but the chairman of the committee considering these rules laid down as a policy that there should be every effort to attain unanimity. So the fact is that you could say that there was unanimity, substantial unanimity, anyway, on every change made. Then, of course, when these proposed rules were submitted to the plenary session, they were adopted unanimously there. Mr. GOODLING. What happens if we adopt them here and the other nations do not adopt them officially? Captain MCCOMB. In that case they would never be adopted internationally. They will not be adopted internationally until it has been determined that there is substantial unanimity. Mr. GOODLING. For my own satisfaction, I was wondering what line 3 in the bill means. The President is authorized to proclaim the regulations. Why is that there? Why do we do that? Captain MCCOMB. We could not make section 4 of this bill the law of the United States at this time, because other nations are acting under a different set of rules. This merely gives the President authority, when all other nations are prepared to adopt it, so that we can adopt it at that same instant. As of a certain time, all nations will switch from the 1948 rules to the 1960 rules. Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Tupper? Mr. TUPPER. I have no questions. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Grover? Mr. GROVER. I have one question. On page 3, No. 2, you recite: "New rules were adopted whereby vessels under 65 feet in length and sailing craft would not be permitted to hamper the safe passage of larger vessels in narrow channels." Where is that reflected in the bill? Captain McCOMB. 20 (b) for the sailing vessels and 25 (c) for the power craft. That would be on page 33, line 24, and page 36, line 9. Mr. GROVER. I see. This gives the right-of-way to the power-driven vessel except as provided in rules 24 and 26? The only reason this comes to my mind is that being a small boat sailor, I know there are a lot of large sailing craft and I think at the World's Fair there is going to be a call around the world for a visitation of the large sailing craft. Some of them may well be in excess of 100 feet. Captain MCCOMB. This will not apply to the harbors and inland waters. This is only for the outside waters. Mr. GROVER. I see. Well, it would be outside waters where they have narrow channels. Captain McCоMB. Yes, sir. Mr. GROVER. In other words, there would be bars, and so forth, but you would have channels so that it is conceivable that you could be in a situation where you would be declaring the rights and liabilities here and in a sense favoring the powered vessel where under certain wind conditions I can conceive that there should be consideration for this large sailing craft which might not be under power. Captain McCOMB. It is possible. Mr. GROVER. Had that been considered? It would be unique or unusual that it would occur, but it could occur. Captain MAGENNIS. Although this rule does not say so, it was really intended to apply to the smaller type of sailing craft which can easily maneuver. Of course, if any ship cannot maneuver, sailing craft or otherwise, if it is a large ship and cannot get out of the channel safely, there would be no obligation on the ship to do so. This was only intended to take care of those cases where your large power vessels, because of their deep draft, cannot get out of the channel. Certainly if two ships are approaching each other and they are both under handicaps as you mentioned Mr. GROVER. Then there is a mutuality of obligation? interpretation of the rules, as Mr. BYRNE. I have no questions. Mr. MORTON. Captain, on this rule requiring a light to be displayed simultaneously with a whistle, where does that appear in the bill? Captain MCCOMв. That is 28 (c), which is at the bottom of page 37. Mr. MORTON. The reason I bring it up is that I wonder whether this requires these vessels to have any particularly specialized equipment of an expensive nature. Does this light have to be anything more than just the ordinary type of navigation light or does it exercise any kind of a financial hardship? Captain MCCOMB. First, I would like to point out that it is permissive. It is not a requirement. But I do not expect that it would be anything more than any other light. Mr. MORTON. And the position of this light in relationship to the other navigation lights, is that also spelled out? Captain MCCOMB. No, sir. Mr. MORTON. That is all the questions I have. Thank you. Captain MCCOMB. Thank you. Mr. CLARK. We have the Treasury favoring this bill in an executive communication and so has the Department of Commerce. Are there any other witnesses? Captain MAGENNIS. Although I have not been authorized to submit a statement on behalf of the Navy, the Navy also is fully in approval of the object of the bill. Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much. This concludes the hearing on H.R. 6012. We will go into executive session at this time. (The following letter was received for inclusion in the record :) AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC., Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: The American Merchant Marine Institute favors enactment of H.R. 6012, a bill which would establish procedure for bringing into effect the regulations for preventing collisions at sea which were drafted at the International Safety of Life at Sea Conference, London, 1960. 39-709-64—— 5 It is essential that there be an orderly procedure for bringing these international rules into effect simultaneously throughout the world at an appropriate time. This will be done when the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization finds that a sufficient number of countries have ratified the regulations. It is necessary for the President to be given authority to place these regulations into effect for U.S. shipping at the same time as they go into effect for other international shipping. To do otherwise would detract from rather than increase safety. The institute participated in the preparatory work preceding the SOLAS 1960 Conference and its representatives participated in the drafting of these regulations at the Conference. We have no reason to believe otherwise than that they are as satisfactory a body of regulations as could be obtained at the international level, and the several changes which have been incorporated therein will, in our opinion, increase the safety of life at sea. We therefore wish to endorse both the new regulations themselves and the procedure established by this proposed legislation for placing them into effect. We ask that this letter be made a part of the written record of the bill. Very truly yours, ALVIN SHAPIRO, Vice President. (Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded into executive session.) MISCELLANEOUS COAST GUARD HEARINGS TO ADMIT CERTAIN VESSELS TO AMERICAN REGISTRY WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1963 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, AND NAVIGATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 219, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Edward A. Garmatz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. GARMATZ. The meeting will come to order. [H.R. 1211, 88th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To admit the vessels Fort Town, Maple City, and Windmill Point to American registry and to permit their use in the coastwide trade Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding section 4132 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (46 U.S.C. 11) and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), the following three Canadian-built vessels, owned by the Prescott Ogdensburg Ferry Company, Limited, a Canadian corporation wholly owned by the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority, a public benefit corporation created by the State of New York, may, after their transfer to the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority and/or Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority, be admitted to American registry and documented under the laws of the United States, and shall be entitled to engage in the coastwise trade and to transport passengers and merchandise between points in the United States, including districts and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws: Fort Town (Canadian official number 175,999), Maple City (Canadian official number 176,000), and Windmill Point (Canadian official number 198,041). GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 1211, a bill to admit the vessels Fort Town, Maple City, and Windmill Point to American registry and to permit their use in the coastwise trade. The bill would authorize admission to U.S. registry, after their transfer to the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority, or the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority, of three Canadian-built vessels, the Fort Town (Canadian official No. 175,999), Maple City (Canadian official No. 176,000), and Windmill Point (Canadian of ficial No. 198,041). These vessels are now owned by the Prescott Ogdensburg Ferry Co., Ltd., a Canadian corporation which is wholly owned by the Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority (successor to the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority), a public benefit corporation created by the State of New York. The bill would authorize the vessels to engage in the coastwise trade and to transport passengers and merchandise between points in the United States, notwithstanding the provisions of section 4132 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended (46 U.S.C. 11), which forbids foreign-built vessels from engaging in the coastwise trade, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, as amended (46 U.S.C. 883), which forbids the transportation of merchandise on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States in any other vessel than a vessel built in the United States, documented under the laws of the United States, and owned by citizens of the United States as defined in section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916. If the bill is amended as hereinafter proposed, we would have no objection to enactment of the bill if the Department of the Treasury has none. We have been informed that the vessels Fort Town, Maple City, and Windmill Point are open, double-ended, diesel ferries built in Canada in 1951, that the first two have a gross tonnage of 135 tons, and that the Windmill Point has a gross tonnage of 118 tons. We have also been informed that the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority has constructed a bridge over the St. Lawrence River connecting the State of New York and the Province of Ontario, and that in order to obtain a franchise for the bridge from the Canadian Government, they had to purchase the franchise owned by Prescott Ogdensburg Ferry Co., Ltd., a Canadian corporation, which was operating the ferry service between Ogdensburg and Prescott. To comply with this requirement, the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority acquired all of the outstanding stock of the Prescott Ogdensburg Ferry Co., Ltd., and until completion of the bridge this subsidiary operated the ferry service. We understand that the bridge was completed in September 1960, and that upon its completion, the authority was required to discontinue the ferry service. Our information is that the authority is obligated to the State of New York in the amount of $22 million, that they wish to sell these vessels with coastwise privileges to aid in discharging this indebtedness. Our information is that the Ogdensburg Bridge Authority, and its successor, have no use for the vessels, have endeavored to find a buyer for the vessels without coastwise privileges but have been unable to do so and that the Shipbuilders Council has no objection to favorable consideration of the bill. In view of these circumstances and the not very substantial size of the vessels, we have no objection to favorable consideration of the bill if the Department of the Treasury has none and if the bill is amended by inserting in line 6, page 2, thereof, immediately before the colon, the following: "so long as they are owned by a citizen of the United States as defined in section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916." The Bureau of the Budget advises there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT E. GILES. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 1211, to admit the vessels Fort Town, Maple City, and Windmill Point to American registry and to permit their use in the coastwise trade. The proposed legislation would, in effect, authorize the use of the vessels Fort Town, Maple City, and Windmill Point in the transportation of merchandise and passengers between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws notwithstanding the fact that the vessels are of Canadian build and are presently owned by a Canadian corporation and that such vessels are generally excluded from use in any trade other than foreign trade (46 U.S.C. 11, 883). The bill would, therefore, confer upon the vessels and the new owner |