FCC Record, Volume 3, No. 14, Pages 4085 to 4354, July 5 - July 15, 1988 Page: 4,128
xiii, 4085-4354 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
3 FCC Rcd No. 14
6. Section 352(b) of the Communications Act permits
the Commission to exempt cargo ships from these requirements
if in the course of their voyages they do not go
more than 150 nautical miles from the nearest land and if
the Commission considers that the route or conditions of
the voyages or other circumstances are such as to render a
radio station unreasonable or unnecessary for the purposes
of the Act. The Safety Convention also permits exemptions.
Regulation 5 of Chapter IV of the Safety Convention
permits Administrations to grant exemptions where
the maximum distance of the ship from the shore. the
length of the voyage, the absence of general navigational
hazards, and other conditions affecting safety are such as
to render the radiotelegraph station unreasonable or unnecessary.
No maximum distance from land is specified.
7. In evaluating an individual request for exemption
from the radio requirements of the Communications Act
and/or Safety Convention. we review the radio equipment
carried on the ship, its ability to communicate with shore
stations and other ships, and its capability to come to the
rescue of other ships sailing in the same area. At a minimum,
a cargo ship seeking an exemption from the
radiotelegraph provisions must sail on voyages within 150
nautical miles of the nearest land and carry radio equipment
sufficient to maintain communications with shore
and ships along the routes of the voyages. Other conditions
or circumstances concerning the particular ship
and the intended voyage(s) are considered on a caseby-case
basis. Additionally, the Commission has provided
a general exemption. 47 C.F.R. 80.836(c). for ships with
specified state of the art communications equipment on
voyages along the coasts of the 48 contiguous states. A
ship that meets the requirements of that rule may sail
without a radiotelegraph station. No other authorization is
required. The Commission adopted Section 80.836(c) after
a Rule Making proceeding in which it carefully evaluated
all viewpoints, including many of the same arguments
made here by ROU/ARA. Amendment of Part 83. 89 FCC
2d 40 (1982), aff'd sub nom. American Radio Ass' n v.
FCC, 690 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied. 460 U.S.
1051 (1983). Ships granted individual exemptions are required
to meet essentially the same equipment requirements
and other conditions specified in Section 80.836(c).
III. DISCUSSION
8. The voyages covered in the exemption requests and
the two exemption grants at issue are primarily extensions
of the voyages permitted by the general exemption in
Section 80.836(c). In each case the ship operator will carry
at least as much radio equipment as Section 80.836(c)
requires. In opposing all 22 exemptions, ROU/ARA reiterate
arguments made in the general exemption Rule
Making proceeding. Essentially they argue:
a. The Commission lacks statutory authority to grant
the exemptions;
b. Granting the exemptions would have an adverse
impact on national security by diminishing the pool
of manual Morse code radiotelegraph operators
available for national defense needs; and
c. Granting the exemptions would decrease safety of
ships at sea.A. Statutory Authority
9. It is clear from the plain meaning of 47 U.S.C.
352(b) that the Commission has the statutory authority to
grant the exemptions. Section 352(b) provides in pertinent
part, the Commission may, if it considers that the route or
the conditions of the voyage or other circumstances are
such as to render a radio station unreasonable or unnecessary
for the purposes of [Title III. Part II of the Communications
Act], exempt from [its] provisions any ship or
class of ship which falls within any of the following descriptions:
. . (2) Cargo ships which in the course of their
voyage do not go more than one hundred and fifty nautical
miles from the nearest land .... In addition, this
issue was raised by the ROU/ARA and thoroughly treated
in the general exemption proceeding, Amendment of Part
83. supra, at 51-53, and the Commission's authority was
upheld in the courts on appeal. American Radio Ass' n v.
FCC, supra. Thus, the Commission clearly has authority to
grant such exemptions.
B. National Security
10. The grant of the subject exemption requests would
have no impact on national security. The U.S. Navy does
not rely on manual Morse code telegraphy for ship-to-ship
or ship-to-shore communications. Thus no interoperability
requirement with the Navy exists for a radiotelegraph
operator on cargo ships. Additionally, the Navy does not
even maintain a watch on the 500 kHz Morse code distress
frequency. Further, we asked the Navy whether it
had any objections or concerns regarding the requested
exemptions. Letter from Dennis R. Patrick, Chairman, to
Admiral C.A.H. Trost (February 3, 1988). The Navy replied
that it had "no objection to granting the proposed
exemptions." Letter from C.A.H. Trost. Chief of Naval
Operations to Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
(April 22, 1988).
11. We provided this exchange of correspondence to the
parties to this proceeding and stated that comments should
be filed by May 20, 1988. Exxon, AIMS and IOM filed
comments on May 20 supporting the Navy's position.
ROU filed comments on May 20 criticizing the Navy's
position (and questioning the safety record of vessels that
are voluntarily equipped with radiotelephone and reiterating
its concerns about the routes and conditions of the
voyages proposed in the exemption requests). ROU filed
additional comments on June 2, 1988, to which it attached
a letter dated May 6, 1988. from Lawrence Layman, Director,
Space, Command and Control, Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations, to ROU. In the June 2 comments
ROU attempted to interpret Admiral Layman's letter as
support for ROU's position. Admiral Layman, however,
has since confirmed that his letter "does not alter nor
supersede the CNO's position [as stated in his April 22
letter]." Letter from Admiral Lawrence Layman to Mr. R.
H. McNamara (June 3, 1988).5 In view of the Navy's
response, we find no merit in ROU's assertion that the
grant of the requested exemptions would have an adverse
impact on national security.
C. Safety
12. First we note that ROU/ARA have not questioned
the specific proposals as to equipment or the routes of the
ship's voyages in any of the exemption requests.
ROU/ARA argue generally that the exemptions would
decrease safety of ships at sea without discussing the par
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 3, No. 14, Pages 4085 to 4354, July 5 - July 15, 1988, book, July 1988; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1623/m1/60/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.