The aircraft manufacturers sincerely hope that the civil-aviation industry will never be subjected to impediments and barriers to the free flow and full development of air traffic such as the motortruck and motorbus industry have encountered. The adoption of H. R. 1012 is most essential in order to assure a sound and healthy civil-aviation industry for America in days to come. Very truly yours. JAMES P. MURRAY, President. AERONAUTICAL TRAINING SOCIETY, Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LEA: This organization is comprised of various aeronautical training schools under contract with the Army Air Forces. A great many of our members have been flying and conducting pilot training for the past 20 years. From the point of view of the pilot and of the school operator, this organization is greatly interested in H. R. 1012. We want to express our belief that this bill, taken on a whole, is a most constructive and helpful measure and will do much to assure the proper development of civil aviation after the war. The provisions of the bill which provide for encouragement of aeronautical education and other miscellaneous aeronautical activities are of special interest to our association. We are especially glad to see this evidence of an intention to promote flight training and aviation education. In addition, we wish to register our approval of the principle of exclusive Federal regulation. Without doubt, civil aviation can best be promoted and fostered through a single regulatory agency. There has to be uniformity of regulations throughout the country. Safety alone would seem to require it. As a practical matter, Federal regulations have to be complied with by all flyers and operators. Therefore, were there to be 48 different State regulations in addition to the Federal regulations it is difficult to see what useful purpose could be accomplished, and it is easy to see what an unnecessary burden would be placed upon the ordinary pilot and ordinary aircraft operator. Sincerely yours, Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, J. WENDELL COOMBS, President. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 4, 1943. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. LEA: It is my opinion that Federal regulation of the entire field of air navigation and air commerce, intrastate as well as interstate, is essential to the successful development of American aviation and to the position of the United States as a leader in aeronautical progress. Furthermore, I believe that there is ample legal basis to sustain Congress taking over the entire field of air commerce. I have taken that position in public hearings before the American Law Institute, and the American Bar Association and, as a member of the committee of the American Bar Association Committee on Aeronautical Law for much of the time during the last decade, I have been active in urging legislation along these lines. It is therefore with much pleasure that I support H. R. 1012, and submit the following reasoning as of possible help in urging its passage. Occasionally doubt is expressed as to the power of Congress to regulate intrastate air commerce. But the desirability of absolute uniformity in the law and in the regulations governing all air commerce is never controverted. In the early days of aeronautics, uniformity was sought by the device of a Uniform State Regulatory Act. But it became apparent that actual uniformity can be achieved completely and expeditiously only through one government power and consequently the trend of judicial opinion has been toward Federal regulation. The committee on air law of the American Bar Association therefore concluded, after considerable study, that the State Regulatory Act must be rejected in favor of complete and exclusive Federal regulation (66 American Bar Association Reports, 1941, p. 221). Authority to sustain regulation contemplated by H. R. 1012 over intrastate air commerce, is to be found, both by reason of close interrelation with interstate commerce, and because the airspace is a navigable highway for the flow of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has frequently held that the power of Congress may be extended over intrastate commerce where the regulation of such commerce is necessary because of its effect upon interstate commerce or because of the difficulties attendant upon any attempt to separate the two types of activity. See Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612 (1911) (involving the Hours of Service Act of 1907); Southern Railway Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20 (1911) (the Safety Appliance Act of 1893); Interstate Commerce Commission v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U. S. 194 (1912) (the requirement that a carrier of interstate commerce which was also operating intrastate amusement parks render accounts of all its business to the Interstate Commerce Commission); Houston and Texas R. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 351 (1914). Railroad Co nmission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co., 257 U. S. 591 (1922) (Federal regulation of intrastate transportation rates); Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 553 (1937) (application of the Railway Labor Act to intrastate activity of an interstate carrier); Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond and Mortgage Corp., 289 U. S. 266, 279 (1933) (regulation of radio communication); Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U. S. 197, 219 (1938) (regulation of labor relations of a utility engaged wholly in intrastate activity, but selling a relatively small amount of electric energy to interstate carriers). In some industries the very nature of the activity sought to be regulated makes national control essential. Thus, in discussing radio communication, to which air transportation bears a close analogy in this respect, the Supreme Court stated, in Fisher's Blend Station, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 297 U. S. 650, 655 ̊(1936): "By its very nature broadcasting transcends State lines and is national in its scope and importance-characteristics which bring it within the purpose and protection, and subject it to the control, of the commerce clause." The power of the Nation over intrastate commerce is not limited to regulation of activities which actually interfere with interstate commerce. Congress may extend its regulations to intrastate activities which are only potentially burdensome to interstate commerce. Rosenhan v. United States, 131 F. (2d) 932 (C. C. A. 10th, 1942), is an instance in point. This was an action by the United States to recover a penalty for engaging in intrastate flight on a civil airway without a Federal certificate of the airplane's airworthiness. The court conceded that the defendant could have shown that his flight in no wise endangered interstate commerce, but nevertheless granted judgment to the United States for the reason that the flight was potentially dangerous to interstate flights. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case on April 19, 1943. The economics of air transportation form an integral factor in the safety of flight operation. As the Senate Committee on Commerce has said in Senate Report No. 185 (75th Cong.), at page 27, "it should be unnecessary to point out that a profitable operation is essential to safety." In the ordinary exercise of its power to regulate intrastate commerce for the protection of interstate commerce, Congress should should enact measures to place and to keep aerial operations on a sound financial basis. The broad power of Congress under the commerce clause over economic conditions has recently been upheld in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942). There the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to restrict the right of a farmer to raise wheat for his own use on his own farm. National regulation of intrastate air commerce is constitutional for the additional reason that the airspace is a federally controlled highway for the stream of interstate commerce. There is a significant analogy in the decisions of the Supreme Court relating to control of navigable waters under the commerce clause. The Court's decision, in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 563 (1870), that waters are navigable "when they are used, or are susceptible of being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted," applies with equal strength to the air space. Your committee pointed this out with great clarity in stating, in House Report No. 1262 (68th Cong.), on January 20, 1925, and in House Report No. 572 (69th Cong.), on March 17, 1926: "The declaration of what constitutes navigable air space is an exercise of the same source of power, the interstate commerce clause, as that under which Congress has long declared in many acts what constitutes navigable or nonnavigable waters. The right of flight in the navigable air space owes its source to the same constitutional basis which, under decision of the Supreme Court, has given rise to a public easement of navigation in the navigable waters of the United States, regardless of the ownership of the adjacent or subjacent soil." The Supreme Court has upon a number of occasions in recent years held that the navigable waters are fully subject to Federal regulation, and these decisions are equally applicable to the navigable air space. This congressional power exists whether or not the particular waterway (or airway) is actually used for the flow of interstate commerce, and it may be exercised for purposes other than the promotion of navigation. Cf. United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U. S. 377, 426 (1940); Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips, Governor v. Atkinson Co., 313 U. S. 508 (1941). There is another theory sustaining congressional control of the air space over the States which is worthy of serious consideration by your committee. Under principles of international law, the upper strata of the air space over the States, which were not utilized at the time the States became members of the Union, form part of the national domain as newly acquired territory, just as do Hawaii and Alaska, and are therefore subject to Federal legislation without any question of States' rights being involved. Only the air space a few feet above the earth's surface was being utilized at the time of the formation of the Union and at the time of the admission of the later States. Consequently, in accordance with the recognized rule limiting sovereignty to areas under actual occupation through substantial use or settlement, only the surface air space was at that time a part of the domain of the States. Since only an independent nation can acquire new territory, it may well be that the air strata overlying the States, when availed of to a substantial extent in the present century for aeronautical operations and radio communication, became part of the national domain of the United States and therefore subject to exclusive national control. See 1 Hyde, International Law (pp. 162 ff.); 1 Moore, Digest of International Law (pp. 258 ff.); Lee, The Air Domain of the United States, in Civil Aeronautics-Legislative History of the Air Commerce Act of 1926, committee print (1943) (pp. 104 ff.). Other constitutional powers of the Federal Government besides those stemming from the commerce clause may be availed of by Congress in regulating the entire range of aeronautical activity. One of these is the treaty power of the Nation, under which Congress may implement treaties with appropriate legislation which would in the absence of treaty be unconstitutional. This power, which is one of the prerogatives of national status, was sustained by the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 (1920). The Court noted, in language applicable to the present problem of national control of aeronautics, the magnitude of the national interest involved and that it was beyond the capacity of the States for protection (252 U. S. at 435). Since the United States was one of the signatories of the Pan American Convention on Commercial Aviation, article XXXII of which requires the contracting parties to "procure as far as possible uniformity of laws and regulations governing aerial navigation," Congress is empowered to enact legislation to accomplish this objective. And this objective is not limited to regulation of navigation per se, but is broad enough to include factors affecting navigation, such as economic conditions: For here again, "a profitable operation is essential to safety." Aeronautics is of prime national importance and by its very nature is not susceptible to local control. Unity of control is so obviously essential that any nation which is so organized as to preclude such unity must fall by the wayside in the race of aeronautical development. In the interest of this future development, and of the progress of the Nation, it is respectfull urged that H. R. 1012 be enacted into law. Very sincerely yours, MABEL WALKER WILLEBRANDT. NATIONAL AVIATION TRAINING ASSOCIATION, Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LEA: This association advocates uniform aviation regulation as essential to the welfare and future development of private flying and miscellaneous commercial aviation. The provisions of the Lea-Bailey bill (H. R. 1012) designed to accomplish exclusive Federal regulation of this division of aviation are wisely conceived and it is hoped may speedily be adopted. The private flyer and miscellaneous flight operators, such as those who conduct training schools and fixed-base operators, need regulations which are just as simple as possible without sacrificing safety. Such simplicity would be impossible if every State and State subdivision were to be free to adopt regulations, in addition to those of the Federal Government. By its inherent nature aviation is not, and cannot be, a purely local activity. Federal regulation, therefore, is indispensable. But to add to Federal regulation the regulations for 48 States, with the possibility of still further regulations by various State subdivisions would be hopelessly confusing. America in the post-war period should be able to develop the greatest private flying and miscellaneous commercial aviation activities in the world, but to do so the air space over the Nation must be available on equal terms to every citizen. That space cannot be divided into 48 compartments. We urge the enactment of H. R. 1012 with such amendments as may appear necessary, in the considered judgment of the Congress, to safeguard and develop this Nation's resources and advantages in every division of aviation. Very truly yours, C. R. MOONEY, Secretary. AIR LINE MECHANICS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, Chicago, April 1, 1943. Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, Chairman, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LEA: From various Washington releases and news releases I understand that your committee is taking testimony concerning certain parts of H. R. 1012 having to do with the airspace jurisdiction of the United States and other aspects of the States' rights versus Federal rights and on questions as it affects civil flying and air jurisdiction. The possibility that air transportation may be subject to State control that would duplicate Federal regulations seems rather farfetched in its entirety and it is my humble opinion that it would cause conflict between the State and Federal jurisdiction in civil air transportation and would develop into vicious squabbling such as could be political, legal, or otherwise. The Federal Government in our opinion should regulate the navigable airspace in order to eliminate the conflicts that are certain to arise between States and Federal Government relating to this jurisdiction. In view of the splendid work already accomplished by your committee in behalf of civil air transportation we hope that you will oppose any legislation which would permit State control of aviation in any form whatsoever. Very truly yours, AIR LINE MECHANICS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, ZIFF-DAVIS PUBLISHING CO.. Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, Subcommittee on Aviation of the Interstate and DEAR MR. LEA: I have had the pleasure of inspecting your bill, H. R. 1012. It appears to me that legislation of this type is badly needed at the present time. The spectacular growth of the aviation industry has given rise to many diverse interests and considerations. These things are inevitable in any great mushroom growth, bringing in their wake grave problems in addition to great achievement. The very nature of aviation makes necessary one tional policy in reference to it. A multiplicity of individual jurisdictions cannot fail to bring into existence a whole train of evils. Though it is emerging as a great commercial enterprise, aviation has infinitely greater than a commercial importance to the welfare of the country. Its mere existence is a military factor of the greatest possible consequence. It is clear that if the growth of aviation is restricted by chaotic legislation or artificial obstructions of any kind, the Nation itself will suffer. Our air establishment, despite the great impetus given it by the war, will not fully develop unless there is complete freedom of private initiative and an unrestricted development of the private flying phase. When the war is over we will be in possession of every possible requirement for a rapidly augmented air power, both military and commercial. We will have the industrial plant, the know-how, the zeal, and the momentum. We will have literally hundreds of thousands of boys who will have been taught to fly. For the majority of these people, the outlet by which they can continue their interest in flying will be along the lines of private flight. They will face many minor obstacles in their effort to remain part of the flying picture. Flying involves a certain amount of expense, an effort to get to the air fields, and a considerable amount of continuous training. There has been an unhappy tendency on the part of States and municipalities to develop legislation along lines which bear no relationship to comparable legislation in other States. Some of this legislation would place an onerous burden on private flying and undoubtedly on commercial aviation too. It appears to me mandatory that a basic body of legislation be enacted on a national scale, providing for Federal control over all of the important aspects of air commerce and private flying. It is highly unsound to have one set of rules operating in one State and another in an adjoining one. In addition to the safety and economic regulations which are apt to prove complex enough even on a national basis, it will be necessary to enact broad legislation restricting the States from regulating air navigation or air commerce, or hindering the natural development of flight in any way. The tendency toward multiple taxation of air carriers or contractors will have to be met in the same way. If there is any time to do this thing, it is now. If it is allowed to carry on much further, various interests will take shape of such a nature as to make it very difficult to move without running into violent opposition. Even now the opposition from various State or local groups must be considerable. H. R. 1012, as it stands, represents a considerable step forward. The basic principles under which it was conceived should be rigidly held to. The effort to amend these on the part of various groups who are interested in so-called basic State rights, should be uncompromisingly resisted if the needs of the Nation are to be best served. Your committee is doing excellent work and those of us who are interested in the future of aviation in this country are warmly appreciative of it. If I may be of any assistance to you personally at any time, please call on me. Sincerely, WILLIAM B. ZIFF. Hon. CLARENCE F. LEA, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LEA: Your bill, H. R. 1012, has been read by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Our membership, which runs into the thousands, is composed exclusively of pilots, and we have inspected this bill largely from the standpoint of the individual plane owner and pilot. We wish to express to you our hearty endorsement of those features of the bill which would provide for exclusively Federal regulation of air navigation. This will assuredly aid the development of nonscheduled civilian flying. Duplicating and conflicting State regulations covering private flying are well known to us. They have been encountered time after time, practically always with a hampering influence. For instance, a few years ago a Monocoupe could legally fly in every State except the State of Connecticut. The plane had not been approved in Connecticut at that time. If a pilot landed a Monocoupe in Connecticut to replenish his gas supply he had to take it out of the State on a truck. Airplanes move too freely and too fast in the great ocean of the air to take a variety of State laws into account. A private flyer could not successfully abide by a kaleidoscopic variety of regulations of the several States through which he flies. Regulation is, of course, necessary, and private pilots favor regulation by an expert Federal agency which specializes in the complicated problems of aviation rather than a hodge-podge of regulations by heterogeneous State bodies whose efforts probably would be amateurish by comparison. Furthermore, the volume of material to be studied would alone render that system impractical. A pilot cannot now remember all the rules passed by just the one Federal regulating body. Where would he be if he had 48 times as much to digest? |