174 



These latter two types of pollution are already subject to controls 

 in U.S. coastal waters under laws enacted in 1970 and 1972. 



Concerning the enforceability of the standards in the technical an- 

 nexes, the United States fully i-ecognizes the inade(iuacy, from an en- 

 vironmental point of view, of relying exclusively on the flag state 

 to enforce treaty standards against its vessels in respect of high seas 

 violations. We proposed at the February-^larch preparatory meeting 

 to remedy that problem by authorizing any state party to the new 

 convention to : 



* * * cause proceedings to be taken when any ship to which the * * * Con- 

 vention applies enters its ports or offshore terminals, in respect of any violation 

 by that ship, or its owner or master, of the requirements of the Convention, 

 wherever the violation occurred, provided, however, that such proceedings are 

 commenced no later than [three] years after the violation occurred. 



Thus, "port state enforcement" would supplement "flag state 

 enforcement." 



Instead of relying on the flag state to enforce for discharge viola- 

 tions outside our territorial waters — violations which can, of course, 

 damage immediate U.S. enviroiunental and economic interests — we 

 ourselves could commence proceedings when the vessel entered our 

 ports. The same would be true of other violations of the convention, 

 such as noncompliance with construction standards or failure to re- 

 port by radio a discharge in excess of treaty limitations. 



That latter requirement will provide us with early warning of pol- 

 lution threats, and thus enable the Coast Guard to initiate prompt 

 coiuitermeasures when necessary. 



In addition, we might take enforcement measures against ships 

 which enter our ports in respect of violations in distant seas, if, for 

 example, we believed that the flag state had failed to take proper action 

 or, perhaps, at the request of another coastal state. This latter pos- 

 sibility — cooperation in enforcement between two coastal states — is 

 of great importance. 



A coastal state might observe a ship discharging prohibited quan- 

 tities of oil I'l miles ott' its shore. Under present arrangements, it would 

 have no enforcement recourse except complaint to the flag state, which 

 might be thousands of miles away from the ship's route and, for that 

 or other reasons, not disposed to investigate or undertake proceedings. 



Our port state enforcement j^roposal would allow the observing 

 coastal state to notify, and furnish evidence to, a state whose port the 

 ship would shortly enter. That port state could investigate and, 

 with the aid of the evidence furnished by the observing state — such as 

 photographs of oil traces in the vicinity of the ship — institute en- 

 forcement proceedings. 



Our port state proposal w^ould thus substantially increase the en- 

 forceability of the IMCO Convention. Our failure to win majority sup- 

 port for the concept at the preparatory meeting was a major disap- 

 pointment. Keversing that decision at the October conference is a 

 major objective. 



Senator Hollings. The distinguished Senator from Alaska is here, 

 and I would note on the (luestion of double bottoms for the Alaska 

 trade, we were talking about domestic rather than international com- 

 merce. 



Senator, you are telling me that vessels in the Alaska trade will 

 have double bottoms? 



