agencies including certain issued by this Department under the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. The existing law requires an agency to be given not less than 5 days' notice before the court can grant a temporary stay or suspension of the agency's order. The proposed bill eliminates this requirement but provides that reasonable notice shall be given the agency. This would give the court discretion to fix the length of the notice. The only statutes administered by this Department that would be affected are the two acts mentioned above. In the administration of these acts the removal of the 5 days' notice requirement will not cause this Department any difficulty, since orders issued under these acts are stayed by this Department pending appeal to the courts. It does not appear that the proposed legislation, if enacted, would affect the expenditures of this Department. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary. THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in reply to your request of June 3, 1955, for the views of this Department with respect to H. R. 6631, a bill to provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission. This bill would amend section 1006 (d) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 by striking out the present provision that 5 days' notice be given to the Civil Aeronautics Board before interlocutory relief from its order may be granted and by substituting the requirement of "reasonable" notice. The bill would also amend in a similar manner the provision of subsection (b) of section 9 of the act of December 29, 1950, providing for the review of orders of the Federal Maritime Board or Maritime Administration and certain other agencies. Although the Civil Aeronautics Administration of this Department is not referred to in section 1006 (d), certain of the actions of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics relating to safety regulations for the protection of the public are subject to review under the provisions of such section. This Department believes that the provision for a minimum of 5 days' notice should be retained. Close liaison with the Department of Justice must be maintained in such hearings, and when proceedings are held outside of Washington, liaison must also be had between the field office of the agency and its headquarters. A minimum of 5 days' notice would appear to be required under such circumstances. This Department, therefore, recommends against enactment of H. R. 6631. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that it would interpose no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, SINCLAIR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce. Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington, D. C., January 30, 1956. Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. PRIEST: This is in response to your request for a report on H. R. 6631 (84th Cong., 1st sess.), a bill to provide reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Atomic Energy Commission (and four other named agencies). Insofar as the bill relates to the Atomic Energy Commission, H. R. 6631 would amend section 9 (b) of the Judicial Review Act of December 29, 1950 (64 Stat. 1132; 5 U. S. C. 1039), to authorize the courts of appeals, in cases where irreparable damage would otherwise ensue, to order a temporary stay or suspension of orders of this Commission after reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General and upon a finding by the court of appeals that such irreparable damage would result to the petitioner. The present provision of section 9 (b) provides for not less than 5 days' notice, rather than reasonable notice. In this connection we note that the proposed change was approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, March 24-25, 1955 (see 101 Congressional Record 6402-6403, June 2, 1955). The reason assigned for the proposed change is that the present requirement of at least 5 days' notice might prevent the court of appeals from acting with sufficient promptness in an urgent case, bearing in mind that the provision for the temporary stay permitted applies in cases where irreparable damage would otherwise ensue. The change to reasonable notice would leave the discretion to determine the length of the notice in the court of appeals in which the interlocutory relief is sought. Under the act of 1950, action to review orders of this Commission may be filed in the judicial circuit in which any of the parties filing the petition for review resides or has his principal office, or in the District of Columbia. In most cases, therefore, it appears to us that 5 days' notice would be the minimum required to enable this agency adequately to respond to an application for temporary stay or suspension, particularly since the granting of a stay or suspension might in some circumstances have consequences seriously detrimental to the national interest. But, as the report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts points out, there may be cases brought in the District of Columbia in which a shorter notice period would suffice. As we understand the bill, it is intended to permit such shorter notice in urgent cases in which the court determined that adequate opportunity to respond will be afforded the agency and the Attorney General by the notice given. While we are not aware of instances of hardship caused by the present 5-day rule, we would have no objection to the enactment of the bill. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of this report, and also notes that in its letter to you, dated January 20, 1956, it indicated no objection to the enactment of the legislation on the part of several agencies including this Commission. Sincerely yours, K. E. FIELDS, General Manager. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. J. PERCY PRIEST, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1955, requesting the views of this office with respect to H. R. 6631, a bill to provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission. We understand that the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended the enactment of the proposed legislation. The Departments of Justice and Agriculture, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Com 76974-56-3 munications Commission raise no objection in their reports on H. R. 6631, or the identical S. 2128. However, the Department of Commerce and the Civil Aeronautics Board oppose the legislation for reasons stated in their reports. The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of H. R. 6631. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning the bill H. R. 6631 to provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission. Section 1 of the bill would amend the second sentence of subsection (d) of section 1006 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (49 U. S. C. 646), so as to provide that "Upon good cause shown and after reasonable notice to the Board, interlocutory relief may be granted by stay of the order or by such mandatory or other relief as may be appropriate." As presently worded the section provides for such interlocutory relief "upon at least five days' notice to the Board" so that the effect of the amendment would be to change the "five days notice to the Board" requirement to one requiring "reasonable notice to the Board." Section 2 of the bill would make a similar change in section 9 of the act of December 29, 1950 (5 U. S. C. 1039), relating to review of orders of Federal agencies. The third sentence of subsection (b) of section 9 provides that "In cases where irreparable damage would otherwise ensue to the petitioner, the court of appeals may, on hearing, after not less than five days' notice to the agency and to the Attorney General, order a temporary stay or suspension, in whole or in part, of the operation of the order ***” The bill would change the words "after not less than five days' notice to the agency and to the Attorney General" to read "after reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General." The Judiciary Conference of the United States has recommended the enactment of this proposed legislation. The Department of Justice would have no objection to the enactment of the bill. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely, WILLIAM F. ROGERS, Deputy Attorney General. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, Hon. SAM RAYBURN, The bill enclosed was approved by the Judicial Conference at a meeting held March 24 and 25, 1955, upon a report and recommendation by the Committee of the Conference on Revision of the Laws, consisting of Circuit Judge Albert B. "Maris of the third circuit, chairman, and District Judges Clarence G. Galston of the eastern district of New York, and William F. Smith of the district of New Jersey. The statutes referred to in their present form require 5 days' notice to the agency concerned and specified above of applications for interlocutory relief. The effect of the bill which is herewith submitted would be to require reasonable notice but not notice of a specified number of days. The present requirement of 5 days' notice sometimes in urgent cases prevents a court of appeals to which application is made for interlocutory relief from acting with sufficient promptness in the circumstances. The agencies concerned were consulted by the Committee on Revision of the Laws and indicated that while they would be strongly opposed to permitting interlocutory relief to be granted by courts of appeals without any notice they would not object to eliminating the 5-day waiting period if the requirement of notice was retained. Consequently the committee recommended and the Judicial Conference approved the provision of the enclosed bill that interlocutory relief in the nature of a temporary stay may be granted by a court of appeals upon reasonable notice without a fixed time limit. The proposal to do away with the inflexible provision for a waiting period of 5 days emanated from the Judicial Council, consisting of the members of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit in which many of the suits to enjoin or stay actions of the administrative agencies involved are brought. Inasmuch as the offices of the agencies are in the District of Columbia very short notice to them and to the Attorney General may suffice in urgent cases. The requirement in the bill that reasonable notice should be given would leave the discretion to determine the length of the notice in the court of appeals in which the interlocutory relief is sought which it would seem is where it should be. Thus the bill submitted would provide for notice reasonable under the circumstances without specifying a fixed time. This is believed to represent a sound policy in the situation. Accordingly the bill is recommended to the Congress for consideration and it is hoped that it may be enacted. Sincerely yours, HENRY P. CHANDLER. A BILL To provide for reasonable notice to the agency of applications to the courts of appeals for interlocutory relief against orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime Board, and the Atomic Energy Commission Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of subsection (d) of section 1006 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1024; 49 U. S. C., sec. 646), as amended, is further amended to read as follows: "Upon good cause shown and after reasonable notice to the Board, interlocutory relief may be granted by stay of the order or by such mandatory or other relief as may be appropriate." SEC. 2. The third sentence of subsection (b) of section 9 of the Act of December 29, 1950 (64 Stat. 1132; 5 U. S. C., sec. 1039), is amended to read as follows: "In cases where irreparable damage would otherwise ensue to the petitioner, the court of appeals may, on hearing, after reasonable notice to the agency and to the Attorney General, order a temporary stay or suspension in whole or in part, of the operation of the order of the agency for not more than sixty days from the date of such order pending the hearing on the application for such interlocutory injunction, in which case such order of the court of appeals shall contain a specific finding, based on evidence submitted to the court of appeals, and identified by reference thereto, that such irreparable damage would result to petitioner and specifying the nature of such damage." [H. R. 6810, 84th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to facilities for candidates for public office Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 315 (a) of the Federal Communications Act is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 315. (a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broad |