240 



Regulation 3. — We reiterate our earlier position in the Fourth Draft Com- 

 ments that the certification requirement should be a mandatory one and subject 

 to the enforcement provisions of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention. We also 

 note our earlier view that the "satisfaction of the Administration" in determin- 

 ing whether equipment meets the discharge requirement of Regulation 4 is too 

 subjective a standard. This provision should make clear that a certificate shall 

 be issued after survey of the ship demonstrates that it is equipiied with equip- 

 ment capable of meeting the specific standards of Regulation 4. As with the other 

 Annexes, we favor IMCO itself establishing uniform equipment requirements. 



Regulation 4(1) {a). — This provision, which prohibits the discharge of sewage 



except when a ship is discharging at a distiince of more than "[ ]" miles 



from nearest land and has in opei*ation suitable sewage treatment equipment 

 which is capable of satisfying certain specified criteria, should ultimately estab- 

 lish a mileage limitation as far offshore as is appropriate to ensure protection 

 of amenities. A three mile limitation would surely be insufficient. Moreover, spe- 

 cial areas around particular beaches and scenic coasts should be designated for 

 stiffest possible prohibition of discharges. Further, there is no justification for 

 allowing the discharge anywhere of solid wastes, since maceration equipment, 

 which will transform wastes into micro-particulate matter, is available and 

 will insure that wastes will not reach the shore. Finally, we note our support for 

 the suggestions in Footnote 7 that more stringent state standards sh(mld be 

 permitted and in Footnote 12 that subparagraph 1(c) be deleted. 



Regulation Jf, para. l{b). — The 10,000 per litre coliform count in subparagraph 

 1(b) (i) which is the present Environmental Protection Agency standard under 

 the Water Quality Improvement Act, should be retained, and the word "float- 

 ing" in subparagraph 1(b) (ii) should be deleted since suspended solids may also 

 cause harm, and, in any event, with the availability of maceration devices, there 

 is no justification for allowing any solid waste discharge. 



Regulation 5. — We are pleased to note deletion of the cargo exception and urge 

 the United States to stand by the present version of Regulation 5. 



Regulation 6. — See comments on Annex I, Regulation 20, and Annex II, Reg- 

 ulation 7, supra. 



ANNEX V 



Regulation 3. — The absolute prohibition of discharge of plastics (subparagraph 

 1(a)) is a very good provision and any efforts to modify it should be opposed. 

 Such an absolute prohibition, moreover, might well be applied to wood demage, 

 lining and packing materials (subparagraph 1(c)) and "other garbage" (sub- 

 paragraph 1(d)), since these substances can easily be carried back to shore 

 (for recycling, if possible), since there is no compelling argument in favor of 

 allowing any discharge at all, and since their discharge fouls the oceans in ever 

 increasing proportions. 



Further, we urge, as we did in our Fourth Draft Comments, that, if dis- 

 charges are allowed, a requirement be established for disinfection of materials, 

 and the most extensive possible mileage limitations (i.e., 50 miles rather than 25 

 miles in subparagraph 1(c) (i) ) be supported. Once again, the language suggested 

 in Footnote 2 should be included in the final Convention to permit coastal states 

 to take special measures to protect their national marine environment. 



Regulation 4- Fourth Draft. — This Fourth Draft provision contained a gen- 

 eralized statement that .ships to which the Annex applies be pi-ovided with suit- 

 able equipment for handling and treating garbage. This provision has been elim- 

 inated from the final draft of the Convention. We urge its reinstatement as a 

 regulation specifically defining criteria by which to govern "suitable equipment" 

 as well as provisions for inspection and enforcement of the Regulation. 



Regulation J/. — The language siiggested in Footnote 7 appears nowhere else in 

 the Convention. Its inclu.sion would be unjustified — priority .should not be given to 

 protection of cargo over protection of the marine environment — and we urge the 

 United States to oppose any efforts to incorporate it in the final Convention. 



Regulation J/, para. C. — Accidental loss of synthetic fishing nets is a serious 

 problem, and we recommend that IMCO mandate specific "reasonable precautions, 

 i.e.. buoying and marking, to prevent such loss. 



Regulation 5. — See comments on Annex I, Regulation 20, and Annex II. Regula- 

 tion S. supra. 



******* 



If you have any questions with re.spect to the comments presented above, or if 

 you wish us to supply any further information, please do not hesitate to contact 



