APPENDIX I AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION AND MASTERS, MATES AND PILOTS OF AMERICA, INC. APRIL 27, 1953. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: We are pleased to advise you that the national executive committee of this organization, in a meeting on April 21, 1953, in the Hamilton Hotel, Washington, D. C., unanimously concurred in a resolution to notify you and all other parties concerned that we do not claim jurisdiction over proper operation and maintenance of any radio or electronic communication devices on American-flag vessels. We agree that this is properly the work of the radio officers on board the vessels. Capt. JOHN M. BISHOP, MAY 5, 1953. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: This is to acknowledge your letter of April 27 and we wish to thank you for the forthright position taken by the Masters, Mates and Pilots of America in regard to the radio officers' jurisdiction over any and all radio and/or electronic communications. We are likewise pleased to notify you that the American Radio Association does not claim jurisdiction over any or all electronic equipment, which is now in use or which may later be used directly in connection with the navigation of the vessel. Our position is that the operation of such navigational equipment is without question under the jurisdiction of your union. With best wishes for continued cooperation and friendship between our two unions, I am, Fraternally yours, APPENDIX II W. R. STEINberg, VESSELS LISTED BY FORMER FCC CHAIRMAN, PAUL A. WALKER, AS REQUIRING EXEMPTION There are several classes of vessels listed below which are excepted by regulation 3 of chapter I of the 1948 convention from complying with the convention regulations, which, with respect to foreign vessels, are not excepted under section 352 of the Communications Act unless they carry convention certificates. These classes of ships are: (a) Ships not propelled by mechanical means (with respect to vessels within this class, the Communications Act excepts vessels in tow but does not except sailing ships). (b) Wooden ships of primitive build. (c) Pleasure yachts not engaged in trade. (The Communications Act excepts only yachts which are of less than 600 gross tons). (d) Fishing vessels. APPENDIX III PROPOSED WORDING TO MEET EXEMPTION NEEDS CITED BY FORMER FCC CHAIRMAN WALKER Amend section 352 (a) by adding the following as new subsections (7), (8), and (9): "(7) Ships not propelled by mechanical means; "(8) Wooden ships of primitive build; "(9) Pleasure yachts not engaged in trade, if less than 500 tons; "(10) Fishing vessels." Senator SCHOEPPEL. Proceed. Mr. STRICHARTZ. Now, graphically to show the difference between the old and the new section as proposed, section 352 (b), I brought a map of the United States which has marked off the limits that the FCC now operate within in granting exemptions. Vessels that go outside the red line cannot be exempted; only vessels which ply within ports within that red line can be exempted. Senator JOHNSON. That is under present law? Mr. STRICHARTZ. Under present law, vessels cannot go outside of those lines and be exemptions by the FCC. Efforts to get those exemptions are stopped dead by the Congress-set barriers. Senator JOHNSON. Is there much traffic within those red lines? Mr. STRICHARTZ. There is a certain amount of traffic, and it is usually conducted by smaller vessels of shallow draft which ply the so-called inland waterways. The United States coastwise trade usually goes outside of those limits for navigation reasons, traffic reasons. For example, a coastwise tanker would cut out into the Gulf Stream in making the trip between the Gulf of Mexico ports and the Atlantic east coast, because it would get the additional-I am not a navigating officer-it gets the additional push of the stream on the northern trip, and it usually enjoys better weather in the stream. These are the boundaries of the present law. Under the proposed change by the FCC, the FCC would be enabled to exempt vessels going anywhere in the world. There are no markings on this map because there are no limits to the power of the FCC to exempt. What this amounts to is that the FCC now has a law which it must administer and does so. Under the proposed authority to exempt, the FCC would have the flexible power to apply the law or not, to apply some of it or all of it, to apply it to some vessels or to most vessels or to no vessels. Now, we don't say that they would, but we do say these pressures exist, and they are blind and shortsighted pressures, motivated by economic considerations without the long view to keep at least one electronically trained man aboard the ships, the radio officers. We found it hard to believe when the radio phones began coming on the ships and we saw the ship's instructions that these were not to be touched by the radio officers. We were flabbergasted. When we approached the ships, they thought they had found something new, as though this weren't as old as the 1930's and the 1920's. If the Congress-set limits are removed, what you do in effect is repeal the Communications Act as it applies to ships, replace the authority and the mandate of Congress with the discretion of the FCC, remove the specific numerical and definite grounds which cannot be weaseled, stretched, or shrunk because you can't take 20 nautical miles and do anything with it but observe it, and you replace it with the mandate of the FCC to give these exemptions, and you would have that tremendous pressure to open the way for these exemptions. Now, I would like to point out that there was Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question if the witness is willing? Senator SCHOEPPEL. Yes. Senator Johnson. I Senator JOHNSON. I want to get this matter clear in my mind. did have it clear some years ago, but I am a little hazy on it. There is a convention, an international convention, with respect to safety that has certain rules regarding this whole problem; is that true? Mr. STRICHARTZ. Yes, sir; that is the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, London, 1948. Previously it was the London, 1929 convention which set these rules. That convention, from which I have quoted, comes far below the standards of the Communications Act. The Communications Act of 1934 went far above the London, 1929 convention, and it is our belief that the convention of 1948 should not be used to lower the Communications Act at all. Let me give you an example. In that London convention of 1948 they set minimum standards of radio officers and watches on vessels as follows: Cargo ships, 2 hours a day. The Communications Act requires 8 hours a day. Passenger ships with less than 250 passengers-and we have quite a number under the American flag that carry less than 250 passengers-8 hours of watch a day and only 1 radio officer required aboard. Under the Communications Act 2 are required, but with the 8-hour watch requirement, 3 are carried, and on larger vessels, more are carried. Passenger ships that carry more than 250 passengers, but go 16 hours between ports only require 1 radio officer. These are low minimal standards. There are nations of the world which come into these conventions. They want to participate for the advantages they get, but they don't want to come all the way up to the higher standards. They can't afford it, or their way of doing things is to maintain lower standards. Compromises are made in order to draw them into this network, because the network only works if everybody is in it. They are given the right to exempt. They are given the right to waive. They are given the right to be flexible in the application of these provisions. But over the years the network grows, and these nations are brought up by the growth of that network. The mate-radio-operator, for example, has almost disappeared, but there are still nations of the world that have it. The provision for 2 hours a day of watch is a concession to those mate-radio-operator nations. Some of the Scandinavian ships have it, for example; some of the Panamanian ships have it. The mate radio-operator can't stand 8 hours of watch and 8 hours of navigating. That would make his day a 16-hour day which normally the average person cannot do. It is not a feasible operation. That is a concession to them. The Commission hasn't come in and proposed we go down to that low standard of 2 hours a day of watch. But the Commission has come in and requested that it be given the power to apply these exemptions flexibly, to exempt as they please, so to speak. I don't know whether the Commission realizes that what they are asking for is a highly volatile power. Perhaps it is a power grab on the part of the Commission. I would incline to doubt it, but in any event they are picking up something which can explode not only in their face, but explode aboard the ships because you will have sea casualties. That can't be avoided. That is in the nature of shipping. The only difference between a sea catastrophe and a sea casualty is when you have radio operators who can call other ships to the scene and get assistance. There was off the coast of Canada about a year or so ago a distress situation, and I would like to read into the record an account-not read into the record, but enter into the record for the information of the committee an account of what happened on the Princess Kathleen which went down off the coast of Canada. That vessel had both a radio operator and radio telephone operator by mates. They completely bypassed the radio operators on the ship, and being navigating officers, the best navigating officer in the world is not going to be a good radio officer. They proceeded to put the radio phone station on the air, but not on the distress frequency, and they were hollering, "May day, May day," which is the distress call, the phone equivalent of SOS, but they were hollering it into an empty barrel because nobody was on that frequency, and nobody was listening. Luckily the ship was grounded right off shore, and everybody waded ashore, including a couple of hundred passengers. That is the kind of situation that can arise. We had a much worse situation at the entrance to the Golden Gate off San Francisco about a year and a half ago when the S. S. Mary Luckenbach collided with a Navy hospital ship, Benevolence. The Benevolence wasn't able to get a radio distress message on the air. They collided in a fog off the entrance to the Golden Gate. The master on the Mary Luckenbach proceeded to his radio telephone and called the company office and said, "I just had a collision." He failed to tell the radio officer to put distress signals on the air. The radio officer stood by in the radio room, which is his duty station, waiting for orders to go on the air with distress signals, with at least a notice to all shipping in the vicinity that there had been a collision. No such orders were given. That was all established in the coast guard transcript of the hearing. Meanwhile, the Benevolence sank. She was on a trial run. Luckily there weren't sick and injured, but crew members. The Benevolence sank, and everybody was in the water off the mouth of the Golden Gate with numerous ships in a position to come to their aid, and nobody went on the air and said, "There has been a collision here and look out for possible survivors or a ship out of control." Nobody went on the air. The Benevolence went to the bottom without a radio call being put out. The Mary didn't sink; the Mary Luckenbach didn't sink. The master was talking to the company officer, and an hour later the coast guard, which monitors those frequencies, heard talk of a collision and asked "What is this?" Then they found out; ships converged on the scene. Meanwhile 19 men drowned who could have been picked up in the water. The description of the survivors of these men who froze and let go of the wreckage that they were floating on was a harrowing business. Now, this was on the Mary Luckenbach of the Luckenbach Steamship Co., which was one of the first of the steamship companies which tried to, as we call it in maritime parlance, dump us. This is the company whose hectographed instructions to masters were under no circumstances to permit the radio officer near this equipment, and they told us frankly, "This stuff is being put aboard, and after we get it worked in, we are going to go down to Washington and get authorization to push you guys off, because we are in a coast wise operation." Now, as we say, if the FCC is given the discretion to exempt these companies with their weird reasoning, we will build up cases, and the FCC will be under terrific pressure. Whether they will resist or not, we don't know. We certainly hope so. We have a right to believe that they would, but the pressure would be incessant and would keep increasing, and in the meanwhile they could always cite their foreign competition which has lower standards, and the entire structure of sea safety would be destroyed. The first major sea catastrophe in which hundreds of passengers would be involved-the FCC would be blamed for not holding these standards, for letting down the bars, and the FCC would say, "Well, Congress told us we could, and we couldn't resist the pressure that came when Congress lifted it." Everybody would be looking to blame, but the survivors and the beneficiaries of those who were lost would want to know who let down the bars, who destroyed an effective, working network that has functioned for sea safety up to this time. We therefore propose that the section 352 be kept intact and that the power to exempt those specific classes of ships which the FCC says they need to exempt be maintained-not maintained, but be given to the FCC by a spelling out, by a listing of the exact vessels and just how much exemption is desired to give them. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Any further questions, Senator Johnson? Senator JOHNSON. No questions. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Senator Hunt? Thank you so very much for your testimony, sir. Commissioner Webster, I note that you have a statement. You may proceed in any manner that you desire, either following your testimony as you have submitted it to the committee or elaborating on it. STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. WEBSTER, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Commissioner WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Edward M. Webster. On behalf of the Federal Communications Commission, of which I am a member, and pursuant to its directions I am appearing here today to testify with respect to Senate bill S. 2453, which was introduced by the late Senator Charles W. Tobey at the request of the Commission. This morning, upon reviewing the statement which I had previously prepared for presentation today in connection with this bill, it occurred to me that it might be helpful to the committee if I gave, for the record, and for your information, a brief preliminary historical sketch of the various steps which have been taken over the years with respect to legislation and treaties having to do with compulsory equipping of United States ships with radio for safety purposes. The first domestic marine radio legislation was passed in 1910 and amended in 1912 requiring radio apparatus and radio operators on certain merchant ships of the United States, generally speaking, steam vessels carrying 50 or more persons, and plying between ports over 200 miles apart. At an International Safety of Life at Sea Conference held in London in 1929, a compulsory radio formula was set forth covering all cargo |