Page images
PDF
EPUB

ice from the radiotelegraph requirements of 47 USC 351. The background le matter is fully set forth in the cited Memorandum Opinion and Order and not, therefore, be repeated. Briefly stated, Alaska Spruce is required by to carry certain radiotelegraph equipment and operators while navigating

le open sea. Petitioner had represented that, its traffic being Pacific coast. ... and not more than 20 miles from land, requiring the prescribed equipment

operators was unreasonable or unnecessary and it was therefore entitled to iption under 47 USC 351(b). The Commission designated the matter for oral argument before a panel of missioners. Oral argument was held on November 7. 1963. before Commisrs Hyde (Panel Chairman), Cox and Loevinger. Appearances were filed

oral argument made by J. J. Tennant Company, Chief, Safety and Special 30 Services Bureau, and the American Radio Association. Supplementary

s were filed by American Radio Association and J. J. Tennant Company,

[ocr errors]

DISCUSSION We have carefully reviewed the matters of record in this proceeding and of the opinion that the relief requested should be denied. The statute manithe intention of Congress that virtually all ships, such as petitioner's, of onnage and voyage pattern should carry such radiotelegraph equipment and itors, subject to exemption upon a proper showing. It is therefore clear the burden of justifying an exemption is on petitioner. Petitioner's reasons are, in our opinion, entirely economic. He has claimed his competitors do not, because of the type of seagoing equipment they use, to carry such radiotelegraph apparatus or operators and hence their ex* are less, or, reciprocally that his are greater. But we do not believe that ress, when it used the word “unreasonable" in the statute, was referring onomic burden or competitive advantage. On the contrary, all shipping I operate more cheaply with none of the many types of safety devices now

but to state such a proposition as justification for eliminating their use refute it. Petitioner claims that his radiotelephone equipment is more useful in the mstances under which he operates. If this be so, it is in his interest to carry Operate the same voluntarily,' but such use of radiotelephony cannot justify emption from the mandatory use of radiotelegraphy required by the statute. is suggested in oral argument that radiotelephony has made great strides the adoption of the pertinent portions of the statute and the mandate must construed in this light. If this be so (and we refrain from an opinion), ress may wish to re-examine the statute. But the change sought, if it be de basis of technical advances in radiotelephony, is of the broad scope which ld be by legislation--not on a case-by-case series of exemptions. Our allowances of previous exemptions were referred to in oral argu

(Tr. 18, et seq). Such exemptions have been granted to vessels u performed very limited open sea voyages (New York City garbageving scow), were ill-adapted to rescue work (semi-permanently moored oil drilling ships), or which could not reasonably carry the necessary radiotele1 equipment (Great Lakes tanker with limited fair-weather operation in Atlantic). Were we to adopt petitioner's reasoning, apart from arguments rning his economic burden, we should find it difficult, if not impossible, to granting such exemptions to all coastwise shipping, a virtual nullification ! statute pro tanto. We believe that if such a change is to be made, it should legislation—not our exemption process. Petitioner has failed to justify quest for an exemption. ordingly, it is ordered, This 14th day of January, 1964, That (a) Motions to ct Transcript filed by the parties herein Are Granted; and (b) That the on for Rehearing of J.J. Tennant Company, Is Denied.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

Ben F. WAPLE, Secretary. ed: January 14, 1964.

er, October 3, 1963, FCC 63-892, 28 FR 10934. T. J. Hooper (C.C.A.-22 ; 1932), '60 F. 28 737. lons to Correct Transcript have been filed by the Chief, Safety and Special Radio i Bureau, J. J. Tennant Company, and the American Radio Åssociation. 2-442-64

Mr. BARTLEY. Watson Navigation Co. filed for an exemption under section 352(b) (2) of the Communications Act from the radiotelegraph requirements of title III, part II of the Communications Act, in belalt of a proposed U.S. cargo vessel to be operated in the Hawaiian interisland service.

The Commission denied the application for exemption by report and order adopted March 6, 1963 (FCC 63-211). Thereafter, on June , 1963, it denied a petition for reconsideration of that report and order (FCC 63-519) and in so doing said:

Such a finding (for a radiotelephone safety system and against a radiotele graph safety system) applied on a general basis, would be tantamount to an administrative reversal by the Commission of the legislative judgment expressed in title III, part II, viz., that in the absence of exceptional circumstances radiotelegraphy is the preferred and required mode of maritime safety communication for vessels of over 1,600 gross tons.

In 1936 the United States ratified the 1929 Safety of Life at Sea Convention, which established minimum standards for vessels on international voyages. Part II, title III of the Communications Act was first enacted in 1937 (Public Law 97, 75th Cong., 1st seas, fet 50 Stat. 192). The dominant congressional purpose behind this legis lation was to promote to the highest level the safety of life and to property on the high seas by enforcing certain requirements as to radio apparatus and radio operators. The effect of this legislation was to

In apply the same standards to all U.S. vessels over 1,600 gross tons with no distinction being made between coastwise and international rorages. (S. Rept. 196, 75th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2; H. Rept. 686, 75th and Cong., 1st sess., pp. 2–3.)

The main reason for congressional refusal to make a distinction between cargo vessels making coastwise voyages and international voyages was that radio telegraph would be necessary not only to mong enable the particular vessel to obtain assistance in case of emergency, ale but also to receive distress messages from, and to render assistance to, other vessels which carry radiotelegraph (see H. Rept. 686, 75th Cong. supra).

This principle that all vessels over 1,600 gross tons should be uniformly equipped for participation in a radiotelegraph safety system has been generally applied by the Commission. As we said in the memorandum opinion and order released July 27, 1969, in the Bushey og case:

* Each such ship which is regularly navigated in the open sea is compelled to meet these requirements so long as circumstances indicate that its per manent participation in summoning or rendering assistance would be of substantial value to the system and so long as inherent size, space, or design limitations did not render its participation peculiarly impracticable or impuissible. The necessity for a principle of equal treatment for all such ships simi. larly 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 (FCC 62-821).

It may be that developments in radiotelephone equipment and use techniques have altered safety communication requirements since adoption of title III, part II of the Communications Act.

Radiotelephony is now recognized by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea as an appropriate safety communication system for cargo ships of 500 to 1,600 gross tons when navigated on international voyages, and by title III, part II of the Communi- i

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ations Act for such ships when navigated in the open sea. Even greater recognition is accorded to maritime telephony by Canada, which requires cargo ships of 500 to 5,000 gross tons to be fitted with wo 3-megacycle radiotelephone installations, capable of at least 50 Tatts antenna power, when such ships are navigated on any voyage, other than an international voyage, on the seacoasts of Canada. Cargo ships of 5,000 gross tons and upwards navigated on any voyage of not more than 200 nautical miles from one place to another place on the seacoasts of Canada may elect to install either radiotelephone equipment or radiotelegraph equipment. Canadian rules appear to indicate also that despite the requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, cargo ships of 1,600 to 5,000 gross tons engaged on international voyages are also given this option, provided they do not go more than 100 miles from the nearest land.

While it may be that the strides made by radiotelephony warrant reconsideration of communication safety requirements, particularly with respect to ships operating near the coast, such a basic change, ve feel, should be by legislation rather than effectuated through adninistrative exemption to a clearly established congressional policy In the Matter of Alaska Spruce, Docket No. 15182, 36 FCC, pp. 2-63). In any event, the Commission recommends against the approach f these bills, limited as they are to ships operating in Hawaiian aters, in the absence of an evaluation of the existence, extent, and gnificance of any differences between that area and other coastal reas. And if the policy is to be generally changed, its scope should nclude a consideration of operations in all our coastal waters and an aquiry as to the adequacy of radiotelephony for the safety of vessels ngaged in coastwise voyages as well as the interrelationship, if any,

of diocommunications on such vessels and those on international voyges, which carry radiotelegraph, for safety at sea in general. Any action in this broader area should be undertaken only after a omplete study of the matter, and the Commission recommends that nal action on H.R. 8508 and similar bills be withheld pending the Litcome of such an overall study. If the Congress feels it is warinted, the Commission would be happy to cooperate fully in any ngressional study of the matter, or to undertake such a study solely . in conjunction with other appropriate Government agencies. In the meantime, however, only those vessels which are able to make proper showing under the provisions of section 352(b) of the act, ould be exempted from the requirement of carrying radiotelegraph uipment and radiotelegraph operators and, as has been previously dicated, such exemptions are granted only under exceptional rcumstances. The Budget Bureau advises, Mr. Chairman, that from the standoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the bmission of this statement. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Thank you, Commissioner Bartley, for a conse and excellent statement. Mr. Moss, do you have any questions? Mr. Moss. Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Cunningham? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Mr. Kornegay?

Mr. KORNEGAY. No. Just thank you, Mr. Bartley, for a paper tha certainly enlightens me on the subject matter. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Broyhill?

V Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina. No questions, sir. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Mr. Bartley, in your studies

, in your opiniene 1 on this particular question, which is the safest, the radiotelegraph

, in the radiotelephone?

Mr. BARTLEY. I don't think there is one answer to that question de Ships coming in, international ships coming into an area are required to have radiotelegraph, and even on coastwise voyages where the shin the particular ship involved, say, it is a telephone-equipped ship

, 1 bai may be perfectly safe from its standpoint, if it can get into communcation with the foreign ship. This may be done as they propose here in Hawaii, what we call a crossover method, whereby the ship that has

II radiotelegraph only could undoubtedly get in touch with the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard would then get in touch with the other ship, but it wouldn't be a direct communication with that ship. So there is an element of additional risk, but how substantial it is I don't know. I think generally speaking, you will find that most accidents ocur

allon reasonably close, within a few miles of shore, so that from that stand

III point it may be that there is an edge on that side for radiotelegraph

. On the other hand, the radiotelephone gives you much better conmand of the situation. If you have telephone on the bridge, you hare got a master who can talk directly with another master and get out of situations. Maybe both are better than one.

Mr. Rogers of Texas. Well, at that point, are many of the ships equipped with both?

Mr. Bartley. Yes, sir. I would say-well, I don't know about "many.” But a great number are, yes, sir. All the ships, for example, that ply the Great Lakes coming from foreign ports have telegraph

BE and, when they get to Montreal, if they don't have telephone

, the must put it on in order to navigate the Great Lakes. They have had very good success there.

3 There is one other little matter that needs to be studied here, and

TV this is one that comes up in all international conventions with respect to radiotelephone, and it is called the language barrier. Telegraph

. of course, is an international language, and your code tells you what is being said, but in voice communication, we even have a little difi culty between the Yankees and Southerners sometimes. Mr. ROGERS of Texas. Yes. More besides voice. Mr. Commissioner, have you granted exemptions in other cases!

Mr. BARTLEY. There have been very, very few exemptions and those only in what we call protected waters. I believe, Mr. Woodyard, isn't that

Mr. WOODYARD. Only in protected waters on regular voyages. have granted, none on regular continuous coast wise vovages outside, but we have in two instances granted them for part of the year for a few trips on the east coast where the vessels were especially designed to go through the New York barge canal, and it was very difficult to install telegraph, practically impossible.

Mr. BARTLY. There have been very, very few exemptions.

M

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

es.

C. ROGERS of Texas. Well, now, in granting those exemptions,

elements are necessary insofar as the Commission is concerned Ecz der to justify an exemption?

r. BARTLEY. We have granted none which go into the open sea, Eat in the case of a garbage dump barge in New York City, which peelt was of no value to other ships at all in case of their distress

ther-Mr. Wood yard ?

r. WOODYARD. The two that I spoke of, one of which went along East coast between New York and Philadelphia once a year. It -sarily would run through the New York State barge canal, and it made a trip down to Philadelphia about once a year.

This e no superstructure at all, and it was built this way in order to

through the canal. It couldn't put on masts or have any radio on in the upper part of the ship. i ne other was a similar ship that ran on the east coast for part of 5 rear, a few trips. There were also design problems there.

so those ships didn't run regularly. If the weather was bad they od in, and they stayed in close to shore. They were flat-like r. Rogers of Texas. Is that the only exemptions that have been ved in the last 10 years, we will say? r. WOODYARD. That is since 1938. One of those was in 1938 and other one was several years ago. None are in effect now outside he ships that go just in and out of the harbor like this garbage p vessel that Commissioner Bartley was talking about. It just out a little beyond the lightship for an hour or so and then comes into New York harbor. r. Rogers of Texas. There is something in my mind about some culties that arose with regard to the Thresher submarine incident

brought into conflict the situation here on radiotelephone and graph. Are you familiar with that, Mr. Commissioner? r. BARTLEY. I am not familiar with it, Mr. Chairman. And I bt if we are—the Coast Guard I think could probably give you more rmation on that than we can. r. ROGERS of Texas. Now, suppose this measure was adopted. uld that relieve the present ships using radiotelegraph of carrying xtra man, a telegraph operator? r. BARTLEY. They have to have a qualified operator, but they are the same-the qualifications are not the same for radio telegraph radio telephone operator. r. ROGERS of Texas. One has to be a telegraph operator. The rone might have to be an interpreter. r. BARTLEY. It helps. Actually he can, I believe, serve in two caies. I don't think that the radiotelephone operator license necesy has to be exclusive, the job has to be exclusive to that. I think nbe : Rogers of Texas. One man can be both.

BARTLEY. Or another member of the crew. : ROGERS of Texas. But in other words, this legislation wouldn't adiotelegraphers out of a job unless they happened to have their ties confined solely to knowledge of telegraphy. · BARTLEY. Well, I think that would depend on what the conare. I don't know.

« PreviousContinue »