Page images
PDF
EPUB

Safety of Life at Sea Convention standards or American standards for passenger vessels.

Before making specific comments on each of the bills before this committee, it is appropriate to give brief résumé of Coast Guard activity in connection with foreign passenger vessels. Under the requirements of title 46, U.S. Code 362, the Coast Guard has authority to inspect foreign private vessels carrying passengers from any port of the United States to any other place or country, and these vessels are liable to visitation and inspection by the Coast Guard in any port of the United States. The above statute states that foreign passenger vessels belonging to countries which have inspection laws approximating those of the United States and which have unexpired certificates of inspection issued by the proper authorities in those countries shall be subject to no other inspection than is necessary to satisfy the Coast Guard that the condition of the vessel, her boilers, and her lifesaving equipment is as stated in the current certificate of inspection, provided that the same privileges are accorded by the foreign nation to U.S. passenger vessels.

In regulation 19 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1960 certain control provisions are stated. Among those provisions is one that states that safety of life at sea certificates issued by nations which are signatory to the International Convention shall be accepted by officers of other contracting governments unless there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate. Regulation 19 further provides that if any steps are considered necessary to insure that a foreign passenger vessel should not proceed to sea due to conditions which exist aboard that vessel, the consul of the country in which the ship is registered shall be immediately so informed. In order to carry out the statutory provisions and the international convention provisions previously mentioned, the Coast Guard has developed and presently uses a document which is entitled "Certificate of Examination of Foreign Passenger Vessel." Every foreign passenger vessel carrying passengers from a U.S. port is required to have a valid certificate of examination issued by the Coast Guard abroad that vessel. The Coast Guard's standard procedure upon receipt of a request for this certificate is to board the vessel, ascertain that there is a valid convention certificate on board, and then to make a general examination of the entire vessel with particular observation of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, general condition of seaworthiness and sanitation. Upon being satisfied as to the condition of the vessel, the Coast Guard then issues a certificate of examination for a period of 1 year or for a lesser period corresponding to the expiration date of the SOLAS certificates, as necessary, but in no event is a certificate issued for a period of longer than 1 year. U.S. customs officials insure that a valid Coast Guard certificate of examination of a foreign passenger vessel is on board prior to granting clearance to the vessel to sail whenever passengers are being taken from a U.S. port.

H.R. 2836, H.R. 6272, and H.R. 10109 all contain provisions that would make it difficult for the United States to honor the commitments contained in the appropriate safety of life at sea conventions to recognize convention documents issued by nations that are parties to

the conventions. It is considered by the Coast Guard that certain provisions in the three bills mentioned above are in violation of regulation 18 of chapter I of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1948 and regulation 19 of chapter I of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1960. The provisions of regulation 19 of chapter I of the 1960 convention are quoted below:

CONTROL

Every ship holding a certificate isued under regulation 12 or regulation 13 is subject in the ports of the other contracting governments to control by officers duly authorized by such governments insofar as this control is directed toward verifying that there is on board a valid certificate. Such certificate shall be accepted unless there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate. In that case, the officer carrying out the control shall take such steps as will insure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to sea without danger to the passengers or the crew. In the event of this control giving rise to intervention of any kind, the officer carrying out the control shall inform the consul of the country in which the ship is registered in writing forthwith of all the circumstances in which intervention was deemed to be necessary, and the facts shall be reported to the organization.

The Coast Guard has no comments to offer concerning H.R. 10327 except to state that none of the provisions in that bill would affect existing Coast Guard procedures under the requirements of U.S. statutes and the provisions of the various international conventions for safety of life at sea concerning foreign passenger vessels.

If any of the other three bills are considered favorably by the committee, the Coast Guard recommends that the language of those bills be amended to conform with the requirements of the international conventions for safety of life at sea. A suggested wording for pertinent sections of these three bills is:

That the vessel is in compliance with the requirements of the applicable international convention for the safety of life at sea, or is in substantial compliance with the safety standards applicable to vessels of the United States.

Separately the Treasury Department has submitted reports on each of the bills.

That ends the statement. Thank you.

Mr. DOWNING. Thank you very much, Admiral.

Mr. Garmatz.

Mr. GARMATZ. The Coast Guard has clear requirements when foreign ships come into a port. I wonder if the gentleman from customs would tell us just what are their requirements.

Mr. TEBEAU. The requirements that customs would apply to a cruise vessel leaving the country would be no different than any vessel leaving the country. That is to say, before the vessel left it would have to clear. In clearing, they comply with approximately a dozen different statutes administered by the various agencies.

For example, you have the safety of life at sea requirements, you have loadline requirements, and so forth. When the vessel departs it obtains its clearance. When it returns from a foreign port, it then has to enter, that is to say, within 24 hours it must report its arrival at that particular U.S. port. Within 48 hours it has to make entry the same as any vessel coming from a foreign port. This generally consists of presenting a manifest of what is on board, a passenger list, a list of curios or articles which the passengers may have acquired abroad. In no way, either in connection with clearance or entry, is

there any law which would distinguish a vessel engaged in foreign trade from a vessel in cruise trade. There is no particular requirement which would be applicable to cruise trade.

Mr. DOWNING. Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Admiral Trimble, the end of your statement is really a restatement of what now exists. Is that not the case. Admiral TRIMBLE. Yes.

Mr. MAILLIARD. These proposals would not change anything. Admiral TRIMBLE. We just wanted to make sure that any bills considered would not be contrary to the provisions now existing.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I realize your reluctance to answer, but your whole discussion of possible violation of our international agreements still hinges on the question I raised with Mr. Johnson, and that is, why is not domestic trade subject to coastwise laws? It seems to me, if I understand the situation, a treaty supersedes domestic law, and if the 1886 act is not superseded by the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, then a law placing cruise ships under the coastwise laws would not be in violation.

Has anybody ever taken that particular part of the coastwise laws to court to find out whether that in effect was set aside by treaty obligations?

Admiral TRIMBLE. The Coast Guard has not. May I defer on this to Mr. Tebeau from customs? I think it falls a little closer in their jurisdiction.

Mr. TEBEAU. Basically, Mr. Mailliard, the law we work under is 289, which prohibits the transportation of passengers between ports in the United States directly or by way of foreign ports. We have had two interpretations of that statute since its enactment in 1886.

The first interpretation we had was in 1910 when the Attorney General of the United States indicated in the case of the steamship Cleveland, which left New York and proceeded to go around the world and landed at San Francisco, that they were not transporting in violation of 289. The argument used was that obviously this was not domestic trade.

The next interpretation of 289 was in 1912, by the Attorney General. I will read it to you as it appears in the Annotated Code:

The transportation of passengers by foreign vessels from a port in the United States to domestic and foreign waters, sometimes touching at a foreign port, and returning them in the port of departure, was not in violation of this section.

In effect, what this did is to rule that a vessel which departed a particular U.S. port and touched at foreign ports and returned to the same port was not in violation of the only coastwise statute that we had in relation to coastwise trade.

Mr. MAILLIARD. To me, the heart of this whole thing is, if the statute had specified either between ports or returning to the same port, such a ruling obviously would not have been possible, but the question of whether it violates our international agreements is a very important one.

Mr. TEBEAU. I cannot answer that question. I think that is a question of international law that would have to be decided, whether or not the treaty would supersede any amendment made to 289.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I do not see how it could without superseding 46 U.S.C. 289.

Mr. TEBEAU. I do not follow that, sir.

Mr. MAILLIARD. There is the contention that if we enacted some legislation along the line Mr. Garmatz and I have introduced, we would then be violating a treaty obligation. I cannot see why existing laws do not violate the treaty if this change would violate the treaty. What is the legal difference, except that it is laid down in statute? Insofar as international law is concerned, how can you make a distinction between a ship that makes a voyage between New York and some port in the Caribbean and Fort Lauderdale, and one that does the same thing only returns to New York?

Mr. TEBEAU. I cannot answer that.

Mr. MAILLIARD. From an international obligation, I can see no distinction. From the statutory point of view, there is a distinction when the court interprets the law that way. I do not see where that bars us from altering that law. The mere fact that such an interpretation was made without mentioning our obligations under safety treaties would indicate to me it was a question of interpreting statutes, not of interpreting our obligations under any international agreements.

I do not think there is any use wasting any more time on it. Maybe some day, before this is over, we will get a witness who is prepared to answer this question. I will admit it is not the easiest thing in the

world to do.

I do not know whether this letter has been introduced in the record, but perhaps it should be since it is from the Coast Guard. It is a letter to Mr. Bonner, dated August 23, 1965, from Admiral Shields, in which the Coast Guard specifies for us some of the instances in which they have refused to permit vessels to sail, and the last paragraph indicating more reports are being asked from the field.

I propose to the chairman, if no one objects, that this might go in the record at this point, with the record being held open to add any further communications received from the Coast Guard.

Mr. DOWNING. Unless there is objection, the letter will be made part of the record at this point, and the record will remain open for additional communications from the Coast Guard.

(The information referred to follows:)

U.S. COAST GUARD HEADQUARTERS,
Washington, D.C., August 23, 1965.

Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER,

Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with your request by telephone to Capt. W. L. Morrison, congressional liaison officer, Coast Guard records concerning foreign passenger vessels furnishing cruise services from various U.S. ports have been reviewed. It was understood that you desired to be advised of any cases wherein the Coast Guard has had difficulties in accepting Safety of Life at Sea certificates issued by foreign nations to their passenger vessels, with particular reference to the subjects of sanitation and general safety. It was also understood that you desired information concerning any problems that the Coast Guard may have had with foreign passenger vessels of nations which were not signatory to the existing Safety of Life at Sea Convention. Finally, it was understood that you desired to be advised of any cases wherein the Coast Guard did not grant a permit to foreign passenger vessels to carry U.S. citizen passengers from a U.S. port. The information contained in the following paragraphs is given in the order of the questions posed by you insofar as possible, but in some cases more than one situation is covered in a single case.

Before giving the specific information requested, a brief résumé of Coast Guard activity in connection with foreign passenger vessels is stated. Under the requirements of title 46 U.S. Code 362, the Coast Guard has authority to inspect all foreign private vessels carrying passengers from any port of the United States

to any other place or country, and these vessels are liable to visitation and inspection by the Coast Guard in any of the ports of the United States. The above statute states that foreign passenger vessels belonging to countries which have inspection laws approximating those of the United States and which have unexpired certificates of inspection issued by the proper authorities in those countries shall be subject to no other inspection than is necessary to satisfy the Coast Guard that the condition of the vessel, her boilers, and her lifesaving equipments are as stated in the current certificate of inspection, provided that the same privileges are accorded by that foreign nation to U.S. passenger vessels. In regulation 19 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1960 certain control provisions are stated.

Among those provisions is one that states that safety-of-life-at-sea certificates issued by nations which are signatory to the international convention shall be accepted by officers of other contracting governments unles there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or of its equipment does not correspond substantially with the particulars of that certificate. Regulation 19 further provides that if any steps are considered necessary to insure that a foreign passenger vessel should not proceed to sea due to conditions which exist abroad that vessel that the consul of the country in which the ship is registered shall be immediately so informed. In order to carry out the statutory provisions and the international convention provisions previously mentioned the Coast Guard has developed and presently uses a document which is entitled "Certificate of Examination of Foreign Passenger Vessel." Every foreign passenger vessel carrying passengers from a U.S. port is required to have a valid certificate of examination issued by the Coast Guard aboard that vessel. The Coast Guard's standard procedure upon receipt of a request for this certificate is to board the vessel, ascertain that there is a valid convention certificate on board, and then to make a general examination of the entire vessel with particular observation of lifesaving and firefighting equipment, general condition of seaworthiness and sanitation. Upon being satisfied as to the condition of the vessel, the Coast Guard then issues a certificate of examination for a period of 1 year or for a lesser period corresponding to the expiration date of the SOLAS certificates, as necessary, but in no event is a certificate issued for a period of longer than 1 year. U.S. customs officials insure that a valid Coast Guard certificate of examination of a foreign passenger vessel is on board prior to granting clearance to the vessel to sail whenever passengers are being taken from a U.S. port.

Information from Coast Guard records with respect to the three questions asked is as follows:

(a) SS Acapulco: This vessel operated as the SS Nassau under the Liberian flag until 1961 as a cruise ship from U.S. ports for a number of years under the provisions of SOLAS 1948. In 1961 the vessel was purchased by the Mexican Government, which was not signatory to the 1948 international convention. In this circumstance, a foreign passenger vessel of a nation not singnatory to the convention must meet all U.S. Coast Guard requirements prior to being permited to carry passengers from a U.S. port. The Acapulco, which was so named in 1961, could not meet U.S. Coast Guard requirements and was not permitted to operate from U.S. ports. Because of this, a cruise with about 500 passengers scheduled to depart from New York was canceled in December 1961. Subsequently, Mexico signed the international convention and after some revisions to the vessel, it was able to qualify under the 1948 SOLAS Convention and was granted a Coast Guard certificate of examination of a foreign passenger vessel. (b) SS Victoria: A passenger on this Liberian vessel submitted a letter of complaint to the Coast Guard on April 11, 1964, concerning the condition of lifesaving equipment. Appropriate repairs and revisions were made under the supervision of the marine inspection office in New York.

(c) Yarmouth: A complaint was received in the summer of 1964 concerning the sanitary condition of this vessel. Conditions were rectified under the supervision of the marine inspection office in Miami and the vessel was permitted to sail upon completion thereof. This vessel is under the Panamanian flag.

(d) Riviera Prima: In August 1964, the marine inspection office in New York withdrew the certificate of examination from this Italian vessel pending repairs to lifeboat davits. The repairs were completed and the certificate was returned but the vessel sailed without passengers. This situation occurred because a U.S. travel agency which had contracted with the respective passengers had not paid the owners of the vessel for a previous voyage. The safety of the vessel was not in question when the vessel sailed without passengers.

« PreviousContinue »