175 



Senator STE^'EXs. The new ones will. They are not double bottoms 

 in the Manhattan sense, but they have a tank within a bottom, so that 

 it is not the old style tanker, but a new style like the U.S.S. Amchorage. 



The gentleman from the Coast Guard can correct me if I am wrong, 

 but the oil is within separate tanks within the hull, so that in effect 

 you have a double bottom. 



The Manhattan, had, in effect, a double bottom, because it had a 

 double shell and had tanks within the shell. 



I am sorry to interrupt. 



Mr. Traix. That is a very useful addition. 



Another U.S. proposal 'which would facilitate enforcement of the 

 convention, at least in respect of oil discharge violations, is the so- 

 called visible sheen test. That rule would provide that if : 



* * * visible traces of oil on or below the surface of the water in the vicinity of 

 a ship or its wake * * * can reasonably be attributed to a discharge from that 

 ship, evidence of such traces * * * shall * * * be sufficient to establish a viola- 

 tion oJ; [the Convention's oil discharge limitationj*] * * * unless i)robative evi- 

 dence is presented that the ship did not discharge oil or that any discharge of 

 the oil did not violate the provisions of [the Convention]. 



This rule, comparable to the test employed pursuant to our domestic 

 legislation, would avoid the difficulties in a rule requiring the enforc- 

 ing state to prove that a ship discharged oil in violation of the con- 

 vention — a difficult task in view of the precise "parts jDer million" and 

 ''liters per mile" criteria in annex I. 



I am convinced that the visible sheen test, in combination with port 

 state enforcement, would result in a convention which can be effectively 

 enforced. We will work in October to attempt to resolve the legal 

 difficulties that prevented the preparatory meeting fi'om adopting a 

 sheen test, although there was unanimous agreement on the desirability 

 of such means to facilitate enforcement. 



The third criterion for maritime pollution controls, I mentioned 

 earlier, is the adaptability of the international antipollution standards 

 to changed circumstances. 



As you know, we have been advocating in IMCO "tacit amendment 

 procedures,*' which would streamline the process of amending the 

 technical regulations in the annexes by avoiding the necessity of for- 

 mal ratification by a large majority of contracting states. That concept 

 received majority support at the Febi'uary-March meeting. 



Two weeks ago in London, on World Environment Day, the United 

 States proposed a comprehensive institutional system, incorporating 

 principles based on tacit amendment procedures, to insure that stand- 

 ards for vessel-source pollution are adapted, revised, and supplemented 

 over the years to come, in light of our increasing knowledge and 

 capabilities in the area of protection of the marine environment. 



AVe proposed that IMCO create a new Marine Environment Pro- 

 tection Committee, in which all member states would have full rights 

 of participation, to coordinate and administer all IMCO activities con- 

 cerning marine pollution. 



The primary function of the new committee would be to exercise 

 the authority conferred on the organization to adopt and revise regu- 

 lations under international conventions for the prevention and con- 

 trol of vessel-source pollution. Thus, among other responsibilities, the 

 committee would administer the 1954 Convention for the Prevention of 



