[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 162 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


            COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 AMENDMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 5, 2012

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012. This important bill 
provides the funding and policy support for all of the programs and 
missions of the United States Coast Guard. The bill also includes 
policy and statutory provisions that are important to the entire 
maritime industry. Part of what our U.S. flag vessel industry does is 
assist us in developing our energy resources offshore whether in the 
Arctic or elsewhere. This effort will help us achieve energy 
independence. Without these working boats being able to operate both 
domestically and internationally, we as a nation would be lagging even 
further behind. We need to do what we can to support vessels that can 
and will do this work.
  One such provision in this Coast Guard bill addresses the tonnage 
situation of the vessel Aqueos Acadian. The world of tonnage 
measurement is an arcane and complicated subject. However, it is vital 
to the operation and economics of any vessel. In this case the Aqueos 
Acadian, in its original configuration in 1973 when she was built, was 
certified in Coast Guard documentation to be 274 Gross Registered Tons 
(GRT), which is the official domestic tonnage measurement. Later in her 
career, the vessel underwent modifications (addition of a closed-in 
``shelter deck''), which increased her domestic tonnage (GRT) as well 
as her international tonnage, which is measured differently than 
domestic tonnage under the International Tonnage Convention (ITC) 
rules. Later still in the vessel's history, the modifications that 
increased the tonnage measurements were removed and the vessel's 
official documents were then issued by the Coast Guard and ABS to 
reflect that the GRT had been reduced to 275, almost exactly the 
original GRT of 274. Vessels that are greater than 300 GRT have safety 
and manning requirements that are substantially more complicated than 
vessels at or below 300 GRT. At the time of the certification of the 
down-sizing modifications reducing the GRT, the ITC tonnage was not 
reduced because the Coast Guard's ability to administratively reduce 
international tonnage, once it has gone up, is either extremely arcane 
or non-existent--even if the vessel's domestic and international 
tonnage has in fact been reduced.
  Aqeuos Corporation purchased the vessel for offshore work and, as 
stated above, its official documents reflected that the GRT had been 
reduced to below 300 GRT. Relying on those Coast Guard and ABS issued 
documents, the company sought Coast Guard administrative help to reduce 
the ITC tonnage commensurate with the recognition that the GRT had been 
reduced (prior enlarging modifications removed). In the Coast Guard 
Authorization bill (H.R. 2838) just enacted this week, there is 
language that allows the company to keep operating the vessel under its 
current documentation (below 300 GRT) and allows time to complete the 
tonnage reducing modifications that were not done by the previous 
owners of the vessel but which the Coast Guard has said must be done. 
Unfortunately the ITC tonnage reduction remains incomplete. The 
provision does not restore the vessel's ITC tonnage to that of the GRT, 
once the tonnage reducing modification is made in dry dock. This second 
step would afford to the vessel the same result that other vessels in 
the Aqeuos Acadian's class have, which, through a previous legislative 
grandfather provision, allows those vessels' GRT and ITC tonnage to be 
the same. This second step would not give the vessel a competitive 
advantage relative to other vessels in the Acadian's class, rather 
without it the company is at a competitive disadvantage with those 
other vessels in its class. As time goes by the vessel is losing out on 
potentially millions of dollars of domestic and international work.
  It may be that the ITC provides for recognition of the lower tonnage 
administratively, but the path is not clear whether such an 
administrative route exists. Again in the case of this vessel, it is 
essentially being restored to its original tonnage at the time it was 
built in 1973. I understand the concern addressed by the ITC of vessels 
substantially changing their size. A larger vessel should be regulated 
at a larger tonnage. However, I have not been made aware of any vessel 
that fits this fact pattern of being enlarged and then substantially 
altered to be restored to its original tonnage. Unfortunately, the way 
that the ITC addresses this situation is to forever assign a vessel a 
higher tonnage even if it in fact has been reduced. That is simply 
unfair. Other vessels of the same class which did not undergo the 
enlargement are now enjoying a lower ITC tonnage. The equities are that 
this vessel should be similarly recognized once restored. This is an 
equitable case for assigning it the ITC tonnage as though it had not 
undergone the earlier enlargement.
  While there may be a way to do this administratively, that process 
has not been made clear and seems to be a maze of arcane International 
Maritime Organization procedures. Thus, the case for correcting the 
international tonnage for this vessel is a compelling one based on a 
unique situation. The recognition of such a unique case as this would 
not undermine the U.S. credibility or the ITC itself, or cause any 
backlash in the international community. This vessel should not be 
force fit into a regime that does not recognize its circumstance. We 
need vessels such as the Aqueos Acadian to develop offshore energy 
resources as soon as possible. This provision gets part of the job done 
and in time perhaps an additional measure is needed. In the meantime, I 
strongly urge the Coast Guard to develop an administrative solution and 
I ask the Coast Guard to consider all of the factors mentioned above.

                          ____________________