Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1321), for the Coast Guard to respond to a pollution incident in the United States which had originated in Canada. He also said that the revolving fund authorized by the Act could be used as a source of reimbursement for removal costs. His opinion stated, in part:

Section 311(c)(1) of the FWPCA authorizes the President to act to remove any oil which is discharged "into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone." This authority has been delegated to the Coast Guard for the coastal waters of the United States. In broad terms, the congressional mandate is to protect the waters and the coastline of the United States from damage resulting from pollution by oil and other hazardous substances by (1) preventing the discharge of these substances, and (2) authorizing the removal of any substances which are discharged. It is my opinion that Congress intended to authorize under Section 311(c) the removal of any oil which is discharged, either directly or indirectly, into or upon the navigable waters, adjoining shore lines, or into or on the waters of the contiguous zone, regardless of where the original pollution incident occurs. Section 311(k) authorizes the establishment of a revolving fund to carry out the provisions of Section 311(c). It, therefore, follows that the revolving fund can be used as a source of reimbursement for the cost of any removal effort authorized under Section 311(c), including the situation outlined.

Dept. of Transportation, Coast Guard Law Bulletin, No. 411, July 1975, p. 36.

President Ford transmitted to Congress on July 9, 1975, proposed legislation entitled the "Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act of 1975." The legislation (H.R. 9294; 94th Cong., 1st Sess.) would establish a comprehensive and uniform system for fixing liability and settling claims for oil pollution damages in U.S. waters and coastlines. It would also implement two international conventions dealing with oil pollution caused by tankers on the high seas: the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, signed at Brussels on November 29, 1969, and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, done at Brussels on December 18, 1971. In his message to Congress, the President stated, in part:

This legislation would help protect our environment by establishing strict liability for all oil pollution damages from identifia

ble sources and providing strong economic incentives for operators to prevent spills. Equally important, the bill will provide relief for many oil-related environmental damages which in the past went uncompensated. For example, State and local governments will be able to claim compensation for damages to natural resources under their jurisdiction.

This legislation would replace a patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting Federal and State laws. In addition to defining liability for oil spills, it would establish a uniform system for settling claims and assure that none will go uncompensated, such as in cases where it is impossible to identify the source of the spill. The legislation provides for a fund of up to $200 million derived from a small fee on oil transported or stored on or near navigable waters.

This legislation would also implement two international conventions signed in 1969 and 1971-which provide remedies for oil pollution damage from ships. These conventions provide remedies for U.S. citizens under many circumstances where a ship discharging oil that reaches our shores might not otherwise be subject to our laws and courts. Protection of the international marine environment is basically an international problem since the waters, currents, and winds that spread and carry ocean pollution transcend all national boundaries.

In proposing implementation of the conventions, I am mindful of the fact that the Senate has not yet given its advice and consent to either of them. I urge such action without further delay. The 1969 convention came into force internationally on June 19, 1975, without our adherence, and the continuing failure of the United States to act on such initiatives may weaken or destroy the prospects of adequate international responses to marine pollution problems.

A summary of the proposed legislation follows:

The proposed legislation:

1. Establishes a domestic fund.

-Having a $200 million ceiling.

-Financed by a fee not to exceed 3¢ per barrel on certain oil, the amount of the fee to be at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation.

2. Provides specific damages recoverable by broad classes of claimants. -Damages recoverable:

-oil removal costs;

-injury to or loss of use of real or personal property;

-injury to or loss of use of natural resources;

-loss of earnings;

-loss of tax revenue for up to one year.

-Claimants eligible to file:

-any agency of the U.S. Government, for oil removal cost;

-the President, or any Governor, as trustee for natural resources;

-any U.S. citizen who incurs removal costs, damages to property or significant economic loss because of an oil spill;

-any State or political subdivision for loss of up to one year's tax revenue;

-certain foreign claimants in limited situations.

3. Establishes strict liability for the discharger with varying limits and

limited defenses.

-Limits of liability:

-vessels and ships-the lesser of the $150 per gross ton or $20,000,000; -onshore or offshore facility-not to exceed $50,000,000, to be determined by the Secretary of Transportation;

-in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, liability would be unlimited.

4. Sets up a uniform system of claims settlement and appeal, using procedures established by the Secretary of Transportation.

Secretary formally designates discharger, if known.

Claimant files initial claim against designated discharger.
-discharger has 90 days to make settlement; or

-he can deny designation.

-If settlement is not obtained from designated discharger, claimant

may:

-sue discharger in U.S. District Court; or

-file claim against fund.

-If no discharger is designated or claim falls within scope of 1969 or 1971 international conventions, claimant files against fund:

-fund has 90 days to make settlement;

-failure to settle claim in requested amount can be appealed administratively;

-in some cases, appeal may be made to U.S. District Court.

5. Allows fund to subrogate claims.

-Fund collects from discharger if found liable:

-the damages paid;

-administrative cost of claims settlement; and
-interest.

-Fund collects all claims payments damages from any liable third
party.

-Fund collects all claims payments under international conventions. 6. Repeals existing Federal liability statutes and funds.

-Federal Water Pollution Control Act $35 million fund, as it relates to
oil spills.

-Trans-Alaskan Pipeline Act liability and $100 million fund.
-Deepwater Ports Act liability and $100 million fund.

7. Preempts any State funds and laws for areas covered by this proposal.

The President's message to Congress is published in full in Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 11, No. 28, July 14, 1975, pp. 721-722; Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 107, July 9, 1975, pp. S12097-12098 (daily ed.); and H. Doc. 94-214. The summary quoted in part above is from a fact sheet issued by the Office of the White House Press Secretary on July 9, 1975.

United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea

At the Geneva session of the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, March 19-May 9, 1975, the Chairman of the Third Committee produced an informal single negotiating text, the second part of which was entitled "Marine Scientific Research," and the third part "Development and Transfer of Technology." It would provide that all states, whether coastal or landlocked, as

well as appropriate international organizations would have the right to conduct marine scientific research, subject to the provisions of the Convention. Those provisions, as currently included in the negotiating text, would include, inter alia, the conduct of marine scientific research for the benefit of the international community and exclusively for peaceful purposes, noninterference with other legitimate uses of the sea, and compliance with regulations established in conformity with the Convention, for the preservation of the marine environment. States would be obligated to promote the transfer of marine sciences and technology at fair and reasonable terms, conditions and prices.

Ambassador John R. Stevenson, U.S. Representative to the Geneva session of the Conference, in a statement to the Conference on May 9, 1975, deplored continuing attempts by some states to place restrictions on the conduct of marine scientific research and urged that there be concentration on means to insure that all would enjoy the fruits of science, rather than on means to restrict science for fear it would only benefit the few. In a statement to the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on June 4, 1975, Ambassador Stevenson summarized the Conference outcome with respect to scientific research, as follows:

There was a continuation of the debate between those states that demand consent for all scientific research conducted in the economic zone and those, such as the United States, that support the right to conduct such research subject to the fulfillment of internationally agreed obligations. A new approach sponsored by the Soviet Union attracted considerable attention. It requires consent for resource-related research and compliance with internationally agreed obligations for non-resource-related research.

The U.S. delegation report included the following details:

Marine Scientific Research

During this session the four main trends developed in Caracas evolved into three approaches which the chairman ultimately considered in producing the unified text. These three different approaches are: (1) the proposal of the Group of 77, which provides that all scientific research in areas under coastal state jurisdiction shall be conducted only with the explicit consent of the coastal state (L. 13, Rev. 2); (2) a proposal by many Western European countries, with amendments by a group of landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states, that marine scientific research can be conducted if a list of internationally agreed obligations are fulfilled, subject to dispute settlement procedures (L.28, an amendment to L.19); and (3) the Soviet proposal, later incorporated in a formal proposal by Mexico and others, which distinguishes between research concerning resources and non-resource-related re

search, requiring consent for resource-related research and compliance with internationally agreed obligations for research not concerned with resources (L.26 and L.29).

The prior Soviet position, reflected in L.31. . . called for consent for shelf research, and freedom for research in the water column and in the international area. In L.26 the Soviet Union proposed that in the economic zone, marine scientific research "related to the exploration and exploitation of living and nonliving resources" would be conducted only with the consent of the coastal state, and research not so related would be conducted subject to the fulfillment of a series of obligations; a similar regime would apply to research on the Continental Shelf beyond the economic zone. Research in the international area could be conducted freely. As this approach focusing on the purpose of the research had some appeal both to those seeking a consent regime and those advocating marine scientific research under an obligation regime, it was the center of discussion throughout the session. The major criticism levied at the Soviet approach by developing and some developed countries was the practical difficulty of making such a distinction. Some, led by Canada, concluded that all marine scientific research should be subject to a consent regime, while others stated that they could accept a distinction if the coastal state had the exclusive right to determine whether the research related to exploration or exploitation of resources.

From a U.S. perspective the most negative aspect of the session was the reintroduction by the Group of 77 of their proposal, L.13/Rev. 2. There was no change of position from their earlier insistence on explicit consent for research in the area under coastal state jurisdiction and/or sovereignty and direct control by the International Authority over all research in the international

area....

For the full text of Ambassador Stevenson's statements of May 9 and June 4, 1975, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXII, No. 1876, June 9, 1975, pp. 783–786, and Hearings on Status Report on Law of the Sea Conference before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., June 4, 1975, pp. 1169-1174. The single negotiating text produced by the Chairman of Committee III at the Geneva session of the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference is at A/CONF.62/WP.8/ Part III, May 7, 1975. For the text and the report of the U.S. delegation, see Hearings on Status Report on Law of the Sea Conference before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, supra, and The Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, Geneva Session, March-May 1975, Report to the Senate, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.

The preliminary comments of the U.S. Government concerning the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses were transmitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in June 1975, in response to a series of questions contained in the report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-sixth session, May 6 to July 26, 1974.

The United States expressed the view that the development of equitable and operable principles to provide for the availability of a constant supply of fresh water was a pressing requirement. It