Captain KENNEDY. In view of the fact that he is and has been considered a servant of the vessel, obviously with the tremendous leverage, to use the word, that a pilot is able to exercise; in other words. one pilot who commands $50,000 in equity can inflict $50 million in damage; therefore, no insurance company would touch him.

This is an area where they traditionally have sought the vessel and considered the pilot as if he were a member of the crew and, therefore. a servant of the vessel.

As I say, I do not agree with this because I think it attacks the wrong man. I think the pilot should bear a greater share of the responsibility.

I went so far as to obtain a' quote which as I say in order for me to obtain sufficient liability to mean anything I would have had to triple my rates; but I think that Federal pilots with their excellent safety records could probably at some point in the future obtain liability and I personally would be in favor of it if only to establish the responsibility of the pilot.

Mr. KEITH. It would seem to me that if he had some assets that they could subrogate.

Captain KENNEDY. They can do it now.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Byrne?

Mr. BYRNE. If there is an accident on the river, must the Captain and the pilot report that to the customhouse?

Captain KENNEDY That is correct.

Mr. BYRNE. Immediately, the people that were damaged go to the clerk of the court and get an order to tie up the ship. In other words, he is arrested until he puts up a bond.

Captain KENNEDY. I have not heard of that nor has it ever happened

to me.

Mr. BYRNE. It happened to many ships I was on when I was a U.S. marshal.

Captain KENNEDY. They attach the ship.

Do they also lock up the pilot?

Mr. BYRNE. They lock up the ship until the bond is put up.

Captain KENNEDY. I see.

Mr. BYRNE. And you had never heard of that?

Captain KENNEDY. I thought you were referring to the pilot and the captain being locked up; but I have heard of the ship being locked

up.

Mr. BYRNE. Not locked up. They have to report to the customhouse. Captain KENNEDY. That is correct. I think there are 24 hours to report.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Corrado?

Mr. CORRADO. Assuming this 8140 or some similar type of legislation becomes law, the penalties, vessel control, and all the other powers that the Coast Guard would have under the act would subject the pilots to the Coast Guard under the mandates of this?

I have heard all morning about no Coast Guard control over the pilots, but it just seems to me that if this bill becomes law and all these systems are instituted, that the pilots and everybody else in charge of the vessel will be under the control of the Coast Guard, at least with respect to the mandates of the law and subject to the penalties.

1.

Captain KENNEDY. Well, the penalties prescribed by this, I believe, are on a vessel.

Mr. CORRADO. It says whoever.

Captain KENNEDY. Whoever violates

Mr. CORRADO. Whoever violates.

Captain KENNEDY (continuing). The thrust of the Coast Guard control is on the license of the man and the licensing, keeping the standards up, preventing the man from inflicting further damage; seeing that certain standards were maintained before he obtained such a license.

This is the kind of control of which I speak.

You will have a single standard for pilotage all over the country rather than various State pilot organizations, State commissions, which my or may not be seafaring people, establishing their own sets of qualifications.

Mr. CORRADO. I understand the licensing argument. We have heard it before this morning and have heard it now, but aside from the licensing, I am talking about the control that the Coast Guard would have over the pilot, aside from whether he is licensed by the Coast Guard under the bill.

After all, the bill is what we are here for, what we are talking about. Captain KENNEDY. It appears to me, Mr. Corrado, that if the Coast Guard is going to have the close cooperation of the pilots, they must also have some control over them, not an after-the-fact type of control of a civil penalty of $1,000.

We are going to have to regard the Coast Guard as big daddy and unless we have this control unified on all pilots, I do not see that this will be possible.

What you are talking about is something that happens after the fact, and what I am talking about is the standardization of qualifications for pilots and for a vehicle for working with them.:

Mr. CORRADO. I was kind of interested in your comments about liability, too.

You refer to the pilots in the Panama Canal, and they are employees of the Panama Canal Company, so the Panama Canal Company pays the damages. I am not sure that the pilots, for example, the State pilots, are independent contractors.

I do not know whether they carry insurance or not. When they are witnesses here, they will be asked; but I must believe they do.

Captain KENNEDY. My information is no pilot group in the United States carries liability insurance. I may be entirely wrong. I can only speak for my own organization and we do not.

Mr. CORRADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Sharood?

Mr. SHAROOD. No questions.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. No further questions.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much for appearing before our committee.

We do appreciate your remarks.

The subcommittee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene Wednesday, July 21, 1971, at 10 a.m.)

PORT AND HARBOR SAFETY

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITEES ON COAST GUARD,

GEODETIC SURVEY, AND NAVIGATION, OF THE
COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Geodetic Survey, and Navigation met at 10:15 a.m. in room 1334 Longworth Office Building, Hon. Frank M. Clark (chairman of subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. CLARK. The subcommittee will come to order. We will resume our hearings from yesterday.

Our first witness today is Robert J. Hughes from the American Waterways Operators, Inc. We are very glad to have you with us today, and for the record, will you please tell who the two gentlemen are who are accompanying you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. HUGHES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY: WILLIAM MCNEIL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE OIL TRANSPORT CO. OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., AND ALVIS LANE, COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC.

Mr. HUGHES. I will, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen.

I would like to have William C. McNeil, executive vice president of the Oil Transport Co. of New Orleans, Inc., and also Alvis Lane, counsel of our organization, share this table with me.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert J. Hughes. I appear before the subcommittee on behalf of the American Waterways Operators, Inc. (AWO) to offer the views of that association concerning various provisions of H.R. 867, H.R. 6232, and H.R. 8140. With the chairman's permission, I would like to say a few words about the AWO and testify first on H.R. 8140, then on H.R. 867, and lastly on H.R. 6232. The American Waterways Operators, Inc., is a trade association representing the national interests of operators of towboats, tugboats, and barges who provide transport services and ship berthing and other harbor work on the navigable waters of the United States. Our members operate vessels on the inland waterways and over coastal and seagoing routes in all areas of the country. In addition to such vessel operators, AWO also represents shipyards who build and repair the

type of equipment operated by our carrier members, terminal operators who serve water carriers, and certain service companies. The board of directors of AWO is made up of executives of the barge and towing industry and of interests represented by the association from throughout the United States.

I am chairman of AWO's Coast Guard Liaison Committee. The committee maintains a constant working relationship with that agency in connection with its various responsibilities affecting our industry. My position with AWO is voluntary as a member of the association. I am president of James Hughes, Inc., of 17 Battery Place, New York, N.Y., a company which is a certificated water carrier and has been operating on the east coast since 1894.

As the committee will recall, the AWO testified in hearings held on this subject last year and our position was one of opposition to H.R. 17830 introduced in the 91st Congress.

The board of directors of AWO has considered H.R. 8140 introduced May 6, 1971. We believe H.R. 8140 represents a substantial improvement over legislation considered by the last Congress. This bill defines purpose and scope better than last year's bill. But it can, and should, be further defined if it is to promote rather than hinder domestic water transportation.

Under sections 2(1) and 2(2), the Coast Guard can establish vessel traffic systems of any type and compel compliance by requiring certain equipment be installed on vessels. Presently, the Congress is considering a proposal to require bridge-to-bridge radiotelephones on commercial vessels. These cost a few hundred dollars. We believe the Congress should continue to exercise legislative oversight in the required equipment area. It would be difficult to comply with an administrative requirement for a sophisticated device such as true-motion radar costing perhaps $30,000 per vessel.

Section 2(3) authorizes the Coast Guard to control vessel traffic in hazardous areas or under hazardous conditions by:

(i) Specifying times of entry, movement, or departure to, from, within or through ports, harbors, or other waters;

(ii) Establishing vessel traffic routing schemes;

(iii) Establishing vessel size and speed limitations or conditions; and

(iv) Restricting vessel operation, in a hazardous area or under hazardous conditions, to vessels which have particular operating characteristics and capabilities considered necessary for safe operation under the circumstances.

This section does not set forth any criteria to be used by the Secretary in determining the existence of hazardous circumstances and areas which put into operation the four items found in the section. The four items themselves are repetitious, in part, of each other. Item (i) authorizes the Secretary to specify the movement of vessels and under item (iv), he can restrict hazardous areas to vessels having particular operating characteristics and capabilities. It would seem operating characteristics and capabilities would include the size of the vessel and jurisdiction over the movement of the vessel would extend to the speed of the vessel. Under these circumstances, item (iii) would not confer additional authority unless some meaning can be attached to the word "conditions" used in the item. Moreover, with the establishment of traffic systems, the controls in section 2(3) would appear redundant.

This is especially true when vessel operators are dependent on the Coast Guard for their privilege to steer a vessel as we anticipate will shortly become law in this Congress.

We believe in extreme hazardous conditions a port or waterway may be closed by a high-ranking, experienced Coast Guard officer such as a district commander. This authority is too great to be widely diffused. However, the restrictions with respect to speed, size, and operating characteristics are impossible to delineate because the combinations of horsepower, tow size, type of towboat, barge design, river current, and other like considerations are virtually limitless. An excellent example is that an integrated tank barge tow of 8,000 tons capacity could be handled safely anywhere by a towboat of 2,400 horsepower. But a tow of LASH barges totaling 8,000 tons of cargo could not be handled safely in many areas and serviced by an identical 2,400-horsepower vessel. We must license the man at the wheel and depend on him to exercise judgment for safety. Final control of any vessel in any circumstance must rest with the man at the wheel.

Section 3(b) provides that the bill will not supplant or modify any treaty or Federal statute. Hence, overlapping or duplicating Federal jurisdiction, such as that of the U.S. Corps of Engineers, will be permitted. Section 3 (b) also specifically provides that a State or political subdivision thereof may prescribe higher safety standards for shoreside structures than those prescribed by the Coast Guard. Section 3 (c) provides that other Federal agencies be consulted in order to assure consistency of regulations, and that the Coast Guard may consider, utilize, and incorporate regulations issued by port or other State or local authorities.

One of the major problems posed by H.R. 8140 concerns duplicating and overlapping of jurisdiction. The Secretary of the Army presently has a mandatory duty, under 33 U.S.C. section 1, "to prescribe such regulations for the use, administration, and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States as in his judgment the public necessity may require for the protection of life and property... covering all matters not specifically delegated by law to some other executive department." This section of the code also requires the Secretary of the Army to prescribe, among others, "regulations for the use . . . and navigation of the navigable waters of the United States." The Secretary of the Army, in carrying out his duties to regulate use and navigation, in carrying out his duties, has prescribed detailed regulations: prohibiting access to described restricted areas; specifying maximum drafts and sizes of vessels using particular waterways; designating mooring procedures; regulating lockage procedures; and requiring masters or clerks of vessels to furnish statistical information. The enforcement and administration of these regulations rests primarily with the Corps of Engineers, although Navy officials are occasionally designated to enforce those regulations applying specifically to restricted naval training or shipyard areas.

A good example of possible duplicate jurisdiction in regulation of vessel traffic is the operation of locks by the Corps of Engineers. The lockmaster, a corps employee, has, and must have, absolute control over the manner in which a vessel uses his locks. This extends to communication, speed, vessel, or tow size, arrangement of tow, and order