ing; (12) aids to navigations; (13) speed by revolutions; (15) instruments and accessories; (16) magnetism, deviation, and compass compensation; (17) chart construction; (18) tides and currents; (19) ocean winds, weather, and currents; (21) international and inland rules of the road; (22) signaling by international code flags, flashing light; lifesaving, storm and special signals; (23) stability and ship construction; (24) seamanship; (25) cargo stowage and handling; (26) change in draft due to density; (27) determination of area and volume; (28) lifesaving apparatus and firefighting equipment; (29) ship sanitation; (30) rules and regulations for inspection of merchant vessels; (31) laws governing marine inspection; (32) ships business: (33) such further examination of a nonmathematical character as the officer in charge, marine inspection, may consider necessary to establish the applicant's proficiency.

Some questions for a third mate:

1. Explain the 30-60 case, or % rule, for determining distance off an object by means of two relative bearings on the object and the run between the bearings.

2. A vessel steering 10° picks up a shore light bearing 30°, log reading 45 miles. Later the same light bore 75°, log reading 56 miles. What is the distance off when abeam?

3. What properties of the earth make the gyrocompass a meridianseeking device?

4. What is the cosecant of an angle?

Some questions for a chief mate:

1. Propeller pitch 17.7 feet, revolutions per day 81,630; calculate the day's run allowing 6-percent slip.

2. State the three elements which compose the pressure tendency? Some questions for master:

1. How does a rhumb line appear on a polyconic chart?

2. How would you detect and correct retained magnetism in Flinders Bar?

3. Numerous complicated problems on ship construction.

4. When a preferred mortgage is outstanding against a ship, what means must be taken to inform people who might have business with the vessel of the existence of the mortgage?

5. Explain the distinction between jurisdiction in rem and jurisdiction in personam.

These examinations and the things we are talking about have little if anything to do with the work our men do and the knowledge they need. They take considerable time to write and often are inconsiderately given. For instance, one of our men, Captain Bebeau, who held unlimited masters papers on the Great Lakes, was transferred to the Hudson River where we operate on 25 miles of river. He went down to take the examination for the 35 miles of river and he had to sit and take a complete masters examination for everything, which took a week.

Two months later we sent him to the Delaware River, 20 miles of Delaware River he wanted to pass. He went up to the Coast Guard and they told him he had to take the same thing. He spent another week writing everything he had written 2 months before. Three months later we sent him to a job on the Passaic River and the same

thing was to take place for 12 miles of river and he refused to sit for another examination and we lost a man.

It is quite obvious that our men could not answer such questions. Even if they could, such knowledge would be of no use to them on our boats. We cannot stress too strongly the danger in keeping men from employment by requiring knowledge far above their mental capacityknowledge which is absolutely useless in operating our boats. We could get college professors that could pass these exams for less than we pay our men. Then, without our men's skills where would we be with licensed college professors incapable of running a canoe?

Our men are intelligent; we pay high wages to get good men. I have here a half dozen recent payrolls covering the Great Lakes and Ohio River areas. The captain's scale varies from $4.03 per hour to $4.155 per hour.

This with portal, brings total weekly pay from $222.14 per week to $295.37 per week. Deck crew varies from $3.275 per hour to $3.775 per hour, with weekly wages varying from $170.30 to $267.66. Actually, fringe benefits add an additional 35 percent to these figures I have given you.

These bills are to be an amendment to 4427 of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. 405). Here is a brief résumé of those statutes. You will recognize that they have little to do with our industry.

Actually, H.R. 4427 can be written on one page but the Coast Guard regulations under it fill hundreds of volumes.

Résumé of laws governing marine inspection which are to be amended by H.R. 723.

Tugboats and freight boats (46 U.S.C. 405 (R.S. 4427) p. 32):

Hull and boiler of every tugboat et cetera shall be inspected under provisions of title 52 of Revised Statutes, and forced to comply with the law; and officers navigating such vessels shall be licensed in conformity with provisions of sections 214, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, and shall be subject to the same laws as officers navigating passenger

steamers.

Section 214. Whenever any person claiming to be a skillful pilot of steam vessels offers himself for a license, Coast Guard shall determine if he possesses requisite knowledge and skill and is trustworthy and faithful. If so, Coast Guard shall issue a license for 5 years. This license shall be suspended or revoked for negligence, unskillfulness, inattention to duties or intemperance, or willful violation of title 52 of Revised Statutes.

This authority often leads to injustices. I will quote the case of one of our chief engineers named McEnroe. His license was lifted because of a boiler tub explosion killing a fireman. It was a new boiler and some considerable time later we found out it was due to a defect in the design but McEnroe had lost his papers. It has also led to unnecessary cost to owners; for example, our tug Shaun Rhue, which rode out the great storm of 1913 when large vesels were foundering. It was declared unseaworthy in the 1920's and we were ordered to bustle her out, in spite of our marine architect's saying it was not needed. This was done and the tug was never much good after that;

she couldn't operate around the dredges. Later on, according to Coast Guard operations, it was found the tug need not have been bustled out. In section 224, Coast Guard shall license-copy to insert 14.

A license does not prevent accidents nor loss of vessels. Take for instance our tug Sachem, which sank in 1951 in Lake Erie with all personnel aboard. All of her officers had licenses for steam vessels such as required by this law we are attempting to amend.

Do not misunderstand me; we don't say a license lessens a man's ability. We send our men to diesel schools, we pay a premium to those men having a license, and a greater premium for a better license. Principally, I must say that is because they make better witnesses in case of an accident.

The Lake Carriers Association runs a school every winter to assist the men in obtaining and upgrading their license.

To conclude those bills are bad in that they would require much unnecessary expense; they would cause great delays to our operations: they would put many of our men out of work; they would scrap good, useful boats; they would place Coast Guard personnel knowing very little about dredging operations, personnel, or equipment in judgment and control over us without any recourse beyond the Commandant; they would place an additional burden on the Coast Guard.

They are unnecessary because working hours are now controlled by union and Government; our safety programs are supervised by our insurance carriers and the U.S. Corps of Engineers; our safety record is as good or better than any other group in the construction industry: our equipment is designed and built by specialists in this field.

Our men are under the Coast Guard regulations pertaining to motorboats. They have motorboat licenses and have passed all requirements for rules of the road. They need nothing more for safe navigation.

Accidents and collisions are seldom caused by faulty mechanical equipment; they are mostly caused by not applying the rules of the road. A motorboat license requires knowledge of the rules of the road. Our men must have this license; it is required in most areas. If it is true, as we have heard before, that unlicensed boats have more accidents than licensed boats, it may be because there are more of them.

So, since there is nothing to be gained and a great deal of harm in them, we respectfully request that they be recommended against by your subcommittee. Thank you.

Mr. GARMATZ. In the last few sentences, you state that your vessels are 100 gross tons and that your men have motorboat licenses. Is it your understanding the Coast Guard would have any greater licensing requirements for your type of operation?

Mr. KOONMAN. Yes, as we read these bills that are for us it was an amendment to this existing law for steam vessels and that would bring it down to 15 gross tons and in the case of the bill 7491, it would even apply to boats.

Our experience has been that whenever one law or regulation is applied in a particular area it soon is applied generally and we would

expect if H.R. 7491 was enacted, which has no tonnage requirement and could even come to the 14-foot outboard motor that Mr. Zincke was talking about, that would then be applied to all these other boats. Mr. GARMATZ. You state you also oppose H.R. 7491 applying to licensing of pilots?

Mr. KOONMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mr. Grover.

Mr. GROVER. You mention you are fearful that the regulations would outmode or rule out the use of good useful boats you think are well equipped for this job they are doing now. Do you think this legislation could be amended to give grandfather rights or a sufficient period of phaseout for boats which don't meet the regulations which might apply to them? Do you think that might improve the situation?

Mr. KOONMAN. A grandfather clause always tends to improve a situation temporarily, but if we built another boat like one of these boats, as we do frequently, the grandfather clause would not be applicable to that, it would be a new boat and couldn't be built in the mold we had found successful if that particular mold didn't meet the Coast Guard requirement.

So the grandfather clause to me is kind of a temporary measure that doesn't help a business that wants to stay in business a long time. Mr. GROVER. The Coast Guard has been in business a long time, wouldn't they be realistic in this instance where you have a special type boat, sufficiently realistic to adapt their restrictions to permit a boat within reasonable design to be suited for your purpose?

Mr. KOONMAN. In answer to that question, one of your competitors was telling me last week of an instance in which he asked the Coast Guard for such a thing as we are talking about now and the answer from the commander of the district, the Coast Guard commander, "The law is such; if I value my job I better apply that rule as it is written and not with any discretion on my part."

Mr. GROVER. You don't feel there is sufficient latitude within existing regulations to accommodate you if this legislation is passed?

Mr. KOONMAN. It would be desirable but in practice I am afraid it never works out.

In another case where we had occasion to ask a Coast Guard officer something in an emergency he came back with the thought, "it is either your job or my job and in that case I am going to protect my job." Mr. GROVER. Could you clarify the record, you said they told you to "bustle out" this tug, what does "bustle out" mean?

Mr. KOONMAN. Adding to the side. The tug had about a 22-foot beam and she was bustled out 2 feet on each side to make her 26 feet. Putting an additional hull outside the other hull is what is meant by bustling.

Mr. GARMATZ. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. You don't feel that your operation is in the same. category as tows and barges, do you?

Mr. KOONMAN. No, that is true, we are really a construction industry. Our men are mostly under that type of insurance and we give them an opportunity to take workmen's compensation laws in any State that we operate in.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. As far as moving your equipment up and down the rivers, it is completely different, is it not, from pushing long sections of barges up the river or downriver?

Mr. KOONMAN. Yes, it is quite different than that. We have few, if any, large tows and the men have no great stretches of river.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. One other thing about these examples that you cited that the men would have to pass examinations on the questions that the Coast Guard would ask: it is my understanding that those questions apply to those who are on oceangoing vessels. Do you think those requirements would be the same?

Mr. KOONMAN. Yes, our men, when we operated steam tugs on the lakes, they had to pass these very examples I have quoted from. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Would there not be a difference in the licenses given to those operating coast wise or in the lakes, where the dangers are similar to the ocean, from those working in the inland waters? Mr. KOONMAN. The inland water rules of the road and the coast are different but as you know the Coast Guard is undertaking right now, and has been for some time, amending those things so they are the same throughout. I think that should be done, it will be a good thing. But the meaning to take an examination with the Coast Guard, for instance, in one of the districts I was in a few months ago there were many files in there with a card having a question, the man was not going to have to answer thousands of questions in there, but at random cards were picked and handed to him to pass the examination.

I think on steam vessels now, and what would happen to our vessels, these motor vessels, if the law was passed, our man would have to answer these same questions.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Is there no way management could get together with the Coast Guard to write up new rules and regulations so that they would be applicable to the particular type vessels these men would have to have license for such as passenger, freighter, or other vessels that, say, go on ocean voyages?

Mr. KOONMAN. We have suggested that at different times to the Coast Guard. I have been in the Commandant's office down here several times with an attempt to suggest and we never really got to first base. We were talking with men who knew more about things than we knew about them, at least they were sure they did and they gave us no consideration to any of the things we suggested.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I don't think there is any rule or regulation that can't be changed to meet the needs of the changing times. I appreciate the points you have cited in opposition to this legislation; but I don't think a closed mind on this problem is going to be helpful.

Mr. KOONMAN. I don't think so either. I think most of the accidents that have happened that I have had a chance to study and observe in our organization and others have been violations of rules of the road and not anything that these questions that I have quoted here would have had anything to do with. For instance, down at Louisville a year ago, one of the tows ran over one of our boats and sank it, one of our 46-foot tugs. It came right up behind it during the night. Now there isn't anything in the rules of the road-let me put it another way,