How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I presume that is the legal conclusion of the Treasury Department. Is that correct?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir. The convention of course has the force of law. The convention has stated that we would give this recogni tion to the safety certificates issued by signatory nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Correct me if I am wrong. What you do on a vessel coming into port, picking up passengers, would be to see that it has been certificated under these rules by some other country and that they have a proper certificate, is that correct?

Admiral ROLAND. Principally, that is so. We also do, however, make a check of the firefighting equipment, the lifesaving equipment, and the watertight

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Unless there is a patent violation aboard that you can discern very easily, for when it was issued perhaps it was all right, but here is something wrong. Is that about right? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; that is about right.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you go aboard a ship and you see a cer tificate from country A. But the standards are so patently not of the same level as the U.S. standards but come within the minimum standards of SOLAS, and they have a certificate, would you legally have to grant a permit to that ship?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the interpretation.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; because the country which is also a sig natory of SOLAS has said that this vessel meets the standards, that these standards are satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have before you the standards of all the countries; what they require when you go aboard?

Admiral ROLAND. No; but we have the standards of SOLAS.

The CHAIRMAN. So that all the ship has to do is comply with those standards as you look at them, and have a certificate?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the certificate say when they were inspected? Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How would the commander know, 6 months later, that they are still up to those standards? Just through personal inspection?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes. The certificate is issued annually, and there are certain inspections made in between. And if there are any alterations made, of course there are inspections made at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. But they may be made by the country that issues the certificate?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes; they probably are.

The CHAIRMAN. If the ship ever gets back there.

Admiral ROLAND. In the case of those ships that don't go back frequently, or maybe never go back, the inspections can be made in this country by agencies hired by the country.

For instance the American Bureau of Shipping is the agency that inspects ships for Panama. They were the inspectors for the Yarmouth Castle.

The CHAIRMAN. So that if a ship never got back to Panama during the year, it could be that the company would hire the independent ex

amination and then renew the certificate or suggest it be renewed to the country.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes; and they would renew the certificates then,

yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So that you are limited, as I understand it, to the minimum standards under the SOLAS Convention?

Admiral ROLAND. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Even though it is obvious that they are not the standards that we require for our ships.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. In the case of American ships, there is no problem of your inspecting those ships to live up to our standards, except the ships that were built prior to 1936?

Admiral ROLAND. Even the ships prior to 1936, we set the standards. "Reasonable and practicable" is something that is decided by us in our inspection.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you make the suggestion, on page 10 of your statement, that the law be changed to "prohibit the operation of passenger vessels under U.S. flag which do not conform to current standards of fire-retardant construction and fire protection." And you say 30 years have elapsed.

Admiral ROLAND. Because we think it is time to eliminate those ships from operation.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have the authority to bring all ships that operate up to standards, why can't you do that now under the present law?

Admiral ROLAND. Because the present law does have the "reasonable and practicable" in it. We put it in our own law. And the purpose of putting it in was so that those ships would not be put out of business, that they would be brought up to whatever standard of safety is reasonable and practicable. We believe now that we shouldn't do this

The CHAIRMAN. Why can't you interpret reasonable and practicable to be what the American standards are right now?

Admiral ROLAND. Possibly we could, but I don't think we would get away with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think if you issued the order you would get away with it. I don't think that anybody is going to hoist anchor and go out in violation of your order.

They might, but you would catch them pretty fast.

Admiral ROLAND. We would like to have it airtight, of course. The CHAIRMAN. What you are saying is that you would like a little more guidance in this field-legislative guidance?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir; I think that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. You made a long report on the Yarmouth Castle. The commander went on board twice.

Commander WELLIVER. I was on board the vessel a number of

times.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they up to the standards of the SOLAS Convention?

Commander WELLIVER. For an existing Panamanian passenger vessel; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I can't hear.

Commander WELLIVER. She met the standards of the SOLAS Convention of 1960 for an existing Panamanian passenger vessel.

The CHAIRMAN. Is a Panamanian vessel any different in the safety standards than any other vessel?

Commander WELLIVER. No, sir. I mentioned this just because she was a Panamanian flag.

Admiral ROLAND. Mr. Chairman, I think the keywords are "an existing vessel." She didn't meet the standards for a new vessel at the time of the 1960

The CHAIRMAN. But she did have the standards, inadequate as they may be, or whatever they may be, for the SOLAS specifications, is that correct?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir.

Admiral ROLAND. For an existing vessel; but not for a new one. The CHAIRMAN. Would you want to board her for that cruise, personally, after looking at her?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir; I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. You think you would?
Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You thought she had minimum standards?
Commander WELLIVER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the report? I haven't read it all-the Coast Guard report-that she had minimum standards?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes; it is in the report, that she conformed to the standards that were set for her.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you had said, Commander, that it had some deficiencies, did you?

Excuse me, it was the Viking Princess.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you wouldn't have gotten aboard her?
Commander WELLIVER. Yes, I would have.

The CHAIRMAN. Why would you want to get aboard a ship that had deficiencies?

Commander WELLIVER. These deficiencies were capable of being corrected and they were corrected before she sailed.

The CHAIRMAN. What were the deficiencies, and what was corrected?

Commander WELLIVER. I think we are referring to the time when she first arrived in the United States as a Norwegian passenger vessel. back in December 1964. I don't have my records with me. My best recollection is that she had, in my opinion, too much oil in the bilges of the machinery space, she had some shortcomings in the operation of her watertight doors, and I think in the fire sprinkler system. The watertight door deficiency was corrected and proved satisfactory to my satisfaction.

The CHAIRMAN. That was found out by you at the second inspection, wasn't it?

Commander WELLIVER. On the first one, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What? I meant the correction. When you say it was corrected, what made you arrive at that conclusion?

Commander WELLIVER. I went back, sir, to see that it was corrected. The CHAIRMAN. You went back the second time?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes. I went back I think all together about at least two times on this particular incident.

The CHAIRMAN. You thought the deficiencies in your particular judgment were corrected?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir; they proved the doors were opera

tive.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you have cleared the ship under American standards?

Commander WELLIVER. Insofar as the doors and the sprinkler system and the bilges, yes, because they cleared this up to my satisfaction. The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about American standards. They would be higher, wouldn't they?

Commander WELLIVER. This vessel wasn't built to our standards,

sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I thought. If it was an American flag you would have cleared it?

Commander WELLIVER. No, not under that condition. I couldn't have because she wouldn't have had her certificate of inspection. The CHAIRMAN. I don't quite understand your answer.

Commander WELLIVER. Our standards for construction of a passenger vessel operating with our flag requires certain methods of construction. She didn't have this method, so she couldn't have been certificated by us.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But suppose it was an American flag; suppose they had gotten an American flag. It wouldn't come up to inspection, would it?

Commander WELLIVER. It couldn't have been American flag unless it did.

The CHAIRMAN. I said suppose it was an American flag.

Commander WELLIVER. If she had been an American flag I have to assume it was up to inspection standards.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's forget about the law for a minute. Suppose this was an American-flag ship and you went down and looked at it. You were used to living up to the American safety standards. Would you have let her go?

Commander WELLIVER. Let me say this: If she were an Americanflag vessel and I went down to do a reinspection as we do on our own ships as well as foreign ones, and we found certain deficiencies, unless and until they had been corrected and proved satisfactory, she wouldn't have sailed.

The CHAIRMAN. When she came back the second time with corrected deficiencies, would you let her go if she had been an American flag then? If she would have come up to American standards?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir; if they had been corrected to our satisfaction. There would have been no reason not to let her sail. The CHAIRMAN. Had they been corrected to American standards? Commander WELLIVER. No, sir; not to American standards. The CHAIRMAN. Then you wouldn't have let her go. It is as simple as that. You couldn't have.

What I am trying to point out is some of the standards of these other countries are below ours. Isn't that correct?

Commander WELLIVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You might have to clear a ship according to the standards of a particular country or SOLAS, but it wouldn't come up to the American standards in many respects, would it?

Commander WELLIVER. Our own guidelines insofar as the foreignflag ships are the convention under which she operates, and her own safety certificate.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. But they are lower than American standards, aren't they?

Commander WELLIVER. In some areas, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume we have as high standards as there are in the world, on safety, don't we, Admiral?

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, sir, higher.

The CHAIRMAN. We have higher standards. That is what I am saying. A ship might clear standards under SOLAS Convention but it wouldn't be clear if conceivably we had an American flag because it wouldn't come up to American standards. You could get by with lesser standards.

This is the point we are trying to get at.

Are you hopeful, Admiral, that this meeting of the Maritime Safety Committee will prevail in upgrading standards?

be

Admiral ROLAND. Do you mean am I hopeful that the results will

The CHAIRMAN. That our viewpoint will prevail to lift these standards.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, I certainly am hopeful of that. I don't intend to come back empty handed.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you don't.

Are any other countries joining us in this effort? Do you know of any feeling in other countries, maritime countries such as England and other countries, are they joining us in this? Is that your best information?

Admiral ROLAND. I know that some of the countries are in agreement that there needs to be something drastic done. They are not willing to say that they agree with what we have

The CHAIRMAN. What you specifically have proposed.

Admiral ROLAND. This is as far as I can make a statement on that now. I don't know what they are going to say when we get there. From the economic viewpoint, I know that some of them would be markedly affected by anything drastic. It is going to be a hard blow. The CHAIRMAN. They are a little bit like the automobile manufacturers, aren't they?

Admiral ROLAND. I suppose so.

The CHAIRMAN. It appears that if we are going to raise the standards--would this be a correct statement-and do some of the things that you suggest in this field and other things, that we are going to have to do it in two ways: One, to see that this international group agrees with us and do so; and two, that we revise our laws to give you-the Coast Guard-the authority to see that American passengers do not get on ships which do not comply with at least the American standards or better.

Admiral ROLAND. Yes, I think that is right. I don't think we are ever going to find anything better in the way of standards. I think we may