tions were sought from the radio provisions of the act for vessels of over 100 gross tons, in the coastwise trade.

(1) In matter of Atlantic Refining Co. (docket 4856, 5 FCC Rep. 104 (195. p. 105), the Commission recognized the "limited discretion given us by Congress,” The headnote of the official report states:

**that where no material showing is made to distinguish the operation of the vessel from the operation of the whole group of vessels to which the laws apply, the Commission has no basis for the exercise of its limited authority ti grant exemptions" (p. 104). [Emphasis supplied.]

The Commission found that all the normal hazards of ocean navigation are present in this coastwise operation, and it was therefore precluded from granting the exemption sought:

"For the purposes of this application, then, we must consider that the route navigated by this vessel lies along practically the entire length of the east mes of the United States from Miami to Boston. The operation over this route not seasonal, but is conducted at any time of the year, so that the vessel may le expected to encounter any weather conditions that occur along this coast. "We do not feel that it is necessary to enter into a discussion of the hazards inherent in coastwise navigation along the Atlantic coast other than to state that the record discloses that at least all normal hazards of ocean navigation are present over the route navigated by this vessel; nor do we deem it necessary to dwell upon the value of a radio installation as a measure of safety to other shipping. The applicant has offered nothing to distinguish the operation of its vessel from the operation of the great number of vessels normally plying in the coastwise trade, and we, therefore, have no basis for the exercise of the limited discretion given us by Congress (p. 105). [Emphasis supplied.]

In denying the application, the Commission concluded:

"It is our conclusion that the applicant has not presented facts sufficient to warrant this Commission in finding that the route and conditions of the voyage. or other circumstances, are such as specified in the Convention and in the act" (p. 106).

(2) In matter of Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc. (5 F.C.C. Rept. 163 (1938), Docket No. 4887), the Commission again acknowledged the congressional intent to include coastwise vessels in the international radiotelegraph safety network. In doing so, it stated:

"With respect to assistance to other vessels, it was plainly the intentions of Congress to increase safety of life at sea by increasing the effectiveness of radio. Te accomplish this purpose, Congress not only provided for the installation of satisfactory radio equipment, but provided for the necessary corollary, namely, maintenance of a continuous listening watch on vessels so equipped. Therefore, the exemption of any vessel operating in normal ocean trade removes one unit from the total of vessels making up the potential safety factor contemplated by the act" (p. 164). [Emphasis supplied.]

The Commission then found that it could not grant an exemption to a vessel which sails in the normally hazardous conditions of a coastwise run :

"We find that hazardous conditions frequently occur in this area (Atlantic coast).

"From a full consideration of the examiner's report, the record, and the exceptions and oral argument of counsel, we have reached the conclusion that the operations of this vessel are not substantially different from those to which Congress intended the act to apply, and, that the route and condition of the voyages, or other circumstances, are not such as warrant an exemption of the vessel" (p. 165). [Emphasis supplied.]

(3) Matter of Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. (5 F.C.C. Rept. 166 (1938). Docket No. 4857), is another case in which the Commission reached the conclusion that congressional intent was not to exempt but to include coastwise shipping, within the radio requirements of treaty and statute.

In concluding that the applicant in that case failed to make a sufficient showing that the requirements of a radio installation on the applicant's vessels was unnecessary or unreasonable for the purposes of part II of title III of the act, the Commission stated:

"The principal contentions of the applicant was that the coast is well supplied with aids to navigation; that harbors of refuge are frequent; that the time spent in the open sea is comparatively short; and, that the radio installation is unnecessary as an aid to other shipping for the reason that the vessels follow well traveled steamer lanes where other craft could be of more assistance because of their superior speed and accommodations.

"We do not see that these conditions or circumstances are peculiar to the vessels in questions, and if they were to be adopted by this Commission as the basis for exemptions, the result would be to remove the requirement of radio in respect to a large number of coastwise steamships. This, we are certain, was not the intention of Congress" (p. 167). [Emphasis supplied.]

In the Oliver J. Olson Company (applications X-549x-554), the Commission had before it exemption applications in which the same trade, similar ships carrying the same cargoes on voyages with the same conditions, route and other circumstances were involved as are involved in the instant application. In denying these applications, the Commission noted:

"2. The applications show that the vessels carry lumber products and wood pulp between ports in Washington, Oregon, and California; that their routes are rarely more than 7 miles and never more than 25 miles from land ***. [Emphasis supplied.]

"6. Vessels, such as the instant vessels, engaged in the west coastwise lumber trade have heretofore been the subject of applications for exemption. In Matter of Western Transport, et al, Docket No. 4774, et al., 5 F.C.C. 168, (1938) the Commission denied exemption to such vessels after finding that the routes and conditions of the voyages of the vessels were no less hazardous than in the case of any other coastwise vessels, and stating, at page 173, that these groups of vessels should*** be required to fill their places in the general scheme to provide increased safety by increasing the number of vessels instantly available as potential lifeboats ***.

"8. The applicant has not made or attempted to make any showing that the conditions and circumstances of the voyages or the ships are so exceptional that despite compliance since 1937 by four of the vessels and compliance since 1947 and 1948, respectively, by the remaining two vessels, with the radiotelegraph requirements of title III, part II of the act, such compliance has now become unreasonable or unnecessary * (Memorandum opinion and order, adopted

Mar. 16, 1955).

When the Oliver J. Olson Co. requested reconsideration and hearings, in denying Olson's request, the Commission shed considerable light on the history and philosophy of the provisions from which applicant seeks exemption, in stating: "8. It appears that Olson has misconstrued the philosophy underlying the provisions of title III, part II of the act and the basis for the Commission's denial of its applications.

9. The Morro Castle and Mohawk marine disasters occurred short distances off the New Jersey coast (the Morro Castle was within sight of land and the Mohawk was approximately 8 miles off the coast). A senatorial investigation of these disasters resulted, among other things, in a recommendation by the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce for amendment of the Communications Act by, in effect, adding part II to title III of the act (S. Rept. 776, pt. 2, 74th Cong., 2d sess., pursuant to S. Res. 7, 74th Cong., 1st sess.). This recommendation finally eventuated in S. 595 which was enacted into law in 1937 as part II of title III of the Communications Act of 1934. In Senate Report No. 196, 75th Congress, accompanying S. 595 it was made very clear that one of the purposes of the bill was to assure the application of radio requirements to certain vessels engaged in coastwise voyages in the open sea as well as those engaged on international voyages. Vessels on the latter types of voyages were already required by reason of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, to comply with specified radio requirements. Thus, the report stated:

"In this bill ** * an endeavor has been made to apply the requirements of the convention to our domestic shipping so far as vessels which go into the open sea are concerned ***.' [Emphasis supplied.]

"The report goes on:

64

"Today there are probably 600 or more ships of the United States of substantial tonnage carrying many persons as passengers and crews, which, neither by our law nor the convention are required to carry radio. No more pointed illustration of the danger and of the tragedy of this inadequacy of law can be found than in the fact that there was an American ship not required to be equipped with radio within 30 miles of the Vestris and which sailed away because it did not receive the S O S signals of that doomed vessel. We are told that that ship was so near to the Vestris that it might have saved all.' "10. The House report (Rept. No. 686, 75th Cong., 1st sess.) on S. 595 stated the proposition concisely as follows:

""The 1929 convention applies only to vessels employed on international p ages. The United States has a very large and important merchant marine a gaged in purely domestic shipping. There remain, therefore, a considerable nur ber of ships operating in coastwise service which at present are not required!! either the law or the treaty to be equipped with radio. These ships go to sa face the same dangers, and are available as lifeboats to distress vessels, in the same manner as those required by law to carry radio. This bill remedies this inconsistency.

"Thus the congressional intent was clear that ships over 1,600 gross tons saing in the open sea whether on coastwise voyages or on international voyage should constitute a pool of mutual assistance whose effectiveness would be i direct ratio to number of vessels participating therein. It was evident, howeve that minimum uniformity in the radio equipment of these vessels was necessary if the plan of mutual assistance was to be carried into force. So far as dired response of one vessel to another vessel's distress signal is concerned, it does ni good for the distressed vessel to transmit the distress signal by radiotelegraphy on one channel, when its potential rescuer is listening on another radio chanze. for a radiotelephone signal, and by the same token, a distress signal trans mitted by radiotelephone on one channel will not be heard by another ship listening for a radiotelegraph distress signal on a different channel.

"11. Title III, part II of the act expressly recognizes this principle of minimu equipment uniformity and specifies that vessels of 1,600 gross tons and over must be uniformly equipped for participation in a radiotelegraph safety system. The Commission has consistently applied this principle of minimum uniformity to all ships which are members of the radiotelegraph safety system. Each such ship, which is regularly navigated in the open sea, is compelled to meet requirements so long as circumstances indicate that its permanent participation it summoning or rendering assistance would be of substantially normal value to the system and so long as inherent size, space, or design limitations did not render its participation peculiarly impractical or impossible. The necessity for a principle of equal treatment for all such ships similarly situated is obvious in the absence of any method of determining in advance which ship in the system might at any given instant be required to give or receive assistance.

"18. In the light of foregoing precedents, explanation, and legislative history, we turn to the Olson allegations. The Olson vessels are over 1,600 gross tons; they are engaged in coastwise voyages in the open sea; they navigate in waters also navigated by other oceangoing radiotelegraph equipped vessels; they are vessels which now constitute a part of the radiotelegraph mutual assistance posi which Congress contemplated in the enactment of title III, part II. There is no showing or, indeed allegation, that other radiotelegraph equipped vessels cannot or should not depend upon the Olson vessels for direct response to distress signals in the same way as other large vessels subject to title III, part IL Conversely, Olson has not shown or alleged that the safety of its vessels and their crew members would not be enhanced by reason of its ability to summor aid directly from other large vessels also equipped with radiotelegraphy. In short, although fully explaining the usefulness to it of radiotelephony, Olson has failed to show why the effectiveness of the congressionally created radiotelegraph safety system which depends upon universality, would not be unreasonably and unnecessarily impaired if its vessels were excepted therefrom.

"20. Olson's petition for rehearing remedies none of the defects of its original request for exemption. Instead it makes clear its failure to comprehend the statutory scheme of marine safety created by title III, part II, for ships like its own.

"21. Thus, the only facts it again alleges in support of its request for exemp tion are:

"(i) the vessels operate at all times within 25 miles of the Pacific coast. along which an efficient network of coastal harbor radiotelephone stations is maintained.' But it has been demonstrated that one of the primary purposes in enactment of title III, part II was to insure the direct participation in the radiotelegraph safety system of vessels of 1,600 gross tons or over which engage in coastwise voyages" (memorandum opinion and order, adopted Nov. 25, 1955). [Emphasis supplied.]

In Matter of Western Transport Co., et al., 5 F.C.C. Rept. 168 (1938), Docket No. 4774, et al., 28 shipping companies filed application in behalf of 57 vessels plying the Pacific coast, for exemption from the requirements of treaty and statute. Six of the vessels were used in the trade of "fish reduction." Fifty-one of the vessels were "lumber schooners" (like the vessels involved in the Tennant petition).

Although applicants in the Western Transport case stated that if the "exemption" application were granted, they would continue to maintain existing radio Installations and to employ qualified operators, the Commission, in denying the application, nevertheless stated:

"We have not been convinced that the routes or conditions of the voyages, or other circumstances, have been shown to be such as to make the operations materially less hazardous than might be expected in the case of any coastwise vessel operating along this coast, nor that these groups of vessels should not be required to fill their places in the general scheme to provide increased safety by increasing the number of vessels, instantly available as potential lifeboats" (p. 173). [Emphasis supplied.]

APPENDIX C

RADIOTELEGRAPH & RADIOTELEPHONE; COMPARISON OF CHARACTERISTICS

For convenient comparison of the two systems by the subcommittee, we have set forth below, in parallel columns, the most important characteristics of radiotelegraph (CW) and radiotelephone (A3) systems, which later Matson hopes to substitute, in disregard of safety considerations and contract obligations:

2. POSSIBILITY OF MISUNDERSTANDING OR EVASION OF RESPONSIBILITY CW-Minimum: Two complete logs, kept by qualified radio officers sending and receiving messages, with no distracting "other" duties, minimize both these dangers.

A3-Extreme: Sparse and incomplete radiophone logs kept by deck officers doubling as radiophone operator; their urgent "other" duties as deck officer are really their main normal function, such as maintaining lookout, making deck log entries, taking bearings, aszimuths, sights, D.F. bearings, answering the ship's interior phone, observing and interpreting radar scope patterns, operating blinker, checking the gyrorepeaters and taking soundings by fathometer, etc. Possibility of misunderstanding spoken unrecorded words as compared to spelled out written wordage, increases both these dangers.

3. LANGUAGE BARRIER

CW-Specialized: Radio officer require what has been acknowledged to be the equivalent of junior engineering training to obtain a license and to per- communications. form duties under it.