U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–987 PDF 2012

RECENT REGULATION OF THE MARITIME 

INDUSTRY: ENSURING U.S. JOB GROWTH WHILE 

IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL AND 

WORKER SAFETY 

(112–84) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Vice Admiral Brian M. Salerno, Deputy Commandant for Operations, United 

States Coast Guard, accompanied by Jeffrey G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States Coast Guard .......................... 8 

James A. Hanlon, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of 

Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 8 

PANEL TWO

Hon. Christopher Koch, President and CEO, World Shipping Council ............... 21 

James Gutowski, Chairman, Fisheries Survival Fund, Barnegat Light, New 

Jersey .................................................................................................................... 21 

Jimmy Lafont, Callais and Sons, Cut Off, Louisiana ........................................... 21 

Don Marcus, Secretary-Treasurer, International Organization of Masters, 

Mates, and Pilots ................................................................................................. 21 

Paul Cozza, President, CSL International ............................................................. 21 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Vice Admiral Brian M. Salerno and Jeffrey G. Lantz, joint statement .............. 38 

James A. Hanlon ...................................................................................................... 45 

Hon. Christopher Koch ............................................................................................ 68 

James Gutowski ....................................................................................................... 79 

Jimmy Lafont ........................................................................................................... 88 

Don Marcus .............................................................................................................. 90 

Paul Cozza ................................................................................................................ 95 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, request to submit letter from Amy L. Fowler, Manager, Clean 

Air Initiatives, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, April 25, 

2012 ....................................................................................................................... 6 

James A. Hanlon, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of 

Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions from the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 61 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

California State Lands Commission, letter to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Hon. Rick 

Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, May 

10, 2012 ................................................................................................................. 108 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 73987.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 73987.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 73987.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 73987.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 73987.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 73987.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 73987.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 73987.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 73987.009
(1) 

RECENT REGULATION OF THE 

MARITIME INDUSTRY: ENSURING 

U.S. JOB GROWTH WHILE IMPROVING 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WORKER SAFETY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to review regulations affecting the maritime industry. We are interested in how the implementation of these regulations is impacting vessel safety, the flow of 

commerce through our ports, and the ability to grow jobs in the 

maritime sector. 

The Coast Guard has broad authority to regulate maritime commerce, including establishing and enforcing rules to ensure maritime safety and vessel facility security. The Coast Guard and the 

EPA share extensive authority to write regulations for the protection of our environment. With such vast authority comes great responsibility to regulate industry in a fair and reasonable way. This 

hearing will focus on ensuring that these agencies’ rulemakings are 

just that, fair and reasonable. 

Maritime commerce is essential to the U.S. economy. While regulations must address concerns related to safety, security, and stewardship, they must also balance the importance of maintaining the 

free flow of maritime commerce. Domestic shipping alone is responsible for over 500,000 American jobs and $100 billion in annual economic output. In addition, 90 percent of all global trade and over 

25 percent of our gross domestic product moves via the sea. 

With the economy still in a fragile state and unemployment at 

record levels, it is imperative that the Federal Government foster 

an atmosphere where our maritime industry can compete and expand. To that end, I am concerned about the cost and impact of 

several recent and forthcoming rulemakings that will affect the 

maritime sector. Specifically, rules requiring fishing vessel certification and examinations, the installation of ballast water treatment systems aboard vessels, and the establishment of methods to 

2 

reduce air emissions from vessels could have tremendous impacts 

on our economy. If these and other rules are not written and executed in a commonsense manner, I am concerned they would make 

it financially impossible to operate vessels in U.S. waters. 

We need to ensure the safety of commercial fishing, but we need 

to do so in a way that maintains the economic viability of the industry for vessel owners and operators. The Coast Guard has already said on the record that it does not have the resources to meet 

the looming October 15th deadline to conduct a fishing vessel safety examination. If the Service believes that it cannot meet this 

deadline, then we need a clear answer on what the impact will be 

on the industry on October 16th so we can take appropriate action 

to ensure that thousands of fishermen are not forced out of work. 

Ballast water regulations are a major concern for this subcommittee. Currently, the Coast Guard and the EPA have developed separate regulations under two different Federal laws to govern the discharge of ballast water. And although the agencies have 

worked together to try to reach uniformity, these programs still differ in implementation dates, vessels covered, geographic reach, enforcement, and penalties for noncompliance. And this will only become less uniform and more confusing and burdensome for vessel 

owners as each individual State adds its own discharge requirements on top of the EPA’s program. 

Under the EPA’s current program, 29 States and tribes have 

added their own different discharge standards. I think it is completely unreasonable to ask vessel operators to comply with 2 Federal standards and as many as 29 different, contradictory and 

unachievable, unattainable State and tribal standards. 

This situation is out of control. Some of these States plan to enforce ballast water discharge standards in the next year for which 

no treatment technology has yet been invented. Nobody can explain 

how they are going to reach standards with technology that is not 

there to do it. 

The Commercial Vessel Discharge Reform Act, which originated 

in this subcommittee and passed in the House, will correct these 

issues by creating a uniform national standard for ballast water. I 

strongly encourage our colleagues in the other body to show their 

understanding of the gravity of this situation by adopting the bill 

as soon as possible. 

I am also concerned about the implementation of the North 

American emissions control area. Beginning August 1st, vessels 

transiting the U.S. EEZ will need to burn lower sulphur fuel. While 

I understand the critical importance of improving the air quality in 

our coastal regions, I am concerned the EPA and Coast Guard have 

yet to establish a process on how they will deal with vessels whose 

engines cannot burn the lower sulfur fuels or vessels that cannot 

acquire the new fuel because it is not widely available or vessels 

seeking to achieve the same air quality improvements through alternate compliance methods and foreign equivalences. 

Finally, I am concerned the agencies did not properly consider 

the economic impact this rule will have on smaller vessels that 

must travel entirely within the EEZ. 

3 

It seems to me that both agencies have a lot of work to do in the 

next 3 months if they expect to implement the new rules in a fair 

manner when they are expected to be. 

Finally, I am concerned over the ongoing delays in the process 

of merchant mariner credentials and inefficiencies in the National 

Maritime Center’s medical certification process. The issue is especially important to me as these credentials are essentially a mariner’s ticket to work, and bureaucratic delays have a direct negative 

impact on those who keep our economy moving at sea. I hope our 

witnesses can explain what steps they are taking to improve this 

system and knock out some of these problems. 

And, Admiral Salerno, finally, we have all heard the news about 

the commandant, and please wish Admiral Papp a very speedy recovery. We all wish that he is back to full speed soon. Let him 

know that our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family 

and the Coast Guard family. 

And, also, as this will be your last appearance in uniform before 

this subcommittee I want to thank you for your over 35 years of 

outstanding service. The commitment that you have made to our 

country, the sacrifices that you and your wife and your family have 

made for the United States of America is extraordinary. We owe 

you a great debt of gratitude. 

Admiral SALERNO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And with that I yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and thank you for convening today’s hearing to assess the status of Federal rulemaking 

activities affecting the U.S. Maritime industries. 

Regulations issued by the Coast Guard and the EPA are necessary to provide certainty and stability for our domestic maritime 

industries, and I appreciate your commitment to this oversight 

task. 

Before I start, I do want to just echo your kind words, Mr. Chairman, regarding Admiral Papp’s recent diagnosis and his successful 

surgery earlier this week. I want to extend to the Admiral my admiration for his forthright manner in which he has handled his 

very personal matter and express to him my sincere wishes for a 

quick and full recovery. The Coast Guard needs him to return to 

the helm soon. So if you can pass it on, Admiral Salerno. 

As well as to you, Admiral Salerno, thank you for your service 

to the Coast Guard as well. And you know the chairman said this 

would be your last time, but you never know with this subcommittee. And your wife as well, I understand, is here with you 

today. 

Our domestic maritime industries generate annually over $100 

billion in economic output and $11 billion in tax revenue. And 

while these numbers are impressive, more can be done. This explains why revitalizing and growing our maritime economy remains 

a very high priority for me. 

Regulations the Coast Guard has issued remain pivotal in balancing competing stakeholder interests to create a level playing 

field across a wide variety of needs, including maritime safety, port 

security, efficient and reliable maritime commerce, and sensible 

and effective marine environmental protection. 

4 

It is a huge job for a multimission maritime military service, and 

I can think of no more elegant statement to convey the importance 

of the Coast Guard than when Admiral Papp reminds us that, 

quote, ‘‘the Coast Guard protects people on the sea, it protects our 

country from threats delivered by the sea, and even protects the 

sea itself.’’ 

Few Federal agencies have such an expansive regulatory scope or 

the ability to positively affect and enhance virtually every sector of 

our domestic maritime economy than does our U.S. Coast Guard. 

Accordingly, we have an obligation here to ensure these regulations 

that the Coast Guard issues are fair, are targeted, and support our 

maritime industries, which, by extension, will be good for job creation, good for the U.S. economy, and good for the American people. 

Certainly there are some Coast Guard rules that I want to discuss this morning to better understand their practical implications. 

For example, implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, remains far behind schedule and over 

budget. It is my understanding the Coast Guard is presently developing a draft rule for electronic TWIC card readers. I will want to 

hear from Admiral Salerno when we can reasonably expect to see 

a draft rule published in the Federal Register. 

Also, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 3173, legislation to reform the 

TWIC administrative processes, I would like to learn what actions 

the Coast Guard is considering to eliminate the requirement for 

mariners to make more than one visit to a TWIC enrollment center. 

On a related topic, the issuance or reissuance of mariner credentials, especially the review of medical records, remains a sore point. 

Faulty administrative processes have increased cost, prompted 

delays, and created confusion in what otherwise should be a fairly 

routine paperwork process for seafarers, and I will want to hear an 

update from the Coast Guard on what the agency has done to address those deficiencies. Such inefficiencies remain unacceptable. 

Simply because the Coast Guard has been unable thus far to remedy existing deficiencies should not justify stranding qualified ablebodied people on the dock. We have to get this right. We need to 

do it now. 

I also want to get an update on when the Coast Guard expects 

to publish a final towing vessel safety rule and whether the Coast 

Guard has adequate resources and whether it can remain on schedule to implement several new requirements for fishing vessels 

under the 2010 Authorization Act. 

Regarding regulations issued by the EPA to address ballast 

water and other incidental discharges from vessels, I will be very 

interested in hearing from Mr. Hanlon on what changes the Agency 

is considering to address stakeholder comments submitted regarding EPA’s draft vessel general permit, especially requirements for 

new-built vessels. 

Additionally, I will also seek to be reassured by both the EPA 

and the Coast Guard that each agency’s ballast water regulations 

have been scrubbed and coordinated sufficiently to avoid overlap in 

requirements and excessive cost to industry. 

Last, I commend EPA for developing regulation to implement a 

North American emission control area consistent with MARPOL 

5 

Annex VI in order to reduce harmful emissions from ocean-going 

commercial vessels transiting through U.S. waters or entering U.S. 

ports. 

It remains important that we continue to take action to reduce 

health risks linked to hazardous air emissions from vessels. We do 

need, however, to carefully consider and weigh options available to 

meet these environmental and human health goal with the economic variables facing different commercial maritime operators. 

I was disappointed that we don’t have a witness from EPA here 

to better explain the Agency’s rationale for the ECA rule. Despite 

this gap, I look forward to hearing the recommendations from others in how this rule might be refined. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for scheduling 

this important hearing. I hope that you will schedule in the near 

future an oversight hearing to review the administration’s plans for 

releasing reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to reaffirm our shared position that oil released from the SPR be transported in full compliance with the Jones Act to benefit U.S. carriers 

and mariners. 

Two final points. I understand as well Mr. Hanlon is retiring 

soon after service to our country; and I appreciate your service to 

our country, Mr. Hanlon. 

And, finally, I would ask an unanimous consent request to enter 

into the record a letter from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

that is actually in support of EPA’s regulation to implement a 

North American emission control area. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 10 here 73987.010
7 


Insert offset folio 11 here 73987.011
8 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

We are going to go to our first panel today; and our first witness 

is Coast Guard Vice Admiral Brian Salerno, the deputy commandant for operations. The admiral is being accompanied by Mr. 

Jeffrey Lantz, director of commercial regulations and standards for 

the Coast Guard. Welcome you both. 

Admiral, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL BRIAN M. SALERNO, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES COAST 

GUARD, ACCOMPANIED BY JEFFREY G. LANTZ, DIRECTOR 

OF COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, UNITED 

STATES COAST GUARD; AND JAMES A. HANLON, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF WATER, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Admiral SALERNO. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking 

Member Larsen, distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Larsen, for your remarks 

about Admiral Papp. I will be sure to convey those to him. And 

thank you as well for your kind comments about me. I very much 

appreciate it. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to be provide you with an 

update and to answer any questions that you may have on the 

Coast Guard’s regulatory development program. 

The Coast Guard is very aware of our regulatory responsibilities, 

as well as the importance that this subcommittee places on our 

ability to develop regulations in a timely and efficient manner to 

ensure that statutory requirements are met. 

We are equally aware of your concern that our procedures properly account for the effects that regulations have on commercial entities and on maritime workers. 

Several years ago, the Coast Guard’s regulatory process was in 

trouble. We had too many projects with too few people working on 

them, resulting in the average time to complete a project being too 

long. Congress made investments in 2008 and 2009 to address this 

situation by increasing the number of personnel dedicated to the 

rulemaking process by approximately 50 percent. We now have a 

total of 82 people dedicated to the regulatory process, who in turn 

work with subject matter experts on the headquarters staff to complete specific projects. 

We are very grateful to the Congress for making this investment, 

and I assure you we have put these new resources to good use, for 

in conjunction with them the Coast Guard has undertaken a series 

of internal process improvements. These include aligning our regulatory development program with an internationally recognized 

quality management framework known as ISO 9001. We have also 

invested in information technologies to streamline our planning 

and managerial functions, and we have enhanced training for all 

personnel who participate in the regulatory development process. 

As a result of these combined investments and process improvements the Coast Guard has increased the annual rate at which 

rules are published by nearly 50 percent. And even though new 

regulatory projects have been added by new legislation we have 

9 

nevertheless reduced the backlog of projects by 36 percent between 

fiscal years 2009 and the beginning of fiscal year 2012. 

Just as importantly, we have reduced the average age of pending 

requirements—projects from 6.2 years to approximately 3.8 years. 

Our desire is to drive this down even further to 3.3 years by the 

end of this fiscal year to ensure that regulations are produced in 

an even more timely fashion. 

Our goal has not only been to remove the backlog and to improve 

timeliness of regulations but also to validate the proposed regulations are crafted in a way that best serves the public. As such, we 

are committed to fully complying with Executive Order 13563 entitled Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review by ensuring in 

all of our rulemaking proposals that appropriate procedures are followed, that the benefits outweigh the costs, and that they are easily understood, reduce uncertainty, and they are enforceable. 

In conclusion, I want to assure you that, even though we can 

point to significant regulatory achievements over the past few 

years, the Coast Guard is making every effort to further improve 

timeliness, effectiveness, and efficiency in our rulemaking process. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Now we are going to go to our second witness, Mr. James Hanlon, director of the Office of Wastewater Management at EPA. 

Mr. Hanlon, you are recognized. 

Mr. HANLON. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. 

I am James Hanlon, director of the Office of Wastewater Management in the Office of Water at EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s regulation of vessel discharges, including 

ballast water, under the Clean Water Act. 

Today I will discuss the draft vessel permit that was published 

for public comment in December of 2011, highlight some of the proposed improvements that the draft would make to the existing vessel permit, and discuss the regulation of ballast water discharges 

by EPA’s draft and the Coast Guard’s final rule. 

I will also provide an overview of the draft small vessel general 

permit, which was also published for comment in December. 

The current vessel permit expires in December of 2013. The December 2011 draft vessel permit continues to cover approximately 

70,000 vessels, would continue to regulate the 26 specific discharge 

categories that were contained in the 2008 permit, and would include conditions on the discharge of fish hold effluent from large 

fishing vessels. 

We received approximately 5,500 comments during the public 

comment period that ended in February. We are reviewing and considering these comments and will make changes to the draft permit 

as appropriate. We plan to finalize the permit this November so 

that vessel owners and operators will have a full year to comply, 

to plan for, and implement any new permit conditions prior to the 

permit’s effective date. 

In developing the draft permit we focused on environmental protection based on sound science, ensuring vessel safety and minimizing burdens for permittees with commonsense and easy to imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\4-26-1~1\73987.TXT JEAN
10 

plement provisions. In developing ballast water limits for both the 

current vessel permit as well as the updated draft permit we considered limits on both the technology available to treat the pollutants and limits that are protective of water quality. 

EPA used the results of studies conducted by EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the National Academy of Sciences to inform ballast water discharge limits in the draft vessel permit which are 

generally consistent with those contained in both the International 

Maritime Organization’s Ballast Water Management Convention 

and the final Coast Guard rule. The draft vessel permit and the 

Coast Guard’s requirements are generally aligned, a result of the 

agencies’ working relationship. 

As EPA works to finalize the draft vessel permit we will continue 

to work closely with Admiral Salerno and his colleagues at the 

Coast Guard. 

In order to fulfill the Clean Water Act requirements, the draft 

vessel permit proposes to apply numeric treatment limits for ballast water discharges to a broader class of vessels than the Coast 

Guard’s final rule and proposes some provisions that would prescribe additional management and monitoring requirements. As we 

work to finalize the vessel permit we will consider the information 

in the record, including public comments received, as well as the 

underlying Clean Water Act requirements. 

With regard to the smaller vessels, Public Law 110–299 passed 

in 2008 provided a 2-year moratorium on Clean Water Act permitting requirements for incidental discharges from commercial vessels less than 79 feet. This moratorium was subsequently extended 

to December of 2013. EPA proposed the small vessel permit to provide Clean Water Act authorization and coverage for commercial 

vessels less than 79 feet. 

Recognizing that these small commercial vessels are substantially different in how they operate, the draft small vessel permit 

is shorter and simpler than the permit for larger vessels. The draft 

permit specifies best management practices for several broad discharge management categories that contain commonsense practices 

to reduce environmental impacts from these discharges, including 

measures to reduce the risk of spreading invasive species. As with 

the draft large vessel permit, we are currently in the process of 

considering public comments received which will inform our development of the final small vessel permit. 

Once again, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s proposed vessel permit. 

Again, thanks for the personal comments extended to me this 

morning, and I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Hanlon. 

Admiral Salerno, on the ballast water rulemaking the Coast 

Guard recently issued a final rule on ballast water essentially 

adopting the IMO standard for all ships operating within the waters of the United States. Why did the Coast Guard push back the 

implementation schedule in the final ballast water rule? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we pushed back the implementation 

schedule because of the time it took to complete that rulemaking 

11 

process. We felt we needed to give the industry sufficient time to 

react to the regulations and to make plans to acquire and install 

the necessary equipment. 

And I will defer to our director of regulatory standards if he had 

any additional comment in that regard. Mr. Lantz. 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

In addition, as Mr. Hanlon mentioned in his statement, the 

Coast Guard and EPA are working closely together and consulting 

as we did that rule, and we wanted to harmonize the implementation date with the incoming VGP final rule. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Admiral Salerno, on official vessel safety, now we 

know that the Authorization Act calls for certain standards to be 

met and that vessels that do not receive their first examination 

prior to October 15th will not be allowed to fish until they do so. 

There are over 30,000 fishing vessels that have to undergo this. I 

think we are quite a ways away from being able to implement that. 

So I am going to assume that the Coast Guard is going to be unable to examine all of the fishing vessels. Now is the Coast Guard 

going to prevent those vessels that have not been examined from 

fishing? I mean, if not, will the fishermen be held liable if they are 

caught without an exam sticker? How is this all going to work? 

Admiral SALERNO. We will not prevent people from leaving the 

dock, Mr. Chairman. Our intention is to have aggressive outreach 

with the fishing vessel community, begin conducting those examinations prior to the October deadline. 

But, again, it only applies to fishing vessels that operate beyond 

3 miles. Many will not operate beyond 3 miles. If we detect a vessel 

beyond the 3-mile limit operating that does not have a decal indicating that it has been examined, we will issue a notice, what we 

are calling a fix-it ticket—shorthand—to obtain the necessary examination within 30 days. 

Also, if we are constrained by capacity and we cannot accommodate that within the 30-day period, we will extend that timeframe. 

So our intention is to work with them, not let the fishing industry suffer because of a lack of capacity within the Coast Guard. We 

are watching our resource needs very carefully in that regard and 

have added a number of additional people to our roster for the purpose of conducting those examinations. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Also, under the Coast Guard Authorization Act 

of 2010—and this is something I am hearing quite a bit about and 

getting quite a bit of pushback on—this requires new commercial 

fishing vessels built after August 1st of 2012 to be certified by the 

American Bureau of Shipping or other Coast Guard recognized 

classification societies. There seems to be a great deal of confusion 

over how the Coast Guard will interpret built after August 1st, and 

concerns about what could be incredibly increased additional cost 

has put many in the industry putting off orders for new vessels 

which in turn is affecting our fish yards and I think—our shipyards 

and I think defeating the purpose of what we intended, to get 

newer vessels out on the water. When will the Coast Guard issue 

guidance on the definition of ‘‘built’’? 

12 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the definition of built will go out for clarity quite soon in policy but also be informed or part of a regulatory 

project that is currently underway. 

But for clarity today, the build definition will align with the date 

the keel is laid for a new vessel. Essentially, this is consistent with 

other build date determinations in other regulations. So the date 

that the keel is laid or similar states of construction for novel designs, that would be the date that we would consider the build 

date. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I am going to turn to Mr. Hanlon for just a 

minute on ballast water, and this is a huge concern. I think one 

of the subcommittee’s greatest concerns with the current situation 

is the lack of a single uniform national discharge standard for ballast water. And I know that the EPA and the Coast Guard have 

worked closely together to try to be as uniform as possible, but the 

draft vessel general permit and the Coast Guard rules are far from 

identical. The Coast Guard rules require that new vessels built 

after December 2013, to install treatment technologies. Why has 

the EPA proposed a retroactive implementation date of January 1, 

2012? And I would really like to know how that is fair for a vessel 

owner to be retroactive that way? 

Mr. HANLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. 

First of all, with respect to the proposed Coast Guard rule back 

in 2009, they had the same date we did. So we were sort of on par 

through our proposal in November of last year. 

Again, as Admiral Salerno said, because of the delays in issuing 

their final rule they went to a December 2013 date. We have not 

issued our final permit yet. We have every intention of being consistent with the date requirements that were included in the final 

Coast Guard rule. 

Again, our permit is scheduled to be finalized in November of 

this year. As I said in my statement, we are working through the 

5,500 comments. The final decisions on the scope and details of the 

permit are made by the administrator’s office. But this is an item 

that has been in every briefing that we have had, and we fully intend to have a consistent set of requirements, as we did with the 

two proposals, in the final permit the EPA issues in November to 

be consistent with the March 2012, final Coast Guard rule. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So we understand that you are going to change 

the date to ensure uniformity? 

Mr. HANLON. Those decisions are made above my pay grade. Basically short of assuring you that that will happen that will be an 

issue that will be front and center before the administrator’s office 

as the final decisions are made, and I can’t imagine we would do 

anything different. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I mean, you used a couple of words that are 

I think very important to me and especially important to fishermen 

who are affected by all of this, and that is common sense. And 

somebody really scratches their head when they have got something that is almost impossible to comply with. 

Rick, if you would, just a little bit more and then I will turn it 

over to you. 

Can the EPA and the Coast Guard guarantee uniformity when 

you have two different Federal laws governing ballast water disVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\4-26-1~1\73987.TXT JEAN
13 

charge and 50 States have the ability to put their own standards 

in? 

Mr. HANLON. With respect to coordination with the States, the 

last iteration, the 2008 permit, was done on a very compressed 

schedule, and so the time the States had to assess the draft permit 

and then issue their 401 certifications under the Clean Water Act 

was in a very short period of time. 

This time around, we have given the States 6 months to sort of 

look at the draft permit. Their comments or their certifications are 

due in June of this year. We met with the States in January. We 

had a meeting with 15 to 20 States and have gone through their 

concerns with respect to ballast water management, et cetera. And 

that—— 

You know, EPA certainly doesn’t have the authority to speak for 

the States. They are more understanding of sort of what our directions are and certainly what the directions in the final Coast Guard 

rule are. And we don’t—we hope to avoid some of the issues we had 

last time as the State 401 certifications come in in June. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So do you have reason to believe that New York 

and California are going to conform? 

Mr. HANLON. We are working very closely with those States, Mr. 

Chairman. I can’t sit here and say—I can’t speak for the Governors 

in those States, but they understand where we are going and what 

the objectives are of both the EPA vessel permit, as well as the 

Coast Guard rule. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The small vessel general permit proposes to regulate 27 discharges from commercial vessels less than 79 feet, including fishing vessels. Vessel owners will have to ensure they 

comply with best management practices to reduce or eliminate 

such discharges as air conditioner condensation, bilge water, rainwater runoff, ice from fish holds, and if they do not meet they could 

be liable for civil penalties totaling more than $36,000 per violation. 

Many of the proposed management practices, in my view, and I 

think most of the members of the committee, are impossible to 

comply with, especially on fishing vessels. For example, the EPA 

prohibits the discharge of unused bait unless that bait has been 

caught in the same water body, but the water body is not defined. 

I mean, would this prohibit fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico from 

using bait mackerel or herring caught in New Jersey? I don’t understand. 

And the second part to this is, another proposed management 

practice prohibits the discharge of seawater cooling water while at 

port. Without constant circulation of seawater through the cooling 

system the catch will go bad. It will spoil before it can be offloaded 

at the port. How does the EPA intend to address how this is basically impossible to comply with? It is not feasible, these and some 

of the other management practices, which I have to tell you are 

starting to make our hair catch fire as we look at these things. 

Mr. HANLON. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

With respect to the smaller class of vessels, again, this is the 

first time that we are including those within the scope of the permit. So, basically, we proposed a path forward in the small vessel 

14 

permit that was issued in November. Many of the 5,500 comments 

that we received speak to the small vessels. 

The requirements for small vessels are not numeric limits, as is 

the case with large vessels. They are all good housekeeping best 

management practices, and our best estimate for the range of costs 

for an average small vessel ranges between $17 and $98 per year. 

The paperwork requirements for a small vessel is on one page. Basically, this would be sort of the documentation that a small vessel 

operator would have to have with them on the vessel for the full 

5-year period with an update that they have sort of gone through 

a checklist basically on a quarterly basis. And we would be happy 

to submit this for the record. 

The bait issue is one that we have received some comments on. 

And with respect to fish hold issues, approximately 30 of the 5,500 

comments dealt with that. But on the other side of that issue, you 

know, we are aware of contaminants such as viral hemorrhagic 

septicemia, a viral infection that has caused adverse effects of fish 

populations in different ecosystems around the United States. 

Since 2005, it has been identified in the Great Lakes. 

And so there is always a balancing issue in terms of how do you 

deploy common sense in terms of moving potentially contaminated—contamination from outside a watershed into a watershed 

through either live bait sources or boat holes, et cetera. And so that 

is the balancing act we are sort of in the process of doing now, and 

those issues will all be considered prior to our issuing the final permit in November. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, I sure hope so. Because while I appreciate 

and I think the operators appreciate the sort of reduced level of 

burden, so to speak, on what they are expected to do, it still appears to me that many of these best management practices are 

going to be impossible to meet or attain. And if that is the case, 

these folks are going to be subject to some pretty large fines. 

And it is not a great deal of comfort to a boat operator to say 

that, well, you know, here the green visors folks in Washington are 

going to try to figure all this out and make sure it works. It has 

got to work out on the water. 

Now, they all want to accomplish the same thing. But what they 

are being told has to be attainable, it has to be reasonable, and it 

can’t put them out of business if they are going to comply here. 

So there is an awful lot of work to be done. I really want to be 

optimistic about the Agency’s ability to get this under control, but 

I have to tell you I am pretty skeptical at this point. 

Mr. Larsen, I will turn to you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You asked many of the questions I had on 401 certification. So, 

for instance, the coordination and cooperation between the EPA 

and the Coast Guard with regards to vessel general permit. So I 

won’t replow that ground, perhaps only for their clarification. But 

I want to move to a few other issues, if I may. 

This is for Admiral Salerno with regards to fishing vessel examinations. Has the Coast Guard hired the full complement of examiners in order to conduct the examinations? 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, we have a number of qualified examiners already in our workforce. We have 62 full-time examiners, 

15 

plus other marine inspectors which have the qualification to conduct fishing vessel exams, about 198 in total. The additional that 

are coming on this year in fiscal year 2012, an additional 23 examiners will be coming on. 

Now in addition to our full-time cadre we make use of our volunteer force, the Coast Guard auxiliary, many of them who are qualified. Plus there is provision for third-party examinations of these 

vessels as well. So we are watching this very closely. 

The full population, quite honestly, sir, is a little bit hard to nail 

down. There are a number of State registered vessels that we don’t 

have complete visibility on. So we are watching this closely, and it 

may very well be that we come back with a need for more resources 

in this regard, but we are not at the point where we are ready to 

ask for that. 

Mr. LARSEN. So you have not yet made a decision on whether you 

intend to shift funds from other accounts in order to maintain this 

examination program? 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, sir, our inspection force can shift very 

easily from one inspection type to another. As I mentioned, we 

have quite a few marine inspectors in our active workforce which 

have this qualification. They can be moved around as needed based 

on the needs of the day to accommodate this need. 

Now, we anticipate a surge in fishing vessel examinations. We 

are preparing for that. We are confident that we can get through 

this initial tranche, but again with the caveat that we may find 

that we need additional resources in the future. 

I do want to reiterate we will not allow the industry to suffer if 

we have a shortfall in capacity. We will work with the industry to 

get through this. We will continue to allow them to fish and not 

make them suffer if we don’t have enough people to do the job. 

Mr. LARSEN. With regard to the TWIC reader rule, can you let 

us know when the Coast Guard expects to publish its draft rule for 

public comment? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I can tell you that is absolutely highest 

priority, not only within the Coast Guard. It has been very clear 

within DHS. It is high priority from the Secretary herself. 

We are moving out very aggressively on this. As you know, we 

were obligated to wait for the results of the TSA pilot program. We 

received that study in February of this year, and since that time 

have been working very hard to get that reader rule out as quickly 

as possible. We are making progress. We are finalizing it now. We 

anticipate being able to go out with a proposed rule this summer. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, you probably heard from the Secretary. I have 

heard from a lot of other folks and am very concerned about this 

card reader rule not being ready and yet reenrollment is coming up 

for a lot of TWIC holders. It is a serious concern for these folks. 

The other issue with regard to TWIC brought up I think H.R. 

3173, the issue of going back for a second trip to the enrollment 

center. We are pursuing this legislation. It is sponsored by Mr. 

Scalise from Louisiana. Because there is a lot of concern about 

mariners having to make two trips. Can we get around that or 

work through that by having the Coast Guard and DHS as a whole 

move forward on it so we can avoid two trips? 

16 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we hear the same concern expressed multiple times. I would have to defer to TSA on that particular question. That is a process that they control. 

From a Coast Guard perspective, we are obviously in the enforcement side of it. You know, do the mariners and yard workers have 

the required TWIC? The actual production and issuance of a TWIC 

is a TSA function. We work very closely with TSA in this, but I 

would defer to them as to whether or not they can reduce that 

down to one trip. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, last May, I asked Admiral Cook for a status update on two provisions that were in the Coast Guard Authorization 

Act regarding modification to oil spill emergency response activities 

to expand the definition of a higher volume port area for the 

Straits of Juan de Fuca and the encouragement for the Coast 

Guard to initiate negotiations with Canada for enhanced maritime 

traffic management and spill response in the North Puget Sound 

region of Washington State. Do you have an update on those efforts 

to implement those provisions? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. 

Regarding the high-volume port area, we did issue a notice of intent in the Federal Register to expand the definition of the highvolume port area as indicated in the Authorization Act. We had it 

still an active project within our rulemaking. However, we are also 

aware that there is a provision in Senate bill 1665 which would 

make that change legislatively. If that were to occur, it would obviously become effective upon enactment. If that does not become 

law, we will continue with that regulatory process. It does require, 

of course, all of the typical things you do with the rulemaking, the 

cost benefit analysis and so forth. So if it happens legislatively it 

will be much quicker. 

Mr. LARSEN. I asked in my testimony with regards to towing vessel regulation. Section 701 of the Authorization Act of 2010 requires publication by the Coast Guard of a final rule for towing 

vessel inspection by one year after the date of the enactment. 

While you have published a draft rule, there is still no final rule. 

Can you explain to us the cause of the delay in implementing the 

final rule? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. We are very mindful we missed the 

deadline that was in the Authorization Act. But, as you point out, 

we did get the proposed rule on the street. We have received about 

3,000 comments from the affected industry. And, again, the industry itself is very complex. It ranges from large corporations to mom 

and pops. 

So we are very diligently going through those comments. Some 

of them are quite difficult to answer. It is going to require some 

thinking to make sure that we are fair to that full spectrum within 

the affected industry. 

We are working on that very aggressively, and I don’t have an 

actual timeframe. I can tell you it is very high on our priority list 

to get that reg out. In the meantime, we are working with the industry in our bridging program. So we are putting Coast Guard inspectors on towing vessels as part of a pre-inspection phase, if you 

will, to make sure that they comply with the existing requirements 

for uninspected vessels and bring them up to speed to ease that 

17 

transition for those vessels and to inspect its status. That is going 

very, very well. 

Mr. LARSEN. And, finally, Mr. Chairman, one more question and 

then I will yield back. 

A witness on the second panel, Admiral, will raise concerns the 

Coast Guard has adopted IMO regulatory standards for watch 

keeping that do not adequately account for fatigue among officers 

and crew, which in their testimony it says creates persistent safety 

liabilities. Has the Coast Guard ever used independent human factor professionals to review the work hours, workload, and fatigue 

aboard U.S. flight vessels and should it? And a 91-hour workweek 

seems excessive on a transportation mode with so much potential 

for damage and loss of life. What has the Coast Guard done to address the fatigue issue? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, fatigue is of great interest to the Coast 

Guard. There are mandatory hours of rest within the international 

convention STCW. 

And if you permit me, sir, I would like to ask Mr. Lantz, Director 

of Standards. He has been working this issue directly and I think 

can get into some of the details. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you, sir. 

You are correct in the workweek. But I think it is important to 

note that in amending STCW, which the Coast Guard did through 

IMO, we actually increased the numbers of mandated hours of rest 

on a weekly basis for our crewmembers from 70 to 77. We also ensured that they had 10 hours of rest each day. And for the Coast 

Guard to implement this we don’t consider mealtime or short 

breaks as contributing to that risk. We are looking at uninterrupted rest. 

Mr. LARSEN. You do not consider breaks and meals as part of 

that in that 10 hours? 

Mr. LANTZ. No, sir. 

In response to the first part of your question, yes, we have consulted professionals with regard to fatigue issues. We do have an 

active crew endurance management system which is a voluntary 

program which we are trying to leverage throughout the industry. 

We have had some success in the towing industry. But we do use 

that as a way to help the industry implement voluntary standards 

to reduce the impact of fatigue on their crew. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LARSEN. And just as a note, Mr. Chairman, although Mr. 

Hanlon I think in his testimony said he could be nominally available to answer questions on ECA, I understand it is not in your 

purview. I won’t put you on the spot for that for those. 

Mr. HANLON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. You are welcome. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The gentleman from coastal Louisiana, Mr. 

Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, thank you. Thank the Coast Guard for their service to 

this country. 

The Coast Guard’s reputation in my district and their approval 

rating is, I can promise you, better than EPA’s; and I want to help 

18 

you keep that approval rating. I would like to see you all take it 

up a notch. 

I am just curious. Do you all ever sit around and work on deregulating things or looking at regulations that maybe are not working 

or are over burdensome to the industry and say, do you know what, 

we applied this way back when and maybe it is not applicable 

today and we should take those things off of the books? 

Or do we—and it is not just—you know, I am not pointing it at 

the Coast Guard, but it just seems like all our agencies do come 

up with ways to continue to add regulation after regulation after 

regulation. 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. In fact, we not only do that, we are 

directed to do so in the Executive Order 13563, the retrospective 

review of regulations, and in fact have identified a number of regulations that are undergoing scrutiny to see if maybe they need to 

be revised or removed. So I take your point, yes, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. You know, 100 years ago, 90 percent of all of the 

cargo brought into the United States traveled on an American-flag 

vessel. Today, 95 percent of the cargo coming into this country 

comes in on a foreign-flag vessel. Any idea why? 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, I think the reasons are quite complex. 

I am not sure I could give a satisfactory answer in just a few seconds. But it obviously relates to international competitiveness, 

competitive advantages internationally. As an American, of course 

I would love to see that all be on U.S. ships. 

Mr. LANDRY. And I believe you. I am just wondering if the regulatory environment that we create—and again I am not just singling out the Coast Guard, but I think it starts all the way from 

EPA to OSHA to the impact they have in our shipbuilders and then 

putting that burden on the mariners themselves. If all of these 

mounds of regulations that other foreign-flag vessels are not subjected to, if that doesn’t have anything to do with causing our maritime industry to be less competitive in the world, I mean, do you 

think there is any correlation? 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, let me assure you, sir, we make every 

effort to make sure that U.S. regulations are consistent with international regulations; and for foreign ships that come into U.S. 

ports we are very diligent in making sure they comply with those 

same standards. There is not an easier path from a regulatory 

standpoint for a foreign ship to conduct business in the United 

States then for a U.S. ship. We do everything we can to level that 

playing field. 

Mr. LANDRY. And I just want to touch on two things, and I appreciate the ranking member bringing this up. 

These TWIC visits. You know, I get my passport in the mail, and 

I know you said it is to the Department of Homeland Security, but 

is it possible for you all to help us garner the support necessary? 

I mean, would the Coast Guard be willing to step out with other 

Members of Congress in supporting a position that will eliminate 

this second visit? 

Admiral SALERNO. I am not sure I am competent to speak to 

that, sir. I know there are some technical reasons that TSA has 

cited as far as validating the biometrics on the card. 

19 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, I mean, we could come up with an excuse— 

they can come up with an excuse for just about anything. And I 

guess I am looking for an agency such as the Coast Guard which 

utilizes a lot more common sense than anyone else, if they could 

look at DHS and say I don’t believe that you are using any common 

sense. 

Admiral SALERNO. But what we have tried to do, and I think successfully, is, given the fact that TSA has their system, is make it 

as easy as possible for mariners who also have to receive a merchant mariner credential so that we don’t add to the burden of having to go in to collect biometrics in addition to what TSA is requiring. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, what amazes me is the fact that we are going 

to have a constituent of mine on the second panel who TSA 

wouldn’t even allow in an airport using his TWIC card. I mean, you 

know, it is amazing. Here we have a card issued by them. They 

make a demand to go to two different visits. We are talking about 

this, you know, biometric excuse. He goes up to the TSA counter 

to get into the airport, you know, to go through security. He hands 

them their card, and they say it is not a valid ID. Do you see what 

I am saying? 

So, anyhow, I just would appreciate if you all could lend us some 

support on that. 

In the ballast water, a little more Clorox? You know, I am serious, sir. Does it have to be that complicated? I am just—— 

Admiral SALERNO. Well, sir, again, we rely on the scientific input 

from EPA as to what works. And even as we look at ballast water 

management systems and different types of systems that may use 

chemicals, there are concerns that, OK, what do you do after you 

have killed all the bugs in the tank? Can you then discharge that 

water? Because it may in fact create other environmental damage, 

and I would defer to the scientific experts on that. 

Mr. LANDRY. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Admiral Salerno, there have been—over the past 

decade, there have been several incidents where vessels suffered 

casualties and the safety of workers on vessels and at ports was 

jeopardized by incorrectly declared cargo container weights. Would 

the Coast Guard support the proposal before the IMO to amend a 

SOLAS requirement, the weighing of cargo containers before they 

are loaded on ships which would establish kind of a regimen for 

this? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we are aware of that concern. We share 

that concern with the industry. It does create safety hazards. 

Again, let me ask Mr. Lantz, who leads the U.S. Delegation to 

the IMO Maritime Safety Committee, to comment on that. 

Mr. LANTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, we do support the IMO taking that issue up to ensure that 

containers—the weights of containers are fully declared and understood when they are loaded on ships. That is an issue that was 

brought forward. We supported that issue being considered at IMO. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hanlon, one last question. I mentioned in my opening statements about some of the things that we are trying to work through 

20 

with these mission control areas. The United States and Canada 

recently petitioned the IMO for an emissions control area surrounding North America to 200 miles offshore. Can you tell us 

whether the EPA or how they are going to evaluate approved flag 

State equivalencies, what standard will be used, how this is going 

to start working out? 

Mr. HANLON. I am not in a position to respond to that this morning. We would be happy to get back to you on the record for that. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. 

[Please see the response to question 2.e. on page 65 for this information.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen? 

OK. Admiral Salerno, Mr. Lantz, Mr. Hanlon, thank you very 

much. And, once again, Admiral Salerno, thank you for your service to our country and God speed. 

We will now take a brief break for the second panel to get set 

up. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thanks to our second panel. We will get back underway again. 

For our second panel we have the Honorable Chris Koch, who is 

the former chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission and current president and CEO of the World Shipping Council. We have 

Mr. James Gutowski, a scalloper out of Barnegat Light, New Jersey, who is representing the Fisheries Survival Fund, and is here 

with a fellow fisherman and the mayor of Barnegat Light, Mr. Kirk 

Larson. 

And now I would like to yield to Mr. Landry for an introduction. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Jimmy Lafont. He is a constituent of mine. And we call him ‘‘T. Jim.’’ 

You know, often, T. Jim, this chamber has said that the committee needs a translator so the Members and the stenographer 

know what I am saying. And I don’t know where they get that. Do 

you understand me? 

Mr. LAFONT. Fullheartedly. 

Mr. LANDRY. Then I don’t see what the problem is, Mr. Chairman. I guess we don’t have—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I am not going to say what I am thinking. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. 

Our last two witnesses are Mr. Don Marcus, who is the secretary-treasurer of the International Organization of Masters, 

Mates, and Pilots; and Mr. Paul Cozza, who is the president of CSL 

International. 

With that, we will get started. Mr. Koch, you are now recognized. 

21 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER KOCH, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD SHIPPING COUNCIL; JAMES 

GUTOWSKI, CHAIRMAN, FISHERIES SURVIVAL FUND, BARNEGAT LIGHT, NEW JERSEY; JIMMY LAFONT, CALLAIS AND 

SONS, CUT OFF, LOUISIANA; DON MARCUS, SECRETARYTREASURER, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, 

MATES, AND PILOTS; AND PAUL COZZA, PRESIDENT, CSL 

INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. KOCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to you and Congressman Larsen for the subcommittee’s interest in what is going 

on in terms of maritime environmental and safety regulations. 

The written testimony I have submitted to the committee addresses four issues. The first is ballast water technology regulations; the second, dealing with emissions, is the North American 

ECA, which deals with NOX, SOX, and particulate matter emissions from ships; the third issue being the CO2 discussions which 

are going on at the IMO; and, lastly, the maritime safety issue of 

overweight containers or those that have misdeclared container 

weights. 

Briefly, with respect to ballast water regulations, we commend 

the Coast Guard and the EPA for coordinating their efforts in trying to come up with a single, uniform national standard. Our testimony points out that further effort is necessary to coordinate the 

two agencies’ efforts. We were encouraged this morning to hear 

EPA indicate that they hopefully will coordinate and match the 

Coast Guard’s approach, particularly with respect to new builds, 

where there is still some difficulty in the EPA draft VGP. 

The industry is going to have to make a massive capital investment to comply with these regulations. And we think the proposition speaks for itself, but that massive investment should be reasonably required of the industry once. We need to be able to have 

the Governments come up with a standard that we can reliably use 

no matter what port we come into in the U.S. We hope that the 

schedule set up for existing vessels is workable. We think, with a 

tweaking on the new builds by EPA, it could be workable as well. 

But when the administration talks about the industry needing 

some time, the only thing I would like to point out in addition is, 

it is the vendors, the technology vendors, that need time too. There 

are thousands and thousands of vessels that are going to have to 

install this technology, and it is expensive. They will have to ramp 

up to commercial production levels. 

But they also have to have their technology approved by very rigorous Coast Guard standards. And that is highly appropriate, because the IMO testing methodologies have already been used by 

some reputable States to approve technology systems which had to 

be pulled from the market because they could not reliably meet the 

IMO treatment standard. So what the Coast Guard put in its rules 

about how it is going to test that technology, we think, is worthwhile and appropriate. And we are hopeful that in the end this regime can be implemented in a smooth manner. 

As to the ECA, obviously the MARPOL Annex VI agreement 

reached at the IMO was a big step forward for how to deal with 

the NOX, SOX, and particulate matter issues. The U.S. and Canada 

jointly proceeded with the North American ECA, which comes into 

22 

effect August 1. So long as the 1 percent sulfur fuel is reasonably 

available, our members certainly intend to comply with that regime 

effective August 1. And then we also note, in 2015, the sulfur fuel 

level drops down even further to 0.1 percent sulfur in 2015. 

As to CO2 emissions, it is an ongoing issue at the IMO. My testimony provides greater detail of what the various issues are there. 

We would note the success of the IMO in coming up with mandatory new efficiency design index standards for new-build ships. 

That is a successful step forward. It means those ships will be 

more efficient, which means they will produce less in the way of 

carbon emissions. 

The rest of the carbon emission agenda at the IMO is a complicated one, as our testimony talks about. And I would be happy 

to answer any questions you may have with respect to that. 

Finally, on maritime safety, our testimony notes we have an ongoing issue that has been of concern to carriers, to the crews on 

the ships, and to longshore workers about containers that show up 

that have misdeclared container weights. Shippers are required by 

the Safety of Life at Sea Convention to provide an accurate container weight, but oftentimes that doesn’t happen. That can 

produce serious operational and safety issues. 

We have taken the view, along with the International Chamber 

of Shipping and BIMCO, that the convention should be amended 

to require loaded containers to be weighed before they are put on 

a ship. In the U.S., that is the law under OSHA regulations, but 

it doesn’t apply to the boxes coming into the U.S. or other foreignto-foreign commerce. So we are hopeful that initiative can gain 

some ground, and we do hope that the U.S. Government will be 

supportive of that at the IMO. 

That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Jimmy, you are recognized. 

Mr. GUTOWSKI. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify. 

My names is James Gutowski, and I am part-owner of a scallop 

vessel, Kathy Ann, and other vessels in Barnegat Light, New Jersey. I am accompanied here today by the town’s mayor and fellow 

scalloper, Mr. Kirk Larson. 

I am the chairman of the board of the Fisheries Survival Fund, 

which represents full-time Atlantic sea scallop fishermen. I am also 

a member of the Garden State Seafood Association, which shares 

the concerns discussed. 

My full statement has been submitted for the record. 

This hearing touches upon two important issues to fishermen: 

safety in our profession and the health of the marine environment 

on which our livelihoods depend. There is really no one more vested 

in these issues than we are. I appreciate the subcommittee’s work 

to improve fishing industry safety and the support you provide 

commercial fishermen more generally. 

I would like to discuss certain issues in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 that have the potential to seriously disrupt our 

businesses and actually jeopardize our fishing vessels’ safe operVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:29 Jul 05, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\CG\4-26-1~1\73987.TXT JEAN
23 

ation. I also want to address issues related to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s proposed Vessel General Permit, or VGP. The 

EPA has no particular experience or expertise about fishing vessels. That lack of knowledge shows in the proposed VGP. 

H.R. 2838, the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 

2011, addresses some issues. We hope the subcommittee can address our initial concerns and the Senate follows suit in recognizing 

the need for commonsense solutions. 

Briefly on the authorization act issues, the timing requirements 

for mandatory vessel inspections and the particularly burdensome 

load-line and vessel classification requirements are not workable. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate 

your efforts to include in H.R. 2838 a provision to extend the start 

of the dockside inspection until 2015 and require inspection of vessels to occur every 5 years rather than every 2 years. As a practical 

and safety matter, these changes will make the inspection program 

more effective and provide the Coast Guard time to develop an implementation plan. 

As to classing and load-line requirements, we strongly believe 

that these have never received a fair, clear-eyed review of the total 

economic costs. These costs could lock fishermen into older, less efficient vessels. Experts within the industry estimate these requirements will increase the price of a new scallop vessel by about 25 

percent, adding $1 million to a $3 million price tag for a new scallop vessel. Those costs will put new-build out of reach for many 

fishermen who need them and will discourage major refits to make 

vessels safer and more efficient. 

In short, the unintended consequences of these mandates may 

decrease safety and lost shipyard jobs. Our suggestion is to direct 

the Coast Guard to develop, in conjunction with the fishing industry, an alternative program to load-line requirements and repeal 

requirements to class vessels. At the very least, there needs to be 

a rigorous investigation of the costs and the benefits of those requirements and delay an implementation while these issues are 

studied. 

On the VGP, my written testimony details a number of problems 

with the proposed permit, many of which would be resolved with 

the H.R. 2838. Again, Fisheries Survival Fund and the Garden 

State Seafood Association and I thank you for your leadership in 

this regard. 

The proposed VGP shows that EPA is the wrong entity to regulate fishing vessels. The 79-foot dividing line splits the scallop fleet 

right down the middle. Some vessels would be subject to VGP requirements, while others would not. The VGP also forces fishermen 

to choose which regulatory requirement, those of National Marine 

Fisheries Service or those of the EPA, it will have to violate. The 

VGP would disallow seawater cooling when a vessel is in port and 

not underway. However, many times we must run our generator in 

port to provide electricity to our vessels’ mandatory monitoring systems, which we run at the dock. 

If the Senate does not follow suit and adopt the changes contained in H.R. 2838, our primary recommendation would be to 

eliminate the VGP and allow all commercial fishing vessels to operate under the terms of the proposed Small Vessel General Permit, 

24 

which more appropriately balances environment concerns and regulatory burdens. At a minimum, the dividing line should be 165 feet, 

which puts the vast majority of fishing vessels under a more sensible regime. 

We share the concerns for a clean marine environment, but truly 

believe that a better balance can be struck. 

Thank you for your time, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lafont, you are recognized. 

Mr. LAFONT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. My name is Jimmy Paul Lafont. I am appearing here 

today on behalf of Callais and Sons from Cut Off, Louisiana. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak in front of the subcommittee. And I am glad you all have my statement, because if 

I got to read it, you all probably won’t understand it. 

The main issue we are here today is the regulations and the 

problem we are having in the merchant mariners to renew their license through the United States Coast Guard. And this is in no 

way any black eye against the Coast Guard, because I think they 

are trying to do their job. But we are getting regulated to death 

with the restrictions and the medical reviews. 

A mariner can start 1 year before his 5 years are up. And if it 

his last year and they all apply and if they have any kind of medical problems, it is tough, you know. And we are talking, like, very 

simple problems. In a nutshell, what is happening is the Coast 

Guard is asking the doctors to make a square peg for a round hole, 

and they don’t talk in the same language. 

And I want to thank our Congressman, Jeff Landry, for helping 

us a whole lot on some of these issues. But it all boils down to regulations, and we are getting hit by them more and more, and all 

these medical issues. I mean, you are talking about, these are the 

safest mariners in the country, people that have licenses 50, 60 

years. Unfortunately, they have some medical issues. And, really, 

the appeal process on the medical side is pretty bad. 

And as you know, I want to thank everybody for letting me speak 

here. I will answer any questions needed. You all have my testimony in front of you all. And thank you very much. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Marcus, you are now recognized. 

Capt. MARCUS. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking 

Member Larsen. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Could you try to put your mike on? 

Capt. MARCUS. Good morning, Mr. LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak here this morning. 

My name is Donald Marcus. I am a licensed master and secretary-treasurer of Masters, Mates, and Pilots. I am speaking on 

behalf of our members, as well as the Marine Engineers Beneficial 

Association and the American Maritime Officers. Together, we represent substantially all of the licensed masters, marine engineering 

officers, and licensed deck officers who work aboard U.S.-flagged 

merchant ships in international trade. 

25 

We have chosen to focus this morning on an issue that has not 

received the serious attention that it deserves. That is fatigue. Fatigue is a widespread problem that puts safety at risk in an industry that operates 24/7 and that has duty assignments that extend 

for 4 months or more. 

The problem is compounded by reduced crewing levels and everincreasing regulatory tasks. Complying with these tasks creates 

more workload, and there are less personnel available than necessary to complete the tasks. The choice is often between attending 

to traditional duties that affect the safety of the vessel or documenting compliance with a multitude of regulations that are subject to internal and external audits. Regrettably, paperwork and 

perfunctory reporting requirements are often prioritized over the 

simple safety of the vessel. 

The regulatory burden falls principally on the ship’s master. In 

the past, staff officers, such as pursers and radio officers, assisted 

the master in meeting his responsibilities. These officers have been 

removed in the current crewing levels. Also, in order to remove a 

licensed deck officer, the chief officer, who was previously a nonwatch-standing officer, now stands an 8-hour navigation watch in 

addition to his or her traditional operational and administrative 

duties. 

While the number of crew are being reduced, the number of 

international, Federal, and, as we heard here today, even State 

regulations that must be complied with and documented have 

grown exponentially. To make matters worse, ships’ masters, chief 

engineers, and other officers often face criminal liability and de 

facto presumption of guilt when marine incidents or casualties 

occur. This can, and has, led to the imprisonment of many ships’ 

officers around the world. 

The criminalization of simple professional errors, often the result 

of fatigue or overwork, is without justification when there is no 

oversight regarding the sufficiency of the personnel available to 

carry out shipboard responsibilities. 

The drive for reduced crewing levels has been fueled by the flagof-convenience system that dominates international shipping. Ships 

are registered under the flags of countries that have the least taxation and regulation. Flags-of-convenience registries compete in offering the lowest crewing levels in order to generate revenue. 

The abuses of the flag-of-convenience system has led to a greater 

international regulation of shipping through the International Maritime Organization, IMO. Unfortunately, flag-of-convenience countries and shipowners participate in the IMO process of setting 

international standards. Accordingly, this has resulted in standards being set at dangerously low minimum levels. 

Here in the United States, the U.S. Coast Guard routinely accepts the compromised international standards as the basis for 

U.S. Federal regulation. This is a matter of rulemaking convenience. When it comes to vessel crewing levels and mandatory rest 

requirements, there is no necessity that U.S. standards match the 

lowest international requirements. Rubber-stamping minimum 

international standards simply permits the U.S. Coast Guard to 

avoid an independent assessment of fatigue and crewing levels that 

could be complicated and contentious. 

26 

The complexity of the problem has been reduced by the, quote, 

‘‘principles of minimum safe manning,’’ unquote. This was recently 

adopted by the IMO. These principles outline many factors that 

should be used in setting, but not in enforcing, adequate crewing 

levels. What is needed is a mandate for an independent study by 

human-factors professionals on shipboard fatigue and crewing. Recommendations by independent professionals experienced in workplace fatigue should be used by the U.S. Coast Guard in setting 

safe manning levels. 

Particular attention needs to be focused on the managementlevel officers whose impaired cognitive ability has the greatest potential for severe consequences to safety and the environment. A 

recently adopted amendment to the SOLAS, Safety of Life at Sea, 

Convention requires that all ships in international trade establish 

crewing levels in a transparent procedure. 

We believe it is essential that U.S. regulations require all ships, 

U.S. and foreign, calling at U.S. ports to carry safe manning documentation. This documentation must record the methodology used 

and the procedures and conditions taken into consideration in establishing the ship’s crewing level. The documentation must meet 

the requirement for transparency by being available to crew and 

port State control officers. 

These issues are more fully explained in my written submission. 

Time constraints prevent us from addressing our concerns about 

the lowering of training and licensing standards for ships’ officers 

by the U.S. Coast Guard under the International Convention on 

Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers code. 

I applaud Mr. Lafont for his comments about medical issues. We 

also have serious concerns regarding the need to establish a more 

rational U.S. Coast Guard process for medical/physical fitness examinations and appeals. We would be grateful if the record could 

be held open for a period of time to permit us to submit written 

comments on these issues. 

Thank you, and I will gladly answer any questions that you may 

have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Marcus. 

Mr. Cozza. 

Mr. COZZA. Thank you, sir. 

Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify. 

I am Paul Cozza, president of CSL International. We are 

headquartered in Massachusetts and are a subsidiary of Canada 

Steamship Lines, based in Montreal, concentrating on international 

short sea shipping routes. 

CSL International specializes in the marine transportation and 

handling of dry bulk cargo. We own and operate the largest fleet 

of self-unloading vessels in the world, serving clients in industries 

ranking from building and construction to agriculture. Self-unloading vessels serve a special sector of the dry bulk shipping industry, 

with their self-contained and automated discharge equipment offering high levels of speed, efficiency, and environmental advantages. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today with you. 

27 

Short sea shipping is the coastal movement of cargo on the water 

that does not cross an ocean and could also in some instances be 

served by rail or truck. We are able to transport cargo more efficiently and with far lower environmental impacts than trucks or 

trains. 

Secondly, I would like to bring to the subcommittee’s attention 

the impact the North America Emission Control Area, or ECA, will 

have on our industry and offer a solution that achieves equivalent 

environmental goals without sacrificing the environmental benefits 

that short sea shipping provides. 

Implemented under the International Convention to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the ECA establishes sea-going vessel air-quality 

standards for a 200-mile radius around the coastline of the U.S. 

and Canada and sets limits on the sulfur limits of fuel used within 

the ECA. The ECA standards are far stricter than will be imposed 

elsewhere in the world, both in terms of the distance the ECA extends from the shore and the level of permitted fuel sulfur content. 

We are concerned the 200-mile ECA is too stringent for some vessels and may not provide any appreciable environmental benefits 

beyond 50 miles for lower horsepower ships, such as CSLs. 

On August 1st, 2012, vessels operating in the ECA must use fuel 

with no more than 1 percent sulfur content. We at CSL are prepared to meet and support that standard despite resulting in notinsignificant cost increases to our business, in millions of dollars. 

By August 1st, 2015, however, vessels operating within the ECA 

will be required to use an ultra-low 0.1 percent sulfur fuel, which 

is a marine diesel. Prices for this ultra-low-sulfur fuel, to the extent the fuel is even available, will raise their costs and, more importantly, the resulting costs to the customers that we serve. 

Because we trade in routes typically not beyond 100 miles from 

the coast, our vessels must use the reduced-sulfur fuel for the majority of their voyage, as opposed to transocean vessels, which only 

need to use the fuel when transiting the ECA, which in many instances is less than 10 percent of their voyage. Outside the ECA, 

ships may use sulfer at 3.5 percent sulfur. 

Although well-intended, flaws in current ECA regulations will 

jeopardize the short sea shipping sector. Based on supply issues, 

we are also concerned that the compliant North American marine 

fuel prices could nearly double in 2015 to meet this regulation. This 

anticipated increase in 2015 fuel costs will hamper marine competition. It could cause a modal shift from energy-efficient short sea 

ships to higher emitting shore-based rail and truck, with the unintended consequence of creating more landside congestion as well as 

increased air pollution closer to population areas. 

CSL, working in concert with our customers, also forecasts that 

the resulting high transportation costs in 2015 will negatively affect their business. Approximately two-thirds of the cargo that we 

ship is in support of the construction industry in the United States. 

Therefore, this mandated cost increase has strong potential to negatively impact both commercial and residential development in the 

U.S. 

CSL fully recognizes and supports the value of reducing its carbon footprint. We commissioned a study to analyze our ships’ emissions using the modeling approach that the U.S. Environmental 

28 

Protection Agency itself used in their ECA developmental process. 

The study indicated that air quality impacts from lower horsepower 

ships diminished significantly as the ships moved further away 

from the coast, with a sharp drop in impact about 39 miles offshore. 

Accordingly, we urge policymakers, namely Congress and the 

EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime 

Administration, to revisit the ECA boundary and reduce the 200- 

mile ECA to 50 miles for 0.1 percent sulfur in 2015 for ships of 

20,000 horsepower or less. This revision will move away from the 

current one-size-fits-all regulation and align with a scientifically 

based approach which achieves the same environmental protection 

goals. 

In summary, CSL supports and endorses environmental initiatives in maritime transportation. For over 150 years, the CSL 

Group has pioneered technologies that make seaborne dry bulk 

transportation more environmentally efficient. We are investing 

millions of dollars in a fleet renewal program that will significantly 

reduce our environmental footprint. 

Through scientific testing, our proposal does not have a negative 

impact on the coast and will not contribute to modal shift impacts 

or negative impacts to the building and construction industry. If 

you would like further information, I have left our full report and 

additional details in a longer written testimony. 

Thank you very much today for this opportunity to make this 

presentation. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Cozza. 

Mr. Koch, I would like you to comment on, when we are talking 

about ballast water regulations, what would the impact be if the 

401 certifications in California and New York were to be enforced? 

Can you talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. KOCH. I believe New York has signaled, at least in the current VGP, that it recognizes the standards it has proposed are not 

realistic. We are having a little bit more difficult time getting California to recognize that what they have proposed is not realistic. 

A ship can install one set of equipment to treat ballast water; it 

can’t put on two. So what ship operators will be faced with is a 

choice of what technology they are going to install. My expectation 

would be that any ship operator would install what the U.S. Coast 

Guard says should be put on and EPA says should be put on and 

which meets Coast Guard and EPA testing requirements. 

If it doesn’t meet California requirements, then the vessel operator has various choices. It could not discharge ballast water in 

California, it could choose not to call California ports, or it could 

sit down with the California State authorities and see if it can get 

them to see reason. The latter is what we are certainly hoping will 

be the outcome and is what we are working on. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Gutowski, can you talk a little bit about whether you believe 

or how the Coast Guard has been proactive in informing the fishing 

industry of the new vessel safety exam requirement? Have they 

been coming to you? Have they been proactive in talking about the 

need to do this? 

Mr. GUTOWSKI. To be candid, I am not sure. 

29 

I can tell you that, from my perspective, the fishing industry as 

a whole is not really prepared for this. We have our boats inspected 

every 2 years voluntarily because we are mandated to carry observers. And if we do not have that sticker on our vessel, we will not 

be able to leave the dock. But all vessels are not. So those that are 

not required to carry observers, I do not think that the majority of 

those would understand that this is coming. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. 

I next want to ask you about on the classing of vessels. The 

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 mandated that all fishing 

vessels greater than 50 feet in length be designed, built, and maintained to specifications outlined by the classification society. 

Can you talk a little bit about why this requirement is going to 

increase the costs? I think we were talking about something by 25 

percent, construction costs. What is behind that? 

Mr. GUTOWSKI. Well, depending on what that class is, Mr. Chairman—and I am sure not—I don’t have the answer to that. I would 

like to try to get to that, if it is ABS or what type of class this is. 

But we consider those cost increases to be in certain types of steel, 

miking shafts, piping, a large range of upgrades to a normal commercial fishing vessel that will add those costs. 

But more disturbing to me as a boat owner that has a vessel that 

has been taken care of pretty well over a 15-, 20-year period, this 

alternate compliance program that would begin in 2020 would 

make all vessels over 50 feet come up to the same standard on a 

refit by that time, which would be, I would think, equally as costly. 

And with some vessels in our industry not doing well, I think that 

it will literally cripple some of the larger fisheries and coastal communities. 

Not to mention the infrastructure. I am not sure that our shipyards in the United States will be able to achieve all that work 

within that period of time. 

So there are a few points. I hope I have answered your question. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mayor Larson, you were pretty articulate about 

this in some private conversations. Do you want to add anything 

to Jimmy’s comments? 

Mr. LARSON. Just, Jimmy had a great comment there on—I 

never even thought about that—the 2020 thing, that there isn’t 

enough shipyards to handle all the upgrades for all the boats. Because I am sure everybody would wait until the last year. 

But my concerns to Mr. LoBiondo a few weeks ago was, I wanted 

to build a new boat, and I had just found out that I can’t build a 

new boat after July 1st, 2012, without complying with all the new 

standards, what standards or what class they are going to go by. 

From what I understand, maybe I shouldn’t say, but the Coast 

Guard really hasn’t come up with those standards yet on what it 

is. 

And I am in the middle here. I would love to build a new boat. 

We are catching a lot of scallops right now. I could probably afford 

it. But if I don’t get my keel laid by July 1st, 2012, I probably won’t 

do it. And there will be some jobs that were lost. 

I don’t know if you read the papers, but New Bedford, they just 

built a brand-new scalloper for a guy last winter. And they pretty 

much did it to make sure the town stayed employed, to make sure 

30 

the riggers all got a little bit of work putting stays together, building—the painters, you know, the small-town stuff. I mean, 

Fairhaven Shipyard is a fairly small—it is a fairly small town, and 

every little bit helps. And I am sure in Louisiana and Alabama and 

Florida they are all looking for the same thing, to pick up a boat 

or two to build. I am sure it would help. 

But my concern is with the July 1st, 2012, date. I am concerned 

about it, and I will be putting my brain in gear here the next couple weeks after this hearing and put something together, I think. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Sure. We want to continue to keep working on 

this. 

Mr. Gutowski, I have one more question on the ballast water and 

incidental discharge standards. The EPA recently announced its 

new Small Vessel General Permit, which would apply to most commercial fishing vessels. 

I believe you noted in your testimony that the VGP may require 

unsafe practices or require the master to violate fishing regulations. Could you talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. GUTOWSKI. Sure. 

As far as ballast water, typically our vessels don’t take ballast 

water on and then discharge that at some point. We fuel, and we 

catch scallops, and typically there is a tradeoff for fuel consumption 

and scallop production. So the load of the vessel stays pretty constant throughout the trip. 

However, water discharge—a lot of our vessels are cooling their 

generator systems with seawater. So that discharge, if that now becomes an issue, is a problem. 

I mean, if you look at fleets, if you look at what has happened 

to the industry with very stringent guidelines, cut days at sea, rotational areas, we have lots of steel tied up to docks. So they are 

2, 3, 4, 5, sometimes 10 deep. To get to your boat, you have to cross 

10 scallopers in certain ports. 

So you need to have electric. In the winter, you need to heat your 

boat so it doesn’t freeze. But more importantly, we are required to 

have a vessel monitoring system. So that is the piece of equipment 

that speaks with our Government agency, National Marine Fisheries, 24/7. If my vessel monitoring system goes out for a period of 

more than 20 minutes, I get a telephone call, no matter what time 

of day, to get that back online or find out what the problem is. 

So if we are not able to keep that electric going, I don’t know how 

we are going to be able to keep these vessel monitoring systems 

going in between trips. And I think there would be violations. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thanks. 

Mayor Larson, do you have anything you wanted to add to that? 

Mr. LARSON. On the small vessel permit, yes, I find that all my 

boats, personally, are under 79 feet. And I don’t believe I would be 

able to hold the greywater they require. I don’t believe I would be 

able to, at this point, unload my fishing boat with a fishhold full 

of fish juice and not pump it overboard, at this point. I am sure, 

you know, in the future years that the marinas and the docks 

would have setups where you could flip a switch and pump into the 

sewer system of the town. 

31 

But there is also the issue of large volumes of ice, maybe 10, 15, 

20 tons of ice, that is all used up on a boat. I don’t know what we 

would do with that, whether we would put it in containers and let 

it melt and then pump it down the sewer system. 

I think there are a lot of things that the EPA did not think of 

when they were thinking of the fishing industry. They might have 

needed a couple more experts in there to be, like Mr. Landry said, 

to be practical and—just to be practical about the whole thing. You 

know what I mean? 

So thank you for letting me speak. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Koch, with regards to the misdeclared container weights, I 

agree it presents some serious safety concerns. It appears it has 

been a problem for many years. And while it has not gone unnoticed, it has not drawn any concerted effort by IMO, it seems, to 

address the problem. 

So what factors have inhibited IMO from gaining any traction on 

pushing through a practical universal regulatory requirement? 

Mr. KOCH. The complexities with the problem are that the majority of containers have correctly declared weights, or at least they 

are not significantly off. So what you are dealing with is a subset 

of the containers that are tendered to the carrier that are the problem. 

And the present law—the SOLAS Convention—requires only the 

shipper’s cargo declaration to deal with the issue, period. Our approach has been to recommend that the IMO amend SOLAS so 

that there is a regulatory obligation on the terminal operator handling the box to make sure that it has a verified weight before loading onto a ship. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, on the outgoing. 

Mr. KOCH. Yeah. That has been shown to work in the U.S. under 

the applicable OSHA regs. It hasn’t impaired efficiency. We think 

that that ought to be looked at as an international rule, as well. 

The terminal operator industry has some concerns about that, 

and we hope they can be worked out in the IMO discussions. 

Mr. LARSEN. Are there discussions at IMO on this issue? 

Mr. KOCH. There are lots of discussions going on with Governments, with other industries—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Is there any action taking place? 

Mr. KOCH. Not yet. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. All right. 

Mr. Marcus, talk a little bit more about watch standards. We 

heard from the Coast Guard with regards to the STCW Code for 

seafarers, that there are training requirements, there is certification, there are all these standards that are supposed to be in 

place to deal with watch standards, to deal with fatigue, to deal 

with all the issues you brought up. What is not going on? 

Capt. MARCUS. Well, I think it gets down to what Chairman 

LoBiondo said a little earlier: common sense. 

And it is one thing to establish rest requirements, where you 

limit, in theory, operations to a 91-hour workweek, and possibly in 

certain situations for up to 2 weeks allow a 98-hour workweek. But 

32 

the Coast Guard has given us no guidance on the implementation 

of these rules. 

To say that there is a 10-hour required period of rest that is required every day and to say that it can be split into two different 

periods, one that must be 6 hours, and that these two periods of 

rest must be within 14 hours of each other, is not realistic. The 

problem with setting these standards is that the duties of getting 

a ship from A to B exceed the number of hours available to do the 

work, number one. And, number two, there literally are not enough 

responsible officers and crew who are charged with these duties 

and held to criminal standards to do these duties. You need enough 

people to do the work. 

So to have rest hours and not have enough people to do the work 

and expect the ship to get from A to B within these rules is incongruous. It doesn’t make sense. 

Mr. LARSEN. So in your testimony—I believe in your testimony 

you have called for Congress to study this, to do a study, to bring 

in—how did you put it? Have an objective study be done of this 

issue? 

Capt. MARCUS. We are looking for Congress to task the United 

States Coast Guard to review the manning levels on board merchant ships that come in and out of U.S. ports. Because we believe, 

number one, even if there are logs of hours worked, the real test 

of efficiency and whether the crew are getting rest is determining 

how many crewmembers are there. 

And we think the Coast Guard needs to do the study using independent human-factor specialists, to verify and set manning levels 

and to audit safe manning documents on U.S. and foreign vessels 

that come into the States to see that, in fact, the crew can do the 

job within the rest periods that they say they are honoring. 

Mr. LARSEN. Has anything like that been done before by the 

Coast Guard? 

Capt. MARCUS. To my knowledge, not by the Coast Guard. There 

are certificates of inspections currently on the ship that set absolute minimum manning. These levels have been set for 40 years, 

during a period of time when regulatory tasks and duties have doubled or tripled. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Mr. Cozza, with regards to the recommendation to pull the ECA 

back to 50 miles based upon a certain size of vessel, the obvious 

question I have is, in your view, how many vessels or how much 

volume of traffic would be impacted by that? 

Mr. COZZA. In our view, sir, we think it would be quite a substantial amount of volume, especially on the basis of what is going 

to be coastwise shipping or short sea shipping. We know for us 

alone, we are a small portion of it, but it would be about 40 million 

tons of cargo would be affected as well. And, again, this is mostly 

in construction-industry-type of work that we do. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. So your standard of vessel would be at 20,000 

tons? No, I am sorry, the—— 

Mr. COZZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Could you just review it for me, please? 

33 

Mr. COZZA. What we are requesting is that, for 2015, that it 

would be, from the distance from 50 miles to 200 miles, vessels less 

than 20,000 horsepower would have this modification. 

As part of it, sir, is we believe that what happened is that the 

EPA did one-size-fits-all approach when they set the standard in 

place that might make sense for the total population, but when you 

look at smaller vessels and the emissions that we have on our 

ships, it does not as much apply. 

Mr. LARSEN. I just reviewed the study, and I know you looked 

at emissions of SOX and NOX and CO2. Did you look at any relationship between the diesel engine standards that are going into 

place, the 1 percent and the 0.1 percent, and how that plays into, 

you know, if it is a 0.1 percent standard, it can be 50 miles, if it 

is 1 percent, it can be 51 miles, or whatever it is. Did you look at 

that relationship at all? 

Mr. COZZA. We did, sir. Actually, interesting enough, we found 

when you go away from the coast in even the current standard, beyond 50 miles there is really not an appreciable effect. So even taking it to more stringent on fuel, that would not change. That would 

not change. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. All right. Thanks. 

That is what I have right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. [presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Harris, the gentleman from Maryland? 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just follow on, Mr. Cozza, with the questions about the 

Emissions Control Area. Because, you know, we have seen this 

from the EPA before. I mean, in their testimony—I am sorry I 

wasn’t hear for the EPA testimony, but, you know, they say you 

could save $270 billion if all do you is this thing. And I think they 

can eliminate all our healthcare costs at the EPA, actually, if you 

extrapolate all their figures. You know, 30,000 deaths in 2030 

alone. I mean, we hear this every time from the EPA. It is usually 

based on pretty unscientific evidence. And I am glad that you have 

a study here. 

There was a comment in the testimony from the EPA that various other ideas about how to work around this ECA requirement, 

because it is financially burdensome, might include the idea of, for 

instance, taking into account how close to a population area you 

are. Because I take it, for instance, the current recommendation is 

that when you are 39 miles off of New York with 15 million people 

in the metropolitan area, you have the same standard as 39 miles 

off rural South Carolina. 

Mr. COZZA. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK, so—which makes no scientific sense whatsoever. 

I mean, if there is some mile limit beyond which or within which 

you ought to be operating at a low-sulfur fuel, I don’t understand 

why you wouldn’t take population into account at all. 

But let me just get into some of the mechanics. So I take it your 

vessels would have two different fuel tanks, and you would be 

switching from one to the other as you crossed the boundary. 

Mr. COZZA. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HARRIS. Give me the idea of the cost difference between the 

2.6 percent sulfur now, the 1 percent, and the 0.1 percent. 

34 

Mr. COZZA. To give you an idea, Congressman, I will give you a 

real basis. We carry gypsum rock from Halifax down into Savannah. This is for National Gypsum. This is to go into the wallboard 

industry for construction. The costs for them at the 0.1 percent in 

2015—and this is conservative—will increase their transportation 

costs, total transportation costs, by 29 percent. This is a very lowmargin business. This is a very low-margin type of commodity. So 

it is huge. 

In actual costs for the fuel itself, we are forecasting it could be 

about a 40 to 50 percent increase in fuel price. Again, this is on 

the 0.1 percent sulfur side. On the 1 percent sulfur, it is not quite 

as extreme. 

Dr. HARRIS. And is there—because I know in vehicles the concern 

is that, as you go to low sulfur, there is actually an effect on the 

engine itself. Is that true in the engines that you are—— 

Mr. COZZA. There is some. We run these very low-speed diesel 

engines. We are doing this right now on the west coast, off the 

State of California. We do feel it is not onerous. We do have to 

make some changes, but we are ready to take that on on the basis 

of foreign environmental guidelines. 

Dr. HARRIS. So 0.1 would be all right in terms of that. 

Just to give me an idea, if we changed it to 50 miles, let’s say, 

you know, someone at the EPA realized one size really doesn’t fit 

all and that you really should look scientifically at what the value 

of that falloff is—because to say, you know, well, we saved $270 billion in health care, well, about if we changed it to 50 miles? I 

mean, do we save only $269 billion in health care? And, you know, 

that billion is the most expensive? 

What percent of your company’s journeys are in that 50- to 200- 

mile range? 

Mr. COZZA. For the routes that we do right now, sir, we are about 

80 to 90 percent of our journeys are within that 200-mile range. 

Dr. HARRIS. But how much within 50? 

Mr. COZZA. Within 50 it would be much less. It would be somewhere about 10 to 15 percent. 

Dr. HARRIS. Because you are just basically getting out of port 

and then coming into port with it. 

So, overall—and, again, getting to this population-based idea, 

you know—because your testimony points it out, if you discourage 

short sea shipping, you are going to replace it with something. 

Mr. COZZA. True. 

Dr. HARRIS. Trucks might be the most logical. And I can just 

imagine, you know, increasing truck traffic in and out of New York 

because you have done something to short sea shipping certainly 

wouldn’t be good for the environment. Because this will really be 

a disincentive to short sea shipping if you are now at a 29 percent 

price differential because of the transportation costs. 

Mr. COZZA. Yes. That is not a question. 

Dr. HARRIS. What do you think—and I take it from your testimony, the best way to relieve this issue is go to the 50-mile differentiation. 

Mr. COZZA. Well, our recommendation is, Congressman, is that 

it would be from the 50 to 200 miles for the 20,000-horsepower or 

less ships. 

35 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. 

Mr. COZZA. Because that is what we see as the basis of what 

makes sense. And, again, on the study that we have provided is 

that beyond—it is actually 39 miles, there is not an appreciable 

benefit. 

Dr. HARRIS. And why is this differentiation for the 20,000 horsepower? 

Mr. COZZA. It is really the size of the engine, actually, makes 

this, as you can imagine, is the amount of the emissions. 

Dr. HARRIS. Right. But why would that make a difference as to— 

you know, why should we differentiate in the size of the engine? 

I mean, this pollution travels or it doesn’t. If you are saying it is 

39 miles, just because it is a little bigger engine, you know, then 

it is—— 

Mr. COZZA. Honestly, Congressman, if it was 50 miles, we would 

be very fine with that. That would work, if it was in total. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. 

Mr. COZZA. We were trying to present something that was a little 

bit of a balance with the current regulations. 

Dr. HARRIS. OK. No, thank you very much. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Those are all the 

questions I have. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Harris. 

Mr. Lafont, you mentioned that Callais and Sons experienced a 

great deal of difficulty securing some medical credentials for two of 

your captains. What is the status of those applications? 

Mr. LAFONT. Thank you, Mr. Landry. Thanks to you and your office, they both have their licenses now. 

Mr. LANDRY. So, at the end of the day, they were declared medically fit to work in a wheelhouse. 

Mr. LAFONT. About 9 months after they went to renew. 

Mr. LANDRY. And so how long did it take? 

Mr. LAFONT. You see, your license is good for 5 years. And your 

last year of your 5, after the 1 year left you can start applying. And 

both of those individuals started with the 1 year left. Their license 

expired. They lost their home, their car, all the goodies. And then 

they end up getting their license, fortunately, thanks to your office. 

Mr. LANDRY. And so, again, the process took them how many 

months? 

Mr. LAFONT. About 13 months. 

Mr. LANDRY. And you said in your testimony that you believed 

that there is, I guess, a breakdown in the communication, that the 

doctors and the Coast Guard aren’t speaking on the same language. 

Mr. LAFONT. That is correct. 

Mr. LANDRY. Could you just elaborate on that for us? 

Mr. LAFONT. It is so bad right now that Terrebonne General, who 

is known to be about the second-best heart place in the country— 

they got a pretty good reputation—the heart doctors are refusing 

to write medical letters to the Coast Guard because they claim they 

just don’t even listen to them. 

Mr. LANDRY. So, in other words, we have doctors in the district— 

and then that would go for the rest of the country, in districts all 

around the country—— 

36 

Mr. LAFONT. Correct. 

Mr. LANDRY [continuing]. Who specialize in cardiology, and—— 

Mr. LAFONT. That is correct. 

Mr. LANDRY [continuing]. The Coast Guard is basically not adhering to their recommendations? 

Mr. LAFONT. It seems like the doctors from, I guess it is Louisiana—that is where most of my people are—are putting too many 

verbs in their letters. Because if they be honest—it don’t look good, 

the letter, but in the Coast Guard’s eyes, they spit them all back. 

And this guy, Dr. Stagg, who I virtually almost threatened to 

write me a decent letter without some of these verbs, and it still 

didn’t work. But then we end up, thanks to your office again—and 

I am not trying to promote you here, but you really did help us— 

you know, we got it done. But it is not good. It is, like, really bad. 

Mr. LANDRY. Could you maybe just take a moment and explain 

to some of the Members that are here what you see as the overall 

problem? The type of burden that this particular issue is placing 

not only on you, but I am guessing it is affecting all of the boat 

owners up and down the bayou in Louisiana. 

Mr. LAFONT. Well, first of all, most of your good mariners, you 

know, they are all on their fourth, fifth, and sixth renewal, and 

they all are going to have medical. Right now it is popping up color 

blindness. Sleep apnea, for heaven’s sake, that is all over the place. 

Don’t say you have diabetes because, you know, they are going to 

mark you. You know, people that never had color blindness in their 

life, it is coming up now. 

And it is a 3-year process now to get a license to run a boat, with 

the time, and if you go from apprentice mate on and then all the 

stages. You know, the good guys, we need these, that is the safe 

operators, and they are just—the only, I guess, criticism I would 

have with the Coast Guard is on the medical side. It is bad. It ain’t 

good. 

Mr. LANDRY. So we basically have experienced mariners out 

there—— 

Mr. LAFONT. That is correct. 

Mr. LANDRY [continuing]. Who are being denied for—either denied or the ability for them to renew their license is being dragged 

out, which takes them, our experienced mariners, out of the wheelhouse. 

Mr. LAFONT. That is correct. 

Mr. LANDRY. And these are good-paying jobs. 

Mr. LAFONT. Yes. All our people at the wheel average a little better than $100,000 a year. 

Mr. LANDRY. And you don’t have to have a college degree for this 

job. 

Mr. LAFONT. We hope you don’t. We would rather have experience. 

Mr. LANDRY. And I guess that is the point, is that out there we 

have the ability to give Americans good-paying jobs, jobs that put 

them in the top 25 percent of wage earners in this country. And 

we don’t have to send them to college to guarantee them these kind 

of jobs. We just have to ensure that the process that has been going 

on—I mean, how long have you been in the business? 

Mr. LAFONT. My father-in-law has owned this company 50 years. 

37 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. And so, in that timeframe, would you say that 

the ability to achieve a mariner certificate, to get behind the wheelhouse, has only become more complicated or less complicated? 

Mr. LAFONT. Oh, Lord, like night and day difference, harder. 

You know, I am not no economist, but if you listen to every one 

of these gentlemen at this table over here, it is all about the regs. 

I mean, we are getting regulated to death. I mean, you know, all 

I haven’t seen yet is a toenail on the medical side, and that is coming. But it is, like, really unfair. 

And you hear subchapter M that is coming down. That is going 

to be a killer for our industry. I don’t want to—heaven knows what 

is going to come down there. But, you know, it is almost like the 

guy who was fishing the scallops; you know, you got to lay the keel 

now, because in 5 years from now you can’t build nothing new no 

more. If you build anything new by regs, you can’t go out and earn 

it. You are not going to pay it back, you are going to go bankrupt. 

The regulations are killing us. 

Mr. LANDRY. One final question. What impact does that have on 

the ability for you to create jobs? 

Mr. LAFONT. It is tough. I mean, you know, you got to go, you 

got to fight, you got to be there every day. And thanks to you 

again, you know, and your office—and, you know, there is no mariner that has a valid license that should have to go through a Congressman or a Senator to get his license back unless it is really 

bad. 

But, you know, like this one particular mariner who had three 

bypasses 20 years ago and they pulled it finally this last time, and 

he had seen a doctor once a year, and he was on no medication for 

the last 5 years, and they held up his license for 13 months. It is 

kind of ridiculous. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, I agree with you. I want you to know that I 

don’t think you should have to go through the congressional offices 

to get this process going. 

I appreciate your time. 

Mr. LAFONT. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. No more. 

Mr. LANDRY. This committee hearing is now adjourned. Thank 

you all. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 73987.012
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 73987.013
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 73987.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 73987.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 73987.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 73987.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 73987.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 73987.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 73987.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 73987.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 73987.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 73987.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 73987.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 73987.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 73987.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 73987.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 73987.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 73987.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 73987.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 73987.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 73987.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 73987.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 73987.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 73987.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 73987.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 73987.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 73987.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 73987.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 73987.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 73987.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 73987.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 73987.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 73987.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 73987.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 73987.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 73987.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 73987.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 73987.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 73987.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 73987.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 73987.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 73987.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 73987.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 73987.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 73987.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 73987.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 73987.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 73987.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 73987.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 73987.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 73987.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 73987.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 73987.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 73987.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 73987.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 73987.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 73987.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 73987.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 73987.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 73987.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 73987.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 73987.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 73987.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 73987.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 73987.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 73987.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 73987.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 73987.079
106 


Insert offset folio 80 here 73987.080
107 


Insert offset folio 81 here 73987.081
108 


Insert offset folio 82 here 73987.082
109 


Insert offset folio 83 here 73987.083
110 


Insert offset folio 84 here 73987.084
111 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 85 here 73987.085