STATEMENT OF THE MERRITT-CHAPMAN & SCOTT CORP., CLEVELAND, OHIO, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO S. 3019 The Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. has stationed and operates 18 tugs on the Great Lakes, 16 of these being diesel powered, and 2 steam powered. These tugs operate in various ports on the Great Lakes and tributary waters, depending on the location of construction projects. They are of varying tonnage13 under 100 gross tons and 5 ranging from 125 to 180 gross tons. All MerrittChapman & Scott Corp. tugs are U.S. vessels, licensed and enrolled for navigation on the Great Lakes. Documentation is the same type as is given to all Great Lakes vessels. There is no statute or regulation requiring licensed pilots or other licensed personnel on board the company's diesel tugs; however, the Coast Guard license requirement does apply to personnel employed on steam tugs on the Great Lakes. This is also true of other operators of diesel tugs on the Great Lakes, as well as the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River diesel tugs which frequently ply the Great Lakes waters. It is the company's understanding that a bill, S. 3019 has been introduced to establish pilotage requirements for ocean vessels (American registry and foreign vessels) operating from ocean routes into the Great Lakes and the problems connected therewith; that the bill is not intended to regulate vessels which are enrolled for coastwise trade on the Great Lakes nor regulate Canadian vessels engaged in Great Lakes trade. Nevertheless, we believe some question could conceivably arise regarding the applicability of this proposed legislation to the operation of this company's and other companies' diesel tugs. At a hearing held before your committee on February 23 and 24, 1960, we have been advised that the State Department, in presenting its statement supporting the bill, made the following statement: "The term 'registered vessel of the United States' applies to American vessels engaged in foreign trade, as distinguished from vessels proceeding under ‘enrollment' when engaged in domestic trade between U.S. ports. Enrollment is also permitted under existing law for U.S. vessels engaged in foreign trade between United States and Canadian ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Any enrolled vessel navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." We understand that when pointed out that the last sentence was not exactly factual, a change is to be made something along the following lines: : "With a few exceptions, enrolled vessels navigating U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River must have a complement of officers holding Coast Guard pilot licenses for those waters." Under section 9, subsection (b) of S. 3019, it is provided that nothing in this act shall apply to any vessel of the United States which, in its navigation of waters to which the act is applicable, is required by any other act to have in its service and on board pilots or other navigating officers licensed by the United States for such waters. The effect of this provision would be to exclude U.S. vessels of the "laker" category from the coverage of the act which are now required by other laws to be manned by personnel who are licensed by the Coast Guard. It would also exclude the company's steam tugs because of the licensing requirements currently in effect for such tugs. However, the diesel tugs of this company and others trading on the Great Lakes would not be clearly excluded inasmuch as there are no licensing provisions in effect for their personnel. In prior legislative proposals introduced before the Senate as S. 2096 and in the House as H.R. 7515 and H.R. 57, all vessels of less than 300 gross tons were excluded. This exclusion does not appear in S. 3019. From discussions of this problem with the Commandant of the Coast Guard and representatives of other interested departments of our Government, it is our understanding that no changes were contemplated in the present requirements for Great Lakes tugs, either steam or diesel. Therefore, in order to prevent any wrongful interpretation in the future, it is requested that the following amendment be added to section 9: "Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any statutory requirement for licensed pilots on vessels of less than 300 gross tons." Respectfully submitted. SHERMAN H. SERRE, Vice President. STATEMENT BY CAPT. ANDREW MYSLAKOWSKI, BAYSIDE, N.Y. My name is Andrew Myslakowski, U.S. citizen (naturalized), age 42. I am an ex-Suez Canal pilot and I have been employed as such from September 1956 to the beginning of 1959. I left the service of Suez Canal Authority due to the persistent violating of the spirit and letter of contracts by the said authority, and generally hostile and unfair attitude on the part of Egyptian authorities toward American pilots. I spent the navigational season of 1959 in the seaway as an observer pilot and passed the examination for pilotage on the St. Lawrence River between St. Regis and Cape Vincent, before U.S. Coast Guard. I am a member of a pilot group affiliated with International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, Inc. I respectfully suggest to the committee a change in the proposed bill S. 3019, which would in no way alter its essence or any major provisions. In section 2, paragraph (c), line 3, after the words "unlimited master's license" insert "or chief mate's license, providing that such person has had at least 2 years' pilot's experience in Panama or Suez Canals." In the way of explanation, I would like to point out that in both Panama and Suez Canals the unlimited master's license for pilots is mandatory. I am the holder of U.S. chief mate's license and also unlimited master's license, issued by the Polish Government-in-exile in London as of 1946. I graduated from the Merchant Marine Academy in Poland in 1938, and ever since have been working in the trade. I have been hired by the Suez Canal on the basis of my foreign master's license, which is however invalid in the case of present legislation. The experience since the opening of seaway indicates that much of the "trouble" in connection with the transit of "salt water" ships, has been in the locks. I would like to quote Mr. Miles F. York, president of American Institute of Marine Underwriters, who discussed the problems of marine insurance on the 46th National Foreign Trade Convention : "Nevertheless, as the first season of operation (St. Lawrence Seaway) comes to a close, marine underwriters are nursing many wounds." He cited a recent experience extracted from the underwriters daily casualty bulletin. "A ship on voyage from Hamilton to South American ports via Montreal struck her portside entering Iroquois lock, doing slight damage to shell plating; subsequently on the same date her starboard side came in contact with the Snell lock causing slight damage, and on the same date on departure from Beauharnois lower lock her port quarter deck struck the lock sustaining further damage." "The same daily bulletin recorded casualties to 10 other ships in the Great Lakes, the seaway, and the St. Lawrence River," he continued. I am quoting Mr. York in order to show that ability of "ship handling" or maneuvering in confined waters is of paramount importance. This ability of handling a ship comes with the experience not only on one ship or any one type of ship, but on many, of different construction, power, tonnage, and draft conditions. A master of an ocean ship generally brings her from "pilot to pilot," and leaves the handling in restricted waters, and docking to a pilot. This is a prevailing practice in the majority of world ports and major international waterways. My own experience as a pilot in the Suez Canal, and Port Said docking pilot, is large and diversified. I acquired it by piloting literally hundreds of ships of all description, up to 18,000 tons gross and 33 feet draft. However the wording of the bill S. 3019 if enacted in the present form would eliminate one of the very few American pilots in the seaway, who has had this kind of experience, which certainly is not the intention of this bill. I hope that someone of the committee members will sponsor this small amendment. It would save the right to work of a deserving individual, and at the same time contribute in a small way toward efficient operation of the seaway. I would like to point out that the present Canadian minimum requirement for St. Lawrence River is chief mate's license, and many such pilots are employed on St. Regis Cape Vincent section as registered pilots under full approval of Canadian Ministry of Transport. (The comments from the Government agencies follow :) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In reviewing S. 3019, a bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes, introduced by yourself and referred to your committee, we note that section 11(b) provides as follows: "(b) In carrying out the functions vested in him by this Act, the Secretary, subject to the standards and procedures of section 505 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, is authorized to place not to exceed two positions in grade 16, 17, or 18 of the general schedule established by such Act. Such positions shall be in addition to the number of positions authorized to be placed in such grades by such section 505." We are interested in this section because it relates to the Commission's responsibilities for placing positions in grades GS-16, 17, and 18 and for determining the qualifications of the proposed appointees to such positions under the provisions of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. Section 11(b) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to place not to exceed two positions in grade GS-16, 17, or 18 in addition to the number of positions currently authorized to be placed in such grades by section 505 of the Classification Act. This authority may only be exercised subject to the standards and procedures of such section 505 which, in pertinent part, provides that 1. "No position shall be placed in grades 16, 17, or 18 of the general schedule except by action of, or after prior approval by, a majority of the Civil Service Commissioners. 2. "Appointments to positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the general schedule shall be made only upon approval by the Civil Service Commission of the qualifications of the proposed appointees ***" Thus, section 11(b) requires the Civil Service Commission to evaluate the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the two positions (as well as the qualifications of proposed appointees) to determine whether they warrant allocation to grade GS-16, 17, or 18. It would not, however, require that the Commission allocate the two positions to any one of these grades unless such action is appropriate under the standards and grade definitions in the Classification Act. We are particularly anxious that the meaning of the language of section 11(b) be clearly understood by the committee so that no question will arise as to its interpretation if the section as drafted is enacted into law. We will be glad to answer any questions your committee or your committee staff members may have about the provision discussed in this letter. Sincerely yours, ROGER W. JONES, Chairman. THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., February 29, 1960. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of February 12, 1960, for the views of the Department of Commerce on S. 3019, a bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. The Department is of the view that S. 3019, if enacted, would provide a sound basis for regulating pilotage on the waters concerned. Until recent years, there has been no great urgency in the need for Federal legislation regulating pilotage on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River as the requirements of navigation have been satisfied by qualified personnel licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard or by the appropriate Canadian agency. However, the improvement of the St. Lawrence Seaway, accompanied by a tremendous upsurge in its use by oceangoing vessels, has resulted in an urgent need for sound and comprehensive legislation to assure the continued safety of navigation on these waters, consistent with equitable pilotage requirements of the users of such waters. There is presently before Congress a bill (H.R. 57) providing for compulsory pilotage on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River. The Department, as indicated in our letter to the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, dated April 1, 1959, and in subsequent testimony before the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Navigation, of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, did not favor passage of H.R. 57. The Department of Commerce did not support H.R. 57 primarily because it was of the view that pilotage on these waters should be closely coordinated between the United States and Canada so that regulations imposed by this country would not be inconsistent with those of Canada. H.R. 57, if enacted into law as reported to the House of Representatives, would not have accomplished this purpose. In order to overcome the objections to H.R. 57, and to arrive at an administration position respecting pilotage on the Great Lakes, the Departments of State, Commerce, and Treasury formulated the provisions of S. 3019. The Department of Commerce, therefore, recommends enactment of S. 3019. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it would interpose no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, PHILIP A. RAY, Under Secretary of Commerce. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letter of February 12, 1960, acknowledged on February 15, requesting the comments of the General Accounting Office concerning S. 3019, 86th Congress, 2d session, entitled "A bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes." We have no special information or knowledge as to the need for or desirability of the proposed legislation and, therefore, we make no recommendation with respect to its enactment. However, we suggest that the Congress may wish to consider the advisability of authorizing the President to exempt U.S.-registered vessels where good cause appears, in order that the requirements for U.S. and foreign vessels may be on a comparable basis. We note that the word "provided" appearing in the title of the bill and on page 4, line 6, should be "provide.” Sincerely yours, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1960, requesting the views of the Department of Justice with respect to S. 3019, a bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. This will would (1) establish pilotage requirements for vessels operating in designated U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, including part of the St. Lawrence River; (2) provide a basis for a regulated pilotage system for meeting the above requirements; and (3) provide a basis for coordination with Canada in pilotage arrangements on these waters, as well as for the reciprocal and equitable par ticipation by U.S. and Canadian nationals in the pilotage of vessels to which the bill is applicable. The subject matter of this legislation is not a matter in which the Department has primary responsibility and accordingly we make no recommendation as to the enactment of this bill. However, the Department would like to point out that although the language of the bill does not so state, it is assumed that there is no apparent intention to have the U.S. registered pilots considered as employees of the United States for whose acts the United States or the pilotage pool might be liable. Further, it is suggested that the first sentence of section 7A be amended to substitute the word "thereof" for the last three words "of the violation". This amendment would avoid the argument that the district court must have jurisdiction of the act as well as physical jurisdicion over the vessel. This issue had heretofore been resolved with respect to the "Liabilities of Pilots", i.e., section 412, title 33, United States Code, and the amendment would conform to the language of that section. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, LAWRENCE E. WALSH, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter refers to your letter of February 12, 1960, requesting the comments of this agency on S. 3019, a bill to provide for certain pilotage requirements in the navigation of U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes. Your letter was received by us on February 19, 1960, and representatives of the Corporation attended the hearings scheduled on February 23. By reason of such attendance and our inadvertence, we have been delayed in responding to your request for a report on S. 3019. This is to inform you that this agency was consulted in the drafting of S. 3019 and aided and assisted in its preparation. We are familiar with the report which was made on this bill by the Department of Commerce contained in its letter of February 29, 1960, and we concur in the favorable report presented by that Department. Sincerely yours, LEWIS G. CASTLE, Administrator. STATE DEPARTMENT, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Reference is made to H.R. 57, a bill to provide for pilots on certain vessels navigating waters of the Great Lakes, and for other purposes, which was submitted on August 6, 1959, to the House of Representatives by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. You will recall that the bill, as reported on August 6, included an amendment which proposed the formation of a joint commission by Canada and the United States for the purpose of conducting a staff study on pilotage. The amended bill has been the subject of an aide-memoire from the Canadian Embassy, dated September 11, 1959. For reasons stated in the aide-memoire, a copy of which is enclosed, the Canadian Government considered it would be unable to participate in a commission such as that envisaged under the provisions of II.R. 57, as amended. Faced with an interim period before the Congress could resume its consideration of the pilotage bill, it was considered that further efforts should be made to clarify and possibly resolve the several outstanding issues. The Department |