239 



Regulation 7. — See comments on Annex I. Regulation 20, supra. Effective en- 

 vironmental protection requires stringent standards for on-shore reception fa- 

 cilities, accompanied by appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and these are 

 lacking in the present Convention. 



Regulation 9, para. 2. — Development of comprehensive recording requirements 

 is essential to enforceability of the Convention, and we believe inclusion of this 

 provision, in expanded form, should be strongly supported. 



Regulation 9, para. 6. — Inspections should be allowed in off-shore terminals, 

 as well as coastal ports, to effectuate enforcement of the Convention. 



Regulation 10. — While para. 2 of this Regulation specifies explicit survey 

 requirements for ships other than chemical tankers, paras. 1(a) and 1(b) provide 

 no explicit survey requirements for chemical tankers. "We strongly recommend 

 that explicit survey requirements for chemical tankers be developed and included 

 in the Convention. 



Regulation 11. — As noted in onr Fourth Draft Comments at p. 20, we believe 

 that perhaps the principal defect in Annex II is the failure to set out genuine, 

 uniform, enforceable construction requirements for chemical tankers. We ques- 

 tion whether the provisions of the Code for the Construction and Equipment of 

 Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk is suflScient in this regard. In any 

 event, it must be made clear that compliance with the instructions issued pur- 

 suant to paragraph 2 is mandatory and enforceable by port and coastal as well as 

 flag states. Otherwise, the Regulation is ineffectual. 



Regulation 12. — This provision should be included in full in the final Annex. 



ANNEX III 



Footnote 1. — Footnote 1 indicates that a number of delegations believe that 

 the subject of this Annex has not been considered in sufficient detail to allow its 

 incorporation in the Convention, and therefore suggested that these provisions be 

 established in the form of recommendations appended to a Conference Resolution. 

 We strongly recommend against adopting this approach and favor establishing an 

 Annex to the Convention on this subject which would contain uniform discharge 

 and design criteria enforceable by coastal and port as well as flag states. 



Regulation 1. — We note with approval the expansion of the applicabilit.v of the 

 regulations to all ships carrying harmful substances in packaged form, in cargo 

 containers, or in portable tanks. We ui*ge that the United States recommend that 

 IMCO, and not the individual Contracting States, issue uniform, detailed instruc- 

 tions on packaging, marking and labeling, documentation, storage, quantity limi- 

 tations, discharge by jettisoning, and leakages for preventing or minimizing pol- 

 lution of the marine environment by harmful substances. 



Regulation 2. — This Regulation contains no specific packaging requirements 

 and should be rewritten to define what minimum .standards are. 



Regulation 3. — Labels should reveal the common generic term, if any, as well 

 as the organic nomenclature, to insure the completest possible identification. 



Regulation Jf. — We believe the addition of a requirement that a "hazardous 

 cargo flag"' be flown in order to clearly al^rt other ships and coastal states of the 

 danger in case of accident would be appropriate. 



Regulatinn 5. — This provision is too general — precise requirements for stow- 

 age should be set out. 



Regulation 6. — This provision mei*ely states that certain harmful sulistances 

 which are very hazardous to the marine environment shall either be prohibited 

 for carriage or shall be limited as to quantity which may be carried aboard any 

 one ship. No standards are provided or even hinted at for determining this class 

 of substances. This provision must be clarified through the development of 

 detailed standards. 



Regulation S.^The Convention it.self should require that recovery efforts be 

 given i)riority treatment by Contracting States. 



ANNEX IV 



Regulatinn 2. — The proposed 10 year grace period in para, (b) is unnecessarily 

 long. We support the suggestion in Footnote 2 that, at a minimum, it should be 

 reduced to five years. 



The suggestion in Footnote 3 that certain passenger ships l)e exempted is nn- 

 v.-arranted. It is precisely large passenger vessels (as well as military vessels) 

 which pose the greatest sewage problems. 



