provided in section 352 (b) of the act for an exemption authority patterned closely after that contained in the 1929 convention. As a result of experience with this former exemption provision, it was modified internationally by the 1948 safety convention, and the Commission's proposal here would effect a similar modification in the domestic law.

We believe it is important that the radio exemption provisions of the safety convention and the provisions in the Communications Act for exempting ships from the compulsory radio requirements of part II of title III be substantially identical. The changes proposed to be made in the exemption provisions of section 352 (b) of the act are in the direction of increased flexibility which experience, domestic as well as international, has shown to be desirable. The provisions of the act would be amended so as to provide expressly, that is, added, for partial or conditional exemptions in addition to complete exemptions as provided for under the existing provisions of section 352 (b) of the act. The power to issue such partial or conditional exemptions is useful in maintaining some safety radio requirements for vessels normally subject to all radio requirements but which are unable to or otherwise need not comply fully with all such requirements. For example, a vessel on which it is physically impossible to install radiotelegraph equipment could be required to carry radiotelephone equipment instead of no radio equipment, which would result if a complete exemption were granted.

The present provisions of the act exclude from eligibility for exemption passenger ships which go more than 20 nautical miles off shore or more than 200 miles between ports and cargo ships which go more than 150 miles offshore. The proposed amendment would require that in lieu of these specific mileage limitations the commission must consider and this is important-the maximum distance of the ship from the nearest land, the length of the voyage, the absence of general navigational hazards, and other conditions affecting safety and I would like here to underline the word "safety" which does not appear in the present act-in determining whether to grant exemptions.

This is intended to enable the Commission to afford consideration to all cases where special circumstances might exist whether or not they fall within any arbitrary mileage limitations. For there will be cases where exemptions from ship radio requirements in whole or part are obviously and clearly warranted but where, under the existing provisions of the act, we would be unable to take proper action because of the existing mileage limitations on the Commission's authority.

Admittedly, the proposed amendments to section 352 (b) will widen the Commission's discretion with respect to exemptions. But the Commission's past exemption record has, I believe, been excellent in its moderation. There is no reason to anticipate any excessive use of this authority if section 352 (b) of the act is amended as proposed. These amendments would, however, permit the Commission, after consideration of all relevant factors, to take care of special hardship cases in a practical way without sacrificing essential safety requirements. And I should like to emphasize once again that in making its decision, the Commission will be required under the proposed statute to consider a number of things-the maximum distance of the ship from the nearest land, the length of the voyage, the absence of general navigational hazards, and other conditions affecting safety.

I would just like to add several things here. This emphasis that I have laid upon this criteria that the Commission is faced with-let us contrast that with the present criteria. There are two things in that criteria outside of the mileage limits.

It says: "You must consider"-I am speaking of the Commission"The Commission must consider the route or the condition of the voyage, and (2) or other circumstances."

The second phrase that I have given you, "or other circumstances,” is wide open, if you wish to interpret it that way.

The proposed amendment says, "and other conditions affecting safety." The Commission would be limited to looking at it from a purely safety standpoint.

Now, as a matter of fact, in my opinion, these proposed limitations have the effect of prompting the Commission to take even greater precautions in considering waivers than under the present wording.

No lowering of the standards is involved in this bill. As a matter of fact, I am prepared to show you where the treaty and this bill raise safety standards by the imposition of radio aboard ships.

Now, this concludes the statement that I had prepared myself for, but I hold myself in readiness to supply the committee with any information that I can give.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Senator Johnson?

Senator JOHNSON. Yes; Commissioner Webster. I want to ask you 1 or 2 questions.

How large a bureau do you have for exercising the responsibility with respect to marine navigation?

Commissioner WEBSTER. We have a Marine Division within the Bureau of Special and Safety Services. That Division generally supervises the regulation for us of this part of the act and of the treaty.

Senator JOHNSON. Is it a large bureau?

Commissioner WEBSTER. I don't know just how many they have there at the present time.

Senator JOHNSON. Approximately.

Commissioner WEBSTER. We have 10 people in that section, sir. Senator JOHNSON. As I understand your remarks after you finished your paper here, it would indicate that you intended to look into each trip, each voyage, of each ship, and if there were extra hazards, you would handle it one way. If the hazards were not great, you might handle it another way. Is that feasible? Is that possible to have that much flexibility so that you can look into each voyage and set up rules for each trip?

Commissioner WEBSTER. We do not set up rules for each trip, but we do make an analysis of the trip that is proposed to be taken by the ship that requests a relaxation on exemption. Now, that is based on the merits of that particular case.

For instance, if a vessel wanted to sail from New York City to Philadelphia for the purpose of moving from one shipyard to another, we might there be faced with a practical situation of getting it from one port to another, and they are in the process of repairs. It might not be practicable to put the full complement of equipment that would be required by the act. In that case we would analyze that particular voyage; we would look at these hazards, and so forth, and see whether it would be proper, under the conditions that the ship would be faced

with, to put aboard, say, a transmitter of lower power, or a jury-rig of some kind that would take care of the ship but not lose any of the essential elements that are required for safety.

In other words, he would have a transmitter, a receiver; he would have an operator aboard, and he would have to stand certain watches. We might modify one or more of those elements in order to get him from the New York yard to the Philadelphia yard. That is an illustration.

Senator JOHNSON. Isn't that within the 20 nautical miles?

Commissioner WEBSTER. I am giving you an illustration of what the Commission is faced with when it analyzes a particular situation. We would then analyze the distance off shore he would have to gothat is, along the Jersey coast-the navigational hazards and all of that to determine what we would do.

I am only using that as an illustration of what the Commission does in those cases. We analyze every one of them.

Senator JOHNSON. Where is the office?

Commissioner WEBSTER. Right here in Washington.

Senator JOHNSON. Right here in Washington?

Commissioner WEBSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. How many ships do you have under your jurisdiction?

Commissioner WEBSTER. The ships go and come at the moment because some are being laid up.

Senator JOHNSON. How many voyages do you consider?

Commissioner WEBSTER. I haven't any idea about the number of

voyages.

Senator JOHNSON. A thousand, two thousand, ten thousand?

Commissioner WEBSTER. We have never kept a record, and I have never looked into the number of voyages that ships make in a year. Senator JOHNSON. Well, as I understand it, you have to keep track of each voyage.

Commissioner WEBSTER. No.

Senator JOHNSON. You have to set the standards for each voyage. Commissioner Webster. Well, the act gives us, first, the criterion. Then we write the rules to implement the act. Now, we do have a set of voluminous rules as to what the transmitter must meet, all the technical requirements, the operator qualifications. That is all set forth in the rules; everything to do with the equipment on board, the watches; all those rules are set forth, all within the requirements of the act.

Now, we have implemented that act so every shipowner knows exactly what he is up against in his day-to-day operations. It is only these occasional situations that arise where you have a situation of a ship going from one place to another, and for some reason that the owner puts up, he asks for the exemption, and in this case, if this went through, a partial exemption, to meet a certain condition

Senator JOHNSON. You are talking about the present law, operation under the present law?

Commissioner WEBSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. Not under the bill as we have before us, the bill we have before us. You are talking about the operation under the present law.

Commissioner WEBSTER. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. Would the present law make for more safety, or would it make for less safety than the present law, in your opinion? Commissioner WEBSTER. It would certainly not make for less safety. It would give the Commission, as I have said here, more flexibility in cases that were worthy of it.

Senator JOHNSON. Would it make for greater costs, or would it make for lesser costs to the shipping industry?

Commissioner WEBSTER. I don't think it would be a cost matter because there wouldn't be enough of them to be a burden on anyone. It is only in individual special cases that this situation arises.

Senator JOHNSON. Is this an economic problem, or is it a safety problem, or what kind of a problem is it that is sought to be cured by this bill?

Commissioner WEBSTER. The entire bill raises the standards. Senator JOHNSON. I mean the specific portions of the bill

Commissioner WEBSTER. The specific portion. if we are confining ourselves

Senator JOHNSON. 352 (b).

Commissioner WEBSTER. That is to give us a formula that is the same formula as you have on the international level so that we don't have to treat international ships one way and our domestic ships another.

Now, we put it all under one umbrella. The situation, in my opinion, won't be any different than it is today except that it removes that 20 miles and 150 miles, but it ties us down in our consideration of an exemption, and I would like to make clear that you don't have exemptions by the hundreds. You only have exemptions here and there to satisfy certain particular situations.

Senator JOHNSON. Are those particular situations made in the name of safety, or are they made for economic reasons, or for what reasons are they made?

Commissioner WEBSTER. Well, let us take the illustration of a ship running from New York to Philadelphia under repairs. Their radio room isn't finished, and it may well be that we would waive some of our requirements for the installation of that equipment. We would not relieve them of carrying the transmitter nor the receiver nor the operator.

We would only back off of some of these rigid requirements in order to get the ship from one place to another.

Senator JOHNSON. Do I understand that where foreign ships ply between two ports in the United States that you have jurisdiction over them?

Commissioner WEBSTER. If they are treaty ships; if their country has signed this treaty, they carry a certificate to that effect from their home government. Now, we may go aboard and look at that ship to see that everything is in operating condition. If we had enough men, we would do it in all cases, but we don't at the moment. We only look at that ship to see that the apparatus is in operating condition. The country has certified that it meets the treaty, so we would not take any further action on that ship.

Now, if that ship belongs to a country that is not a party to the treaty, then we have jurisdiction over that ship the same as our own, and then we would step aboard and apply all of our rules and regulations to that ship. We have numerous cases of that kind.

Senator JOHNSON. How much policing does the division do with respect to these matters under your jurisdiction?

Commissioner Webster. Physical inspection, you mean, at the

ports?

Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

Commissioner WEBSTER. We have a field organization that does that for the Commission, men located in the various ports.

Senator JOHNSON. Getting back to S. 2453, you have only mentioned a couple of provisions in it, and the previous witness, Mr. Strichartz, only mentioned a couple of provisions in it. Do I understand that most of the provisions in S. 2453 are noncontroversial and that everybody is in favor of them? Is that your understanding?

Commissioner WEBSTER. That is my understanding because I have heard no criticism of the rest of the bill, and we came here with that thought in mind, that we had nothing directly officially from the committee here, but from my knowledge of what people think and so forth, we draw the conclusion that this was the only matter in controversy.

Senator JOHNSON. And the matters that are in controversy do you regard as the very heart and soul of the bill?

Commissioner WEBSTER. No, sir; I do not. I think the heart and soul of the bill is as to what the United States as a country gains from this entire bill, and there are some gains in here. I don't think they should be overlooked. The country is gaining something here; that is, in safety.

Senator JOHNSON. What sections of this bill might be stricken out by this committee and still have value left in the bill? I mean, the controversial sections.

Commissioner WEBSTER. I don't think there is anything in here,

Senator

Senator JOHNSON. I know there is something you wouldn't want stricken out, but suppose the situation became one of either losing the bill or losing maybe a couple of its provisions, which would you prefer? The loss of the bill or the loss of maybe two provisions?

Commissioner WEBSTER. If I can give my personal opinion-because I haven't talked to the Commissioners along this particular line

Senator JOHNSON. Well you are an expert in this field. We recognize that. You have had long experience, and I, for one, have great confidence in your capacity and your ability and your integrity and your knowledge of these things, and I would regard you as more competent, perhaps, to testify in this field than almost anyone in the Government, so don't be backward about telling us what you think, your private opinion, if that is necessary.

Commissioner WEBSTER. Thank you very much, Senator, for those remarks.

The bill as a whole hangs together so closely that I would not advocate any change in any part of the bill. I would, however, say that I feel that if anything must be done, it should be done in the item in which there is controversy, and that is 352 (b), and there may be room there for some change of language.

Senator JOHNSON. 352 (b), that is on page 3 of the bill.

Commissioner WEBSTER. That is the exemption provision, the botton of the page; yes, sir.