Mr. McNEAL. I think this has been fairly generally true, Mr. McDonald. However, H.R. 17830 is, as a proposal, news to us in the industry. We were not aware that a matter of this type was under consideration, and we are suggesting that it ought to be considered before the fact, rather than after the fact.

Mr. McDONALD. But you have no fear, I am sure, if the bill were to be enacted into law, that the Coast Guard would not work with the industry, insofar as implementation of the regulations would be concerned.

Mr. McNEAL. I would hope this would be true. I think it may be convenient if the record or the bill itself might specify some provisions of this sort, however, as a safeguard to, shall we say, ease our thinking in this matter.

Mr. McDONALD. It has been past procedure, has it not, for the Coast Guard to do that?

Mr. McNEAL. Yes, sir; but things do change.

Mr. McDONALD. On page 9 of your statement you refer to pressures building "to bring about overregulation by the Coast Guard." From what sources are these pressures coming? Will you be specific please.

Mr. McNEAL. I think what would happen with a broadly permissive statute, under which the Coast Guard could take any sort of action, is that any incident, whatever it may be, whatever may accur, could cause local pressure in certain areas.

Mr. McDONALD. What pressures are building now? You refer to pressures building to bring about overregulation.

Mr. MCNEAL. No, pardon me, sir; I said pressures will be strong. I said "Operating in the context of a broadly permissive statute pressure will be strong." I am not saying there is pressure at this point. This is not law, but pressure would be brought to bear, certainly if they had a broad sweeping power. Not everybody but people generally would say, "Okay, fine. That is a problem, now let's get the Coast Guard immediately to do something about this." I think a good example, if I may, sir; is when something goes wrong any place, everybody says, "Well, why don't you call up your Congressman or write your Congressman? He will solve the problem." That is not always possible, as you know you are well aware, but it is sort of a general feeling. What I am speaking about in the statement, is to give this broad context of authority, then the Coast Guard would find themselves under pressure in every instance.

Mr. McDONALD. When you say already those pressures are beginning to build, you just mean the general pressure building concerning the quality of our environment, and so on? Is that what you have in mind?

Mr. McNEAL. No, sir. Excuse me, sir: but I didn't say they were starting to build at this time. I said if this became law, operating in the context of a broadly permissive statute, pressure will be strong, and I say these pressures are beginning to build, because in the testimony of the U.S. Federal Pilots Association, this is just one that we have seen. It is the only one we have seen at this point. I am sure there will be others, but already this is being used as a pressure towards pilotage, a matter under active consideration by this committee, with respect to at least towing vessels.

Mr. McDONALD. I thank the gentleman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Griffin?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No questions.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Casey?

Mr. CASEY. Mr. McNeal, it seems to me as I read your testimony that the main thrust of your objections to this bill lies in two areas. One, that it confers overlapping jurisdiction, and secondly, that it encourages regulations without adequate procedural safeguards. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. McNEAL. Yes, sir, these are certainly two objections.

Mr. CASEY. Now, in connection with the overlapping aspect, is it not true that the Coast Guard has exercised these functions for the last 20 years under the executive orders?

Mr. MCNEAL. This is an open-end bill, under which functions could be added, but in the exercise of the functions over the past 20 years under executive orders, they have been done primarily on the basis of espionage.

Mr. CASEY. The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified that the authorities that are being granted in this bill were really to make permanent those authorities which he had been exercising under Executive Order 10173 under the Magnuson Act, which extends far beyond espionage.

Mr. MCNEAL. Well, sir, that is true, but it starts out against destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other subversive acts.

Mr. CASEY. Accidents.

Mr. MCNEAL. Accidents or other causes of a similar nature, and continues from there. This is true, sir, but it is predicated on being in a time of national emergency, because, of course, this is the executive order issuance. It was based on a national emergency. We are still, of course, in a national emergency.

Mr. CASEY. So the authority has existed for 20 years.

Mr. MCNEAL. Some of the authority has existed, but I don't know the authority that the Coast Guard would propose under H.R. 17830. Mr. CASEY. Has any of the authority that has been exercised over the past 20 years led to problems with the industry, vis-a-vis the Coast Guard and Corps of Engineers?

Mr. MCNEAL. Yes, there are conflicts concerning traffic control and regulation and the matter of jurisdiction in, for example, New Orleans Harbor.

Mr. CASEY. I mean have those conflicts created problems, or have they been worked out between the Coast Guard and the Corps of Engineers? Mr. MCNEAL. This particular problem has not been worked out to the best of my knowledge, sir. I think what happens usually is we have a Mexican standoff.

Mr. CASEY. Let me go to the procedural aspects. I gather that what you would do is amend the bill in several aspects. (1) You would apply the Administrative Procedure Act to the powers conferred by this bill upon the Coast Guard. (2) You would give a period of time for the effective date, in making comparison with other similar legislation. (3) You would require the standards to be reasonable. Would that basically meet your objections so far as the procedural safeguards are concerned.

Mr. MCNEAL. As far as procedural safeguards are concerned, yes. I am listening to my attorney here, if I may, sir. He feels that this would go a long wav.

Mr. CASEY. Of course you do state at one point in your statement that you did have an opportunity, before a congressional hearing, to testify on the radiotelephone aspect, but I don't reasonably construe your statement as meaning that every time a safety device as prescribed for a vessel, you would want this thing to be the subject of a separate bill.

Mr. MCNEAL. No, sir, and of course safety devices on vessels are not always the subject of a separate bill. However, that is one with some rather far-reaching implications.

Mr. CASEY. And the Commandant said that he preferred to see that bill proceed on its own, rather than be encompassed within the powers conferred by this bill.

Of course the budgetary impact is not a real objection in your opinion, is it? In other words, if it requires some money to carry out a bill that otherwise is necessary and essential for the safety of the waterfront and the harbors, the mere fact that some money might be necessary is not an objection on your part, is it?

Mr. MCNEAL. I am not concerned about it from that standpoint certainly, because as I have said before, money is already being spent, for example, through the Corps of Engineers on a series of regulations. We did discuss, however, duplication of effort, and the possible waste of money on a duplicating of efforts.

Mr. CASEY. I gather that what you really did was to point out to this committee that the statement by the Coast Guard that there was no appreciable budgetary impact was probably not correct, in view of the powers conferred by this bill, is that correct?

Mr. McNEAL. I think the word, sir, is possibly not correct.

Mr. CASEY. Of course he did go on to say that it might require more money as he determined other actions and activities that would be necessary to implement the bill. Did you take cognizance of that statement?

Mr. MCNEAL. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Garmatz?

Mr. GARMATZ. No questions.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Corrado?

Mr. CORRADO. Under the executive order, did the Coast Guard have the power to promulgate regulations for manning scales, do you know? Mr. MCNEAL. I don't know, sir. I would have to turn to Mr. Chesnutt on that matter. Do they have the power under that regulation?

Mr. CHESNUTT. I really don't know, to tell you the truth. I haven't researched that point. I would be happy to do so and give the response. Mr. MCNEAL. May we come back with that one?

Mr. CORRADO. Yes, would you please. To extend that, on the top of page 10 you talk about a number of things that could be regulated, and you point to section 2(b) (1). I wonder what words there are in that section that lead you to believe that manning scales would be regulated. I don't question what you say, because of the executive communication that came up that talks about manning scales. I realize 2(b)(1) is very broad, but I wonder if this is that broad, and if it is

that broad is it rooted in the executive order, or how does this come about?

Mr. MCNEAL. Speaking about 2(b) (1) for a moment, you say what concerns us there. It would seem to me that traffic control procedures and methods, and establish systems, and I am taking words here as they come, is certainly sufficient authority to do almost anything, I would think. It is sort of broad.

Mr. CORRADO. I realize that, but I just wonder how you go from that to manning scales. I don't disagree with you. They mention it in the executive orders, so that would seem to indicate that may be what they want to do, but where is the ending to this?

Mr. MCNEAL. That, sir, is the question that we are trying to raise. Where is the end of this, sir. It seems there is none.

Mr. CORRADO. I just picked that one particular subject because I wonder where it was rooted, and if you could give us anything on it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McNeal.

Mr. MCNEAL. Thank you, sir.

(The following letter was received in connection with the foregoing testimony :)

RE H.R. 17830

Hon. FRANK M. CLARK,

LAW OFFICES OF A. ALVIS LAYNE, Washington, D.C., September 10, 1970.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: At pages 287-88 of the transcript of hearings before this Subcommittee on H.R. 17830, the undersigned, as counsel for The American Waterways Operators, Inc., and AWO's witness, William C. McNeal, agreed to submit a written response to the question by Mr. Corrado, Counsel for the Subcommittee, asking whether "the Coast Guard [has] the power to promulgate regulations for manning scales" under Executive Order 10173 issued pursuant to the Magnuson Act, 50 U.S.C. § 191. Also, at pages 288-89 of the transcript Mr. Corrado asked whether any provision in section 2(b) (1) of H.R. 17830 could be construed to authorize the Coast Guard to regulate manning scales. On behalf of AWO, I respectfully submit this letter in response to Mr. Corrado's two questions and request inclusion of the letter as part of AWO's presentation to the Subcommittee regarding H.R. 17830.

1. Under Executive Order 10173 the Coast Guard has authority to prescribe conditions and restrictions relating to the manning of vessels in port and waterfront facilities. This limited authority is contained in 33 C.F.R. § 6.14–1. which was par of Executive Order 10173 as issued by President Truman. The Coast Guard's authority in this area is further confined to prescribing conditions and restrictions which the Commandant finds to be necessary to the safety of waterfront facilities and vessels in port. To the knowledge of a responsible Coast Guard official interviewed by AWO counsel, no manning condition or restriction has ever been prescribed under the authority contained in 33 C.F.R. § 6.14-1.

2. Secretary Volpe's letter of May 19, 1970, transmitting a draft of H.R. 17830 to Speaker McCormack, states one of the purposes of the bill to be "to provide continuing general authority" for the Coast Guard to prescribe the type of regulations-explicitly including manning conditions and restrictions-authorized by Executive Order 10173.

The absence of any specific reference to "manning" in H.R. 17830 suggests that the "continuing authority" to prescribe manning conditions and restrictions would be claimed by the Department of Transportation under the broad, general language of section 2(b)(1) of the bill. A more definitive answer to Mr. Corrado's second question should obviously come from the Coast Guard in explanation of Secretary Volpe's statement that H.R. 17830 provides "continuing authority" for the Coast Guard to regulate to the same extent as authorized by Executive Order 10173.

Whether the Coast Guard's continuing authority to prescribe manning conditions and restrictions is found in section 2(b) (1) or some other provision of H.R. 17830, there is no limitation confining such authority to the prescription of manning conditions and restrictions applicable solely to "vessels in port and waterfront facilities."

Sincerely,

WILLIAM A. CHESNUTT,
Counsel for The American
Waterways Operators, Inc.

Mr. CLARK. The next witness is James Reynolds, president of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping. For the record, give your name and that of the gentleman accompanying you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES REYNOLDS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MERCHANT SHIPPING; ACCOMPANIED BY LINCOLN CONE, ASSOCIATE, AND JOHN PROKOP, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is James J. Reynolds, and I am president of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping. On my left is Mr. Lincoln Cone, an associate of mine, who has the particular responsibility of advising on the whole question of navigation and safety of operation of vessels. On my right is our legislative counsel, John Prokop.

Shall I proceed?

Mr. CLARK. Will you proceed.

Mr. REYNOLDS. We have a brief statement on the bill, and I think it would really save time if I ran through it, with your permission.

I am James J. Reynolds, president of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping, a national trade association composed of 35 American companies which own and operate about 520 U.S.-flag oceangoing vessels in United States and foreign ports and waterways. These vessels, which aggegrate over 8 million deadweight tons, represent over two-thirds of the commercial American merchant marine.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to present our views and recommendations with respect to H.R. 17830, a bill to promote the safety of ports, harbors, waterfront areas, and navigable waters of the United States, which is cited as the "Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1970.”

As indicated in a letter of transmittal dated May 19, 1970, from the Secretary of Transportation to the Speaker of the House, the bill would confer upon the Secretary of Transportation and the Coast Guard, authority, powers, and functions now possessed by the Coast Guard under the President's Executive Order 10173, issued in 1950, by President Truman under the terms of the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191).

The Magnuson Act authorizes the President to make rules and regulations governing the movement, inspection, and guarding of vessels. harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities in the United States whenever the President by proclamation or Executive order declares a national emergency to exist by reason of actual or threatened war, insurrection. or invasion, or disturbance of international relations of the United States.

The national emergency which was proclaimed by President Truman in 1950, still remains in effect and the Coast Guard today per