Board has in the past sought the cooperation of all persons interested in air safety and, regardless of the action taken on this bill, will continue this action. If legislation of this type were enacted, the Board may be expected to initiate a suitable program for direct consultation with the States on mutual problems. This statement has not been cleared with the Bureau of the Budget for advice as to its relation to the program of the President.

Senator HAWKES. Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Emory T. Nunneley, counsel for the Civil Aeronautics Board.

How do you do, Mr. Nunneley? You may go ahead and proceed in your own way.

Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF EMORY T. NUNNELEY, COUNSEL, CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. NUNNELEY. I have a brief one, parts of which I should like to read.

Senator Hawkes, the Civil Aeronautics Board has quite a substantial prepared statement, or memorandum, to the committee relating to this bill, copies of which will be furnished to the committee.

Due to mimeographing difficulties, the Board's memorandum is not yet here, but it will be delivered later this afternoon.

Senator HAWKES. A memorandum in addition to this statement? Mr. NUNNELEY. That is correct, sir.

I would like to have that memorandum made part of the record. Senator HAWKES. We will make that a part of the record when you give it to us.

Mr. NUNNELEY. From my understanding of the proceedings this morning, Senator, I have prepared this statement in an effort to cover the subject generally and to make myself available for such questions as the committee may desire to put to me.

My name is Emory T. Nunneley, Jr. I am general counsel of the Civil Aeronautics Board.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the Civil Aeronautics Board to present its position with respect to the authorization of State officials to enforce Federal air safety regulations and the desirability of confirming and extending existing Federal occupation of the field of aeronautical regulations relating to safety. A written statement of the views of the Board with respect to S, 2452 is being submitted for the consideration of your committee. I will try to provide the committee with a concise summary thereof.

The general principle of State enforcement of Federal air safety regulations has received widespread industry approbation and has been supported by the Civil Aeronautics Board. However, the manner of implementing this principle has not received comparable acceptance. Involving, as it does, complex policy decisions as well as some important legal problems, this lack of unanimity is not surprising.

One school of thought would restrict the scope of State activity to judicial enforcement of Federal air traffic rules through imposition of civil penalties or suspension of the violator's Federal airman certificate, such suspension to be effective only within the State for a limited period. This represents the most narrow view of State participation in enforcement of aeronautical regulation.

Another group would authorize the States to enforce such Federal air safety regulations as they cared to, in State courts or State agencies, primarily through action against Federal certificates. They would also authorize the States to participate in the regulation of air safety, at least, insofar as intrastate operations are concerned, and to enforce violations of such regulations by State-imposed sanctions, chiefly of a criminal nature. Some advocates of this program believe that the State regulation should consist solely of adoption of Federal standards, while others would authorize the States to supplement Federal rules with higher standards for intrastate operation.

Senator HAWKES. I do not know where you stand on the thing yet. But it would be rather difficult for anybody coming into the State to be familiar with the intrastate operation, would it not?

Mr. NUNNELEY. We think it would, Senator. And for that reason, as I shall bring out later, we are in favor of provision for uniform Federal regulation, so far as safety is concerned.

Senator HAWKES. I have always felt that great good to the public would come from having standard road rules for driving automobiles all through the United States. You do not know when you cross a State line, you see. And to have different road rules and regulations for driving is confusing and I think in many cases has led to accidents.

I think what you have in mind there is that same thing in regard to air, is it not?

Mr. NUNNELEY. It is exactly that same type of thing, Senator.

All of us, I think, have experienced the difficulties of making lefthand turns in different ways in the various cities, just as an example. Between the two groups previously mentioned are those persons who, like the Congressional Aviation Policy Board and the President's Air Policy Commission, believe that air safety can best be achieved by marking out well-defined areas for State and Federal activity based upon the job which each is most competent to perform.

These people advocate preempting the entire field of safety regulation for the Federal Government and opening up the field of enforcement, except insofar as foreign and domestic air carriers are concerned, for activity by the State.

It is the opinion of the Board that air safety and civil aviation can be fostered best by a plan which will assure uniformity of air safety standards, together with promptness in the enforcement of such uniform regulations, and that this result can be achieved only through a program such as last suggested.

I might interpolate there that by that I mean exclusive Federal rule-making, but enforcement of those regulations by the State in appropriate situations.

Senator HAWKES. May I ask there: I took it from what you said a moment ago that you believe enforcement by the State and in certain cases the cancellation of the pilot's license for violating the rules, over-all, is something which should carry beyond the State's borders, as far as the pilot is concerned.

Mr. NUNNELEY. That is correct, Senator. It is the Board's belief that the States should be empowered to order suspensions in appropriate cases which would have Nation-wide application.

Senator HAWKES. Thank you very much.

Mr. NUNNELEY. Within the industry and the flying public there is substantial unanimity in the belief that uniformity of safety regulations is highly desirable. Air traffic, whether of a commercial or private nature, is no respecter of State lines. A trip of very short duration may carry the pilot and the aircraft over the territory of several States.

Varying air traffic rules in such States would require the operator to devote considerable time to the study of various local requirements, many of which are changed from time to time, to avoid the possibility of conflict with other air traffic or liability for State imposed sanctions.

The burden on air traffic is obvious. This would be equally true if the State rules related to the construction, design, or repair of the aircraft.

This committee is doubtless aware of the situation in the motor carrier field where due to the fact that the Federal Government, having entered the field at a late date, has not provided for exclusive Federal control, State laws may be enforced which prescribe carrying requirements for size, weight, and equipment of motor trucks. It would be unfortunate if the same diversity of regulation should develop with respect to civil aviation.

Nor is it an answer to say that the State is entitled to regulate at least the activities of its own citizens. It is clear that in view of the necessity for local uniformity that the States would not be content with regulating merely the intrastate activities of its own citizens, but would perforce regulate the activities of others who enter its borders.

These comments are not intended to imply any criticism of any State regulatory agency, but are for the purpose of pointing out the inherent possibilities of conflict and burden in any system which would permit the imposition of 49 varying standards of safety on an activity which by its basic nature cannot be considered as primarily local in

nature.

Although believing in the essential desirability of exclusive Federal regulation of air safety, the Board at the same time believes that enforcement of safety standards may be more effectively accomplished by local State authorities.

It is no secret that the rising backlog of uncompleted enforcement cases is of major concern to the Board and the Administrator. As the Congressional Air Policy Board has pointed out, "The essence of effective enforcement of safety regulations is the speedy and just handling of alleged violations. Prompt action against violations is undoubtedly essential to an effective enforcement program. Under the present system the necessary speed in handling cannot be achieved as your Board indicated without "unduly increasing * * * Federal

personnel." Recommendation 24 (b). Despite the earnest efforts of the Administration and the Board, the backlog of safety cases which is carried over from year to year is increasing rather than decreasing. Senator HAWKES. Have you any figures on the number of that kind that come up in a year, over all?

Have you any figures at all on that?

78828-48- -3

Mr. NUNNELEY. Yes, sir. The number of cases is shown in the statistics which are set out in this next page and a half.

Senator HAWKES. Oh, yes.

Mr. NUNNELEY. During the fiscal year 1946, 428 complaints seeking suspension or revocation of safety certificates were filed with the Board by the Administrator. In fiscal 1947, 881 such cases were filed, and for the first 9 months of fiscal 1948, 660 were filed. Despite the fact that the number of such cases disposed of each year increased from an annual rate of 300 in fiscal 1945 to 760 in the current fiscal year, the backlog of such cases pending before the Board has increased from 94 on July 1, 1945, to 707 at March 31, 1948.

Senator HAWKES. You are almost a year behind.

Mr. NUNNELEY. Yes, sir: as the next sentence says, that is approximately 1 year's work for the Board's present staff of safety hearing

examiners.

In addition, there is reason to believe that there may be reluctance on the part of the enforcement officers-that is, the regional enforcement officers of the Civil Aeronautics Administration-to institute suspension and revocation proceedings in face of the size of the backlog and the period of time during which the complaint will be hanging over the head of the alleged violator, with the result that the number of suspensions and revocation cases is less than might be received if the docket were reasonably current.

The foregoing figures are not, however, the whole story, for they cover only the suspension and revocation proceedings before the Board. The Administrator handles all violations cases in which only civil penalties are sought.

The Administrator's figures, including all types of cases, show that 1,087 such cases were instituted in fiscal 1948, 1,788 such cases in fiscal 1947, and 2,642 in the first 10 months of fiscal 1948. Despite a great increase in the number of cases disposed of, the backlog increased from 187 pending July 1, 1945, to 922 pending July 1, 1947. We do not have any more recent figure as to the Administrator's backlog, but the foregoing serve to indicate the scope of the problem.

This is not merely a transitory situation; it is reasonable to believe that unless an unprecedented staff expansion were to take place the backlog is likely to increase in view of rapid rate of growth in air traffic. A few figures will serve to illustrate the expansion in civil aviation that has taken place in the past 10 years.

In 1938 there was a total of 22,983 pilots of all ratings holding airman certificates. In 1941 the total was 129,947, in 1945 it had reached 220,000, and in 1947 the total was 455,000. These figures indicate an increase in the number of pilots of almost 2,000 percent since the act was passed, and an increase of over 100 percent in the two postwar years.

The aircraft figures are equally significant. From a total of 10,814 certificated planes in 1938, the number has grown to 31,584 on June 30, 1945, and to 93,920 on June 30, 1947, a threefold increase in 2 years.

It is obvious that with increases of such proportions in aircraft and persons authorized to operate them, the number of violations of applicable regulations must also increase many fold, despite any efforts to simplify the regulations.

In terms of Board staff, the number of safety enforcement hearing examiners on the Board's staff was 6 in fiscal 1946, 10 in fiscal 1948,

and 15 were provided for in the appropriation requested of Congress for fiscal 1949.

The Board, therefore, favors legislation which would authorize State participation in enforcement of Federal air safety regulations, but which would exclude the States from promulgating additional or different air safety standards.

The Board believes that the States should be authorized to act through State aviation agencies, if they so desire, as well as State courts, where the States have shown their willingness to assume that responsibility by making provision in their laws for the proper performance of such functions by the State aviation agency.

It is believed that the States have, at present, little desire to undertake enforcement of, and few possess staffs of sufficient technical competence to deal with, standards or regulations other than those dealing with air traffic rules.

However, within the not too distant future, the administration of such standards and regulations as they relate to personal aircraft may become such a burden on the Federal agencies, and the States' interest and ability to administer them may so increase, that it may be desired to extend State powers to enforcement of regulations relating to airworthiness and like matters.

Legislation may be enacted which would authorize the Board to make that determination at a later date as is done in the proposed new section 611 (d) of S. 2452, or the Congress may reserve that decision for itself. If the authority is vested in the Board, however, it is suggested that it is very desirable, and it may even be constitutionally necessary, to prescribe in the statute standards for the guidance of the Board in exercising such authority.

In order that a comprehensive enforcement program be undertaken by the States, and the choice of sanctions in State enforcement activities be guided by sound enforcement policy rather than limitations of legal authority, we believe it is desirable that power to institute actions for civil penalties should be coextensive with the authority granted to suspend Federal certificates.

Although, as previously pointed out, the Board believes that the bill embodies sound principles in expressly preempting the field of air safety regulations for the Federal Government, the Board does not believe that it is desirable to prevent the States from imposing criminal sanctions for willful misconduct of a serious nature while operating an aircraft, or from imposing registration fees, as distinct from safety licenses, on residents of the State.

It is desirable, however, to direct the major State activities towards enforcement of Federal standards, if the dual goals of uniformity and effective enforcement are to be attained.

Senator HAWKES. We will now hear from Mr. R. E. Elwell, general counsel, Department of Commerce.

STATEMENT OF R. E. ELWELL, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. ELWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which I should like to read, with your permission.

Senator HAWKES. Go right ahead, Mr. Elwell.