Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Kornegay? Mr. KORNEGAY. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Friedel, for your statement. Mr. FRIEDEL. It is brief. I understand it will be elaborated on by her witnesses because I have to run to another committee. Thank u very much. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you very much for your statement. e Chair will now recognize Mr. Jarman. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you have indicated, I introduced an entical bill to H.R. 8508, and I want to thank the chairman and the bcommittee for giving early consideration to these bills. Mr. Chairman, the Communications Act of 1934 requires cargo vesIs over 1,600 tons to have radiotelegraph aboard for communications. .R. 8508, now pending in the House of Representatives, would amend e Communications Act to permit the use of radiotelephone instead of adiotelegraph aboard such vessels when they are on voyages between Hawaiian ports that do not take the ships more than 50 miles from nd. I support this amendment because I am satisfied that radiotelephone better than radiotelegraph for communications purposes in Hawaiian -aters. More than 25 years have elapsed since the Communications Act proisions were enacted. In this time, radiotelephone has become almost he exclusive means of communication ship to shore and between ships n Hawaiian waters. Moreover, the Coast Guard and the Hawaiian Telephone Co., maintain facilities which assure contact by radiotelephone on the distress frequency anywhere in Hawaiian waters on a 4-hour-a-day basis. Experience over the years has established the fact that, where conact is assured, radiotelephone is better than radiotelegraph as a communications system for safety purposes aboard ship because it saves ime. That is why it should be sanctioned for use on all cargo vessels in Hawaiian waters on voyages between Hawaiian ports. H.R. 8508 will do this. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Jarman. Mr. Moss. No questions. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Broyhill? Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. No questions. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Kornegay? Mr. KORNEGAY. No questions. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Jarman, one question. Have you given any thought to the extension of this exemption-and I know you have given quite a lot of thought to this-of trips to other areas, say along the west coast, rather than confining it to Hawaiian waters? Mr. JARMAN. The background I have, Mr. Chairman, is mainly in terms of the need in the Hawaiian area but I would think certainly that. it would follow that ships operating within the indicated area from 32-442-64---2 shores in other waters would logically be able to use the radioteleph more effectively. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you. Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question since you g me the opportunity a minute ago. That is, Mr. Jarman, whether not the ship would be more than 50 nautical miles from the neare land at any time in cruising in and around the Hawaiian Islands. Mr. JARMAN. Distance from any one of the islands? Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes. In other words, going from the Island Hawaii to the Island of Oahu. Mr. JARMAN. The island chain, of course, is much longer than miles, but a ship would be within 50 miles of one of the islands. Mr. KORNEGAY. Of one of the islands at any point in the islands. Mr. JARMAN. That is my understanding. Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, then, throughout the whole St of Hawaii and the surrounding waters, the telephone would be us rather than the telegraph. Mr. JARMAN. Yes. That is my understanding. Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you. Mr. JARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. The next witness is our colleague on the f committee, the Honorable Willard S. Curtin. Mr. Curtin, we wil glad to hear you at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLARD S. CURTIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. CURTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appear before you today in support of H.R. 8542, as well as the four bills introduced by my colleagues on this same subject and presen pending before this subcommittee. I feel that the legislation encon passed in these bills is certainly worthy of very prompt and affirmative action. As you know, H.R. 8542 will amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit all cargo vessels, on a voyage between Hawaiian ports on which the ships do not go more than 50 miles from land, to carry radiotelephone aboard instead of radiotelegraph to use as a safety communications system. Since the adoption of the safety-at-sea provisions of the Commun cations Act more than 25 years ago, when radiotelephone was in its infancy, we have had time to learn that radiotelephone is better that radiotelegraph for safety communications in circumstances where con tact by radiotelephone is assured, because voice communication save time and allows a better control of the situation. In 1954 United States and Canada adopted radiotelephone as the safety communica tions system on the Great Lakes, and this system has proved to be se cessful. The communications system used in the air is by radiotele phone. In Hawaiian waters, where the radiotelephone frequencies are nontored 24 hours a day by the Coast Guard and the telephone company graph for normal communication between ships and ship to shore! and where radiotelephone has almost completely replaced radiotele it is time we recognized the fact in the law that radiotelephone makes e better safety system in these waters, and that is what the amendent will do. There would seem to be no reason why this safety measure could t be used now for ships in Hawaiian waters. In the event that a ed should exist for such service in other coastal waters, it would em to me that this would be a matter for legislation to be condered at that time. At present, however, I would respectfully quest favorable action on this legislation at this time. Thank you very much for your attention. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Are there any questions? If not, we appre-. ate your appearance and testimony, Mr. Curtin. Mr. CURTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Our next witness is the Honorable Robert T. artley, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission. Comissioner Bartley, it is nice to have you before the subcommittee. Mr. BARTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me today embers of the staff. I will give the names of the staff members o the reporter. If I need any background, I will call on them. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Fine. TATEMENT OF ROBERT T. BARTLEY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY GERARD M. CAHILL, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL; IRVING BROWNSTEIN, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SAFETY AND SPECIAL RADIO SERVICES BUREAU; EVERETT HENRY, CHIEF, MARINE DIVISION; HAROLD WOODYARD, CHIEF, SAFETY FACILITIES BRANCH, MARINE DIVISION; AND JOHN D. HARDY, ATTORNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE Mr. BARTLEY. Mr. Cahill, Mr. Brownstein, Mr. Henry, Mr. Woodyard, and Mr. Hardy. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me to read it. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. You may proceed, Mr. Bartley. Mr. BARTLEY. The Commission has asked me to present its statement and to testify for it on identical bills H.R. 8508, 8542, 8591, 8602, and 8779 introduced by Congressmen Walter Rogers, Curtin, Jarman, Friedel, and O'Brien of New York. These bills would amend section 356 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to permit cargo ships, regardless of tonnage, on voyages between Hawaiian ports to carry radiotelephone in lieu of radiotelegraph installations. Title III, part II, of the Communications Act (secs. 351 and 355) provides, among other things, that any U.S. cargo ship over 500 gross tons, which is navigated in the open sea outside of a harbor or port, must be equipped with an efficient radio installation operated by a qualified operator or operators. In addition, that part (sec. 356) also provides that cargo ships of less than 1,600 gross tons may, in lieu of a radiotelegraph installation, carry a radiotelephone installation. The Commission now has the statutory authority under section 352 (b) (2) to grant such an exemption to any cargo ship over 1,600 gross tons which in the course of its voyage does not go more the 150 nautical miles from the nearest land, provided the Commissi considers such a radio installation unreasonable or unnecessary f the safety of life and property purposes. It appears, therefore. that the principal effect of these bills would be categorically exempt from the radiotelegraph requirements of sections 351 and 352 all cargo vessels which ply the waters between the Hawaiian pors and do not go more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest island They woud be required, however, to be equipped with radiotelephone installations. As recently as June 1963, the Commission considered the very problem with which these bills are concerned. We are submitting for the record copies of our report and order and our memorandur opinion and order in this proceeding. (The documents referred to follow :) Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. FCC 63-211 312 IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE RADIOTELEGRAPH PROVISIONS OF TITLE III, PART II OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, as AMENDED, FILED IN BEHALF OF A PROPOSED UNITED STATES CARGO VESSEL WHEY NAVIGATED IN THE OPEN SEA By the Commission: REPORT AND ORDER 1. The Commission is in receipt of an application (File No. X-722) filed by Matson Navigation Company, 215 Market Street, San Francisco 5, California. for exemption from the radiotelegraph requirements of Title III, Part II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in behalf of a proposed United States cargo vessel to be operated in the Hawaiian interisland service. 2. The application states that the proposed cargo vessel will be of approxi mately 2900 gross tons, and will be navigated during all seasons of the year between Hilo, Hawaii and Kahului, Maui, a route distance of 123 miles between Kahului and Honolulu, Oahu, a route distance of 92 miles; and between Honolulu and Hanamaulu, Kauai, a route distance of 95 miles. On these voyages, the vessel will be navigated in the open sea at a maximum dis tance of 35 miles from nearest land. 3. Title III, Part II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires that cargo ships of 1,600 gross tons and upward navigated in the open sea shall be equipped with a radiotelegraph installation in charge of a qualified radio telegraph operator. In lieu of the required radiotelegraph installation, applicant proposes to equip the vessel with two radiotelephone installations, one of which will be maintained as a standby for emergency use. Each of these installations would comply with the Commission's rules applicable to radiotelephone installations required to be provided on United States cargo vessels of 500 to 1,600 gross tons subject to the radiotelephone provisions of Title III, Part II of the Com munications Act. 4. As reasons for exemption from radiotelegraph provisions, applicant states that (1) the U.S. Coast Guard maintains a highly organized air and sea search and rescue service in the Hawaiian Islands and has at its disposal many high speed craft, (2) the speed of the proposed cargo vessel will be only 11 knots, and this factor would limit the vessel's ability to act efficiently in going to the aid of a remote vessel in distress, and (3) it will be possible for the proposed vessel to communicate with land by radiotelephone at any point on its route. 5. Section 352(b) (2) of the Communications Act of 1934 provides that the Commission may, if it considers that the route or the conditions of the voyage or unnecessary for the purposes of Title III, Part II of said Act, exempt cargo or other circumstances are such as to render a radio installation unreasonable ships from the provisions of Title III, Part II when such ships are navigated t more than 150 nautical miles from the nearest land. Inasmuch as, accordg to applicant, the proposed vessel will be navigated not more than 35 miles om the nearest land on the above-described voyages, the vessel comes within e class of vessels which may, insofar as distance from the nearest land is conrned, be considered for exemption. 6. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, radiotelegraphy is the required ode of maritime safety communication for cargo vessels of 1,600 gross tons and >wards while such vessels are navigated in the open sea. Applicant has made › showing that it would be impracticable for the proposed vessel to comply ith the compulsory radiotelegraph requirements of Title III, Part II of the ommunications Act. The proposed vessel would be regularly operated in waters at are adjacent to the normal ship routes plied by radiotelegraph equipped ips. Therefore the proposed vessel should, in accordance with the purposes Title III, Part II of the Act, be in a position to communicate directly with ich radiotelegraph equipped ships for the purpose of summoning aid from or irnishing aid to them. The provision on board the proposed vessel of a radiolephone installation as the sole means of safety communication would not, in he light of the character of its voyages and the routes involved, be an acceptable abstitute for the radiotelegraph installation required by law. 7. In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the circumstances of operaon of the proposed vessel do not warrant a finding by the Commission that the oute or conditions of the voyages or other circumstances are such as to render radiotelegraph installation aboard the proposed vessel unreasonable or unecessary while it is navigated on the above-described voyages. 8. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, That the application for exemption filed in bealf of the proposed vessel is hereby Denied. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Adopted: March 6, 1963. Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. FCC 63-519 35894 IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS DENIAL OF EXEMPTION FROM THE RADIOTELEGRAPH PROVISIONS OF TITLE III, PART II OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, FILED OF BEHALF OF A PROPOSED UNITED STATES CARGO SHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 2,900 GROSS TONS NAVIGATED IN THE OPEN SEA. By the Commission : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1. The Commission has before it for consideration a petition for reconsideration filed April 5, 1963, by Matson Navigation Company (Matson), 215 Market Street, San Francisco 5, California. 2. By Report and Order released March 8, 1963, (FCC 63-211), the Commission denied an application for exemption from the radiotelegraph requirements of Tite III, Part II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, filed by Matson in behalf of a United States cargo vessel proposed to be constructed for operation in the Hawaiian interisland service. Title III (Part II of the Communications Act requires cargo ships of 1,600 gross tons and over navigated in the open sea to be equipped with a radiotelegraph installation in the charge of a qualified radiotelegraph operator. The Commission concluded that the circumstances of operation of the proposed vessel, as set forth in the request for exemption, did not warrant a finding by the Commission that the proposed route or conditions of the voyages or other circumstances are such as to render a radiotelegraph installation aboard the proposed vessel unreasonable or unnecessary while it is navigated on the proposed voyages. 3. Matson seeks reconsideration of the above-mentioned Report and Order and requests that its application for exemption be granted, or in the alternative, requests the Commission to reopen the proceeding looking toward that end if the Commission wishes to be further advised in the matter. In support of its petition, Matson states it now supplies a cargo container service between Los |