ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to modernize regulations (commonly called western rivers rules) for the prevention of collisions on certain inland waters of the United States, particularly those emptying into the Gulf of Mexico.

The provisions of H. R. 3350, which was prepared by the Coast Guard, are based upon recommendations of the steamship operators in that region, together with those of the local pilots' associations, following public hearings. The proposed legislation involves primarily local interests. However, there is one aspect of the situation which is of particular concern to the Navy Department. That is the necessity for preserving in the proposed rules the exemption of specially constructed naval vessels, which now exists under the act of December 3, 1945 (59 Stat. 590; 50 App. U. S. C. 1731). It is understood that this particular aspect of the situation was not considered when the bill was drafted, and it is thought that the failure to carry over into the proposed rules the existing exemption under the western rivers rules was possibly overlooked.

The act of December 3, 1945, referred to above, provides an exemption from certain statutory requirements as to the number, position, range, or arc of visibility of lights of naval vessels of special construction. This exemption was originally contained in title V of the Second War Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 180), whereby the Secretary of the Navy was authorized to waive compliance with these requirements. The problem became particularly acute as a result of war construction of naval vessels on which the lights prescribed by statute could not be installed in keeping with requirements of vessel design. Specific examples are landing craft and the aircraft carrier. The situation is perhaps best illustrated by reference to the latter. Here the location of the superstructure or island on one side of the flight deck makes it impossible to place the two white lights, that is, the masthead and range lights, in line with the keel, as is required by the statute. There are no masts on the flight deck of the carrier to support the white lights in line with the keel, and their presence would make flight operations impossible.

The difficulty resulting from this situation is twofold. First, on principle, there is the general undesirability of having statutory requirements with which it is impossible for certain types of Government vessels to comply. Secondly, there is the possibility that the United States unnecessarily may incur, by reason of such a situation, heavy losses in admiralty litigation. Under admiralty law the violation of a statute such as here involved would impose the burden of proving affirmatively not only that the violation did not contribute but that it could not possibly have contributed to the collision. Experience in litigation has demonstrated that this is a very heavy burden of proof and one difficult to sustain.

While the problem was not particularly acute prior to the war because of the limited number of naval vessels of special construction, it was recognized that an exemption of specially constructed naval vessels was required. The 1929 International Convention to amend the International Rules of the Road, which are applicable to the high seas, granted such an exemption. The recommendations of the convention, however, failed of enactment. An international convention is scheduled for 1948, and the American proposals for the convention include the exemption of specially constructed naval vessels. To deal with the situation between the lapse of the authority under the Second War Powers Act and the adoption of the rules of convention, the act of December 3, 1945, was passed, granting to specially constructed naval vessels this exemption from the provisions of the International, Inland, Great Lakes and Western River Rules until June 30, 1948. However, when the act of December 3, 1945, was passed, it was anticipated that the international convention now scheduled for 1948 would meet in 1946. In view of the new date scheduled for the convention, the Navy Department has sponsored a bill to amend the act of December 3, 1945, to remove the June 30, 1948, expiration date, as it is essential that the statutory exemption be continued until the convention is held and its findings adopted and ratified.

It is desirable not only that this exemption apply to the Western Rivers Rules but that it conform to such exemption as may hereafter be granted in connection with the International Rules as a result of the proposed convention action. To accomplish this objective it is the Navy Department's recommendation that the following additional section should be inserted in H. R. 3350:

"That, where any Navy or Coast Guard vessel of special construction, as certified to by the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Treasury in the case of Coast Guard vessels operating under the Treasury Department, or such

official or officials as either may designate, is now or may hereafter by virtue. of statute, convention or treaty, be exempt from compliance with any requirements of the International Rules of the Road, such type of vessel shall similarly be exempt from compliance with any corresponding requirement under the rules specified in this Act."

If the above provision is added to the bill H. R. 3350, the Navy Department interposes no objection to enactment of the bill.

The Navy Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours,

W. JOHN KENNEY, Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION,

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN,
Washington, July 16, 1948.

The Honorable WALLACE H. WHITE, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR WHITE: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 9, 1947, requesting the views of the Maritime Commission on H. R. 3350, a bill relating to the rules for the prevention of collisions on certain inland waters of the United States and on the western rivers, and for other purposes.

The measure apparently does not relate to any matter which is within the direct jurisdiction of the Maritime Commission. A study, however, will be made of the measure and any comments which the Commission may have on it will then be transmitted to you.

Sincerely yours,

W. W. SMITH, Chairman.

Senator REED. Mr. Thompson, will you arrange the order of presentation for the proponents?

STATEMENT OF CHESTER C. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INLAND WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would like to make a brief statement, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, H. R. 3350, which passed the House unanimously, is a bill to modernize the pilot rules for western rivers, and to simplify the pilot rules for inland waters as applied to the Gulf intercoastal waterway.

This legislation was not hastily drawn. It is a matter that has had the consideration of all elements of the industry for a period of 4 or 5

years.

It might be pertinent to point out that the pilot rules for western rivers, which includes the Mississippi River system, have not been revised during the present century, during which time there has been a very substantial change in the mode of operation, in the type of equipment used, on the inland waterways.

In the early days, as you will recall, there were packet boats that moved freight. Packet boats have practically disappeared from the inland waters, and there has been put in their place, towing vessels, with barges that carry the freight in non-self-propelled vessels.

Sometimes these tows are a thousand feet long and frequently well over a hundred feet wide. So the industry felt that there should be a revision of the pilot rules.

There were conferences between the Coast Guard, which administers the pilot rules of the United States, and all elements of the

industry. We had what might be called public hearings on it, sponsored by the industry at New Orleans, in November 1946, and a similar meeting in Cincinnati in November of 1946.

To the best of my knowledge, at the New Orleans hearing there were no objections offered to this proposed legislation. At the Cincinnati hearing two or three gentlemen did object to some of the provisions in the proposed legislation.

Captain Farwell, of the United States Coast Guard, who is the pilot rule adviser to the Commandant, is here prepared to make a statement regarding the necessity of the legislation and to give you brief information as to its coverage.

Captain Farwell participated in all of these conferences that I have referred to.

The industry feels that legislation such as this is necessary in the interest of safety for navigation on the inland waterway system of the United States, which is now a sizable system, having moved well in excess of 100,000,000 tons of freight during each of the past two or three calendar years.

I believe, Senator, that is all I have to say, and I would suggest that Captain Farwell give you a brief outline.

Senator REED. Is that all that you have, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir; that is all I have.

Thank you.

Senator REED. Captain Farwell?

STATEMENT OF CAPT. RAYMOND F. FARWELL, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Captain FARWELL. I am Raymond F. Farwell.

Senator, I am very glad to second Mr. Thompson's remarks. While I am in the Navy, I have been attached to the Commandant of the Coast Guard for four and a half years to work on this problem. I was detailed to work with the gentlemen on the rivers in the essential revision of the pilot rules.

As the House statement showed you, the situation down there was critical, in that there was great confusion, particularly on the Intracoastal Waterway. Because under existing statutes you would have to change rules 10 times, for example, in proceeding from New Orleans to Corpus Christi. Every 30 or 40 miles you would have to shift from one set of pilot rules to the other because the present western rivers rules apply on all rivers entering into the Gulf. And wherever the waterway coincides with or crosses one of these western rivers you make that shift.

And so, after the extended conferences referred to by Mr. Thompson, the bill was prepared. Everybody had a hearing. The Coast Guard is solidly back of this bill, having worked with it from the beginning, and having strongly recommended its passage in the House. It repeats that recommendation here.

As I say, it represents the work of active people on the river through an extended period, and we believe that it takes care of the needs in accordance with the modern traffic, which is largely pusher-tow traffic. We understand that the people here from Pittsburgh have one or two trifling objections to certain provisions, which, as a matter of fact,

75813-48-3

we would not object to going along with at all, if the Senate committee feels that the case is sufficiently strong for those changes.

For example, there is one place where the lights are described:

Central range of two white lights, the after light being carried at an elevation of at least 15 feet above the light at the head of the vessel,

And it has been pointed out by some of the objectors that that 15-foot vertical spread is difficult where you have a series of low-hung bridges to go under. And that is an item which could be very simply solved by striking the words on page 8 of the bill at line 18; by striking the words "of at least 15 feet above" and writing in place of that "higher than," not saying how many feet higher.

Senator REED. What line is that, Captain?

Captain FARWELL. Line 18 on page 8. It now reads:

* * * the after light being carried at an elevation of at least 15 feet above the light at the head of the vessel.

Now, if you just strike the words "at least 15 feet above" and substitute the words "higher than," without saying how many feet, that would take care of it. It is essential that the after light be higher than the light at the head of the vessel, but it is not essential that it be 15 feet higher. We go along with that quite cheerfully.

I think there is an objection by the gentleman from Pittsburgh to an item on page 13, at line 10. Do you have that, sir?

Senator REED. I have it before me.

Captain FARWELL. It says—

so placed that the sound may not be intercepted by any obstruction, and with an efficient foghorn.

At the present time, these river vessels are not required to be equipped with a foghorn.

Well, as long as the required whistle signals in the bill must be on the whistle, we could get along all right without that foghorn, too, and could certainly consent to strike the words "with an efficient foghorn," if, again, you deem it advisable.

I am pointing out that these were all things which were carefully considered and properly belong in the bill, but they are minor points, which we would not not insist on if changes in those respects would please the objectors to the bill.

Now, I think you will probably hear some objection to the whistle signals. And I would like to say a few words in their behalf, because it has been my business to work with the establishing of whistle signals for greater safety under the various sets of rules.

And I want to emphasize the fact that this system of whistle signals was proposed and is now advocated by the overwhelming majority of the pilot body on the rivers. And I feel that there is a distinct step in the direction of simplicity in these whistle signals.

I may

describe them very briefly.

In the first place, the man does not have to distinguish between a short blast and a long, which is always an item of confusion. It will be possible to blow any length of blast. It just simply says "distinct blasts."

In the second place, there are just four signals to remember; that is, one blast, two blasts, three blasts, and four blasts. It is no great mental strain on anyone to distinguish that many signals, particularly

when you do not have to keep track of whether it shall be of a certain length in seconds.

And then, finally, the new western rivers rules are moved up above the Huey Long Bridge in New Orleans, so that they are not of interest to any other than river traffic, with the single exception of the ocean tankers, which come up another hundred miles to Baton Rouge, and which in that voyage are always directly under control of the river pilot, who would be familiar with the rules. But you will find that if the objectors want to say that these whistles are confusing because three blasts are used to mean three or four different things, that sounds convincing at first. But when you actually go into it, you find that the three-blast signal always does one thing essentially. It calls attention to the vessel.

That is, when you are in a situation when, because of the peculiar situation, you want to say, "I call attention to my position," that is what it does. Three blasts is the fog signal. Everybody knows you want to call attention to yourself then. Three blasts is the bend signal, when you are approaching a bend, and there may be a fellow out of sight around the bend who wants to know you are coming. When you are leaving a dock between two piers, for example, you use it; because obviously you want to call attention to yourself there. And the fourth use of the three blasts is where a vessel is bound down the river with a heavy tow, and where normally a vessel coming from one side, from the right, would have the right-of-way, and from the other side she would not. That signal is exchanged between the two, there, to indicate the special situation; namely, "I am coming down the river. I have a tow. I have the right-of-way. Therefore, you keep clear."

It is not nearly as foolish as it looks at first, when you analyze the fact that the four uses of that three-blast signal are actually one use, namely, to call attention to a vessel for a special reason.

I would like to emphasize here that these rules were designed by the river people. I want the Fittsburgh gentlemen present to get this. I did not design them. I had nothing to do with designing them. My part was to advise them in forming the language properly, so that we would not have confusing legislation with respect to our other sets of rules.

You see, unfortunately in this country we have 10 sets of rules of the road, Senator. We should have 1, but we have 10. So my job was to keep the thing harmonious with the others. But the ideas are the ideas of the river pilots.

Senator REED. Why do we have 10 sets of signals?

Captain FARWELL. Senator, I have wondered that for 15 years; and I think probably the answer could best be attributed to local pride. Because as we work in the direction of uniformity, the answer we commonly get is, "Uniformity is a fine idea. There ought to be one set of rules. But don't change ours."

And so it is that on the rivers they feel that they must have their own; and on the lakes; and the thing goes on..

I have studied the thing in 35 other countries, and in not one of them do you have special rules. The international rules are good enough. But that is the situation here.

Senator REED. In what areas are these signals differently observed? Captain FARWELL. The four jurisdictions within this country?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »