175 



Mr. Pelly. Mr. Train, I just have two quick questions, and answers 

 to which I think should be in the record. One has to do with the 

 matter of violations. The administration's bill provides that each day 

 of the continuous offense shall be counted as a separate violation. 

 With respect to the dumping of ma^terial from barges, however, would 

 it not be better to consider each incident a separate violation since 

 more than one barge load of material could be transported within a 

 given day ? 



Mr. Train. I think I better give you a response for the record 

 on that. 



Mr. Pellt. Yes. 



(The response follows :) 



Subsection 6(c) of the bill provides that "each day of a continuing violation 

 shall constitute a separate offense." Dumping from a single waste-carrying 

 barge would be a separate, identifiable incident and not a "continuing viola- 

 tion", even if the same barge were to make a second dumping trip later in the 

 same day. Accordingly, each such barge dumping would be considered a separate 

 violation under the present language of the bill. 



Mr. Pellt. Then the other question I have has to do with the rights 

 that are given to the States to establish their own standards. Well, I 

 don't see any provision in the administration bill that requires that 

 the State standards should have greater strength than actually the 

 standards provided in this bill. 



Mr. Traiist. T^Hiere are you reading from in the bill, ]\lr. Pelly ? 



Mr. Pellt. Well, I have some notes here and I will read them. I 

 don't have the actual bill before me. 



The bill does not state that the State requirements must be more 

 stringent than the Federal law. 



It is section 7 ( e) I am told. 



In other words, should we imply or should the bill be amended to 

 assure that any State requirements would be more stringent than the 

 Federal requirement ? 



Mr. Train. The Federal Government is taking over — well, no, tliat 

 is not entirely correct. 



What the bill provides in section 7(e) is that the fact of Federal 

 regulation as provided by this bill will not preempt the States from 

 exercising regulatory authority if they wish. Now in effect what this 

 means is that if a State wishes to set more stringent rules than the 

 Federal within the 3-mile limit of the territorial waters, it will be free 

 to do so. On the other side of the coin, a State could not set less vigor- 

 ous standards within the 3-mile limit, or if it did the Federal regula- 

 tions would override them because the Federal permit would be needed 

 and would rest on the Federal criteria. 



Mr. Pelly. So I will not take too much of the other Members' time, 

 I will ask you to supply for the record the answer to my question with 

 regard to the jurisdiction in connection with oil. 



Mr. Train. Yes, sir. 



(The information follows:) 



Discharges of oil are strictly regulated by other Federal laws. For example, 

 section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act bars making discharges 

 of oil determined to be harmful into the territorial sea or the waters of the 

 contiguous zone. By regulation, any discharge creating a visible sheen has been 

 determined to be harmful. Further restrictions, particularly on the high seas, 

 are imposed under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu- 



