236 



may be inconsistent with the evidentiary standards in Regulation 9 which 

 would make "visible traces" sufficient to establish a violation of the discharge 

 limitations. We would also question whether discharges of less than 15 ppm 

 would not accumulate or make slicks. In any event, the requirement should be 

 such that any effluent is sufficiently dilute so as not to form a slick in calm 

 waters. 



Regulation 1, para. 18. — If in fact the definition of "length" would penalize 

 twin screw/twin rudder ships, we would agree with the suggestion in Footnote 

 8 that this definition should be modified, perhaps to define length as 85% of the 

 full load waterline. Twin screws and twin rudders provide significant maneuvera- 

 bility advantages, thereby reducing the risks of accidents, and every effort 

 should be made to encourage their incorporation on new vessels. 



Regulation 2, para. 1. — As noted above, we believe that the Convention must 

 apply to "stationary ships", floating platforms and the like. We would agree that 

 the term "stationary ships" needs improvement to give it the most inclusive 

 possible effect. 



Regulation 2, para. 4(o). — For the sake of inclusiveness, we believe that the 

 definition of a "novel type of craft" should be as broad as possible .and we 

 would support the suggestion in Footnote 10 that a more suitable text be 

 developed. Conceivably, there are other classes of vessels which might also 

 require special treatment and these should be identified with particularity, or 

 criteria should be established for so identifying them. We further believe 

 that the procedures for finding the equivalency and granting the exemption 

 should conform to those provided in Regulation 3, and both such regulations 

 should require, in addition to a description of the exception, the reasons for 

 the finding. It should also be made clear that arbitration procedures are avail- 

 able for determining the correctness of the exception. 



Regulation If{l). — The gross tonnage limitations now bracketed in this provi- 

 sion, as well as other gross tonnage limitations which appear throughout Annex I 

 and the other Annexes, should be assessed to determine if they are the lowest 

 possible which can be achieved in order to provide for maximum protection of 

 the oceans. Certainly, any efforts to significantly raise these tonnage limitations 

 should be opposed by the United States. 



Regulation 6, para. 4- — Provision for denial of certification to ships entitled 

 to fly the flag of noncontracting governments is an essential inducement to 

 become party to the Convention, and any effort to delete this provision should 

 be opposed. 



Regulation 9, p^m.^. 1(a) (ii) and 1(a) (it)). — Our views on discharge 

 limitations in general are presented above at pp. 5 to 7, but we would take specific 

 exception to the 50 miles and 60 litre limitations. The 50 miles limitation should 

 at least be extended to 100 miles, as suggested in Footnote 16, thereby further 

 protecting sensitive coastal regions (though the key to protection is not the 

 number of miles away from shore — a slick can travel 50 miles in a day — but 

 whether sufficient oil is discharged to accumulate). As to the 60 litre limit, this 

 appears to have been chosen based upon a primitive experiment, not geared 

 to biolo.gical criteria, with respect to what quantity of oil could be -feew if 

 discharged. The rate of discharge, moreover, is substantial (3.750 barrels 

 per 10,000 mile voyage) and biological impact of such a rate is imcertain. 



Regulation 9, paras. l(a)(vi) and 1(h) (vi). — We would urge that if 

 discharge standards such as those presently proposed are adopted, the require- 

 ment for an operational, tamper-proof oil discharge monitoring and control 

 system be mandatory. Only if such a system does exist and is in operation, can 

 there be effective control and enforcement of the discharge standards. Similarly, 

 the slop tank requirement referred to in subparagraph 1(a) (vii) is important 

 to achieve effective discharge control.* 



Reoulatinn 9. para. 1 (a) (viii). — There is no question that bilge pumpings 

 should be required to meet stringent discharsre standards. In fact, we do not 

 understand why any discharsre is allowed, since Regulation 17 specifically pro- 

 vides for a slop tank to hold bilare pumpines for shoreside reception. 



Regiilatinn 9. pnra. 1(h). — In s^onerai if all ships are rennired by Re;r\i'ation 

 17 to have holding tanks for oily residues, we question why any discharce 

 should be permitted if acceptable shoreside reception facilities are available. 



* TTnon thp nssnmnt'on thnt rlifsohnrcrp limitations simllnr tn thosp cnrrontly "mborllpd In 

 reenlntiop n-p inrl'irlprl in thp finnl Convpntion. ■^vp slionld sprimisly inp^tlon tlip r.*'t''^'"i'p 

 for f)ist'n<'i'lphin<T lr> rpjnilntlon f)n>CnWv> hptwoon slilnc ovpr nnrl shlp^ iniilpr 100.000 

 dpnd wpicht tn"s. T>ip !itnTu1nrd shnnld hp the sjarae for ships of all sizes and should prob- 

 ably be reduced by at least a factor of five. 



