[House Report 113-175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-175
======================================================================
AMENDING TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE, TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION FROM THE
FIRE-RETARDANT MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENT FOR VESSELS OPERATING
WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINE
_______
July 24, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Shuster, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1961]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 1961) to amend title 46, United
States Code, to extend the exemption from the fire-retardant
materials construction requirement for vessels operating within
the Boundary Line, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of Legislation........................................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Legislative History and Consideration............................ 2
Committee Votes.................................................. 2
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 2
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 3
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 4
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 4
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 4
Federal Mandate Statement........................................ 4
Preemption Clarification......................................... 4
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 4
Applicability of Legislative Branch.............................. 4
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation....................... 5
Changes in Existing Law made by the Bill, as Reported............ 5
Dissenting Views................................................. 6
Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 1961 would extend the exemption from fire-retardant
materials construction requirements for certain vessels
operating within the Boundary Line.
Background and Need for Legislation
Since 1966, federal law (currently codified at section 3503
of title 46, United States Code) requires passenger vessels
with overnight accommodations for 50 or more passengers to be
constructed of fire-retardant materials. Section 3503 included
an exemption, which expired on November 1, 2008, for certain
vessels in operation before 1968 and operating in internal
waters. To qualify for the exemption, the vessel owner had to
notify passengers that the vessel did not meet fire safety
standards; agree to be held liable for any death, injury, or
loss caused by fire; and ensure alterations made to nonpublic
spaces complied with fire-retardant regulations.
H.R. 1961 would extend the exemption included in section
3503 through October 31, 2028.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 1961.
Legislative History and Consideration
On May 14, 2013, Representative Steve Chabot introduced
H.R. 1961, a bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to
extend the exemption from the fire-retardant materials
construction requirement for vessels operating within the
Boundary Line.
On July 18, 2013, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session and ordered the bill
reported favorably to the House by voice vote with a quorum
present.
Committee Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to include the
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for
and against. There were no record votes taken in connection
with consideration of H.R. 1961 or ordering the measure
reported. A motion to order H.R. 1961 reported favorably to the
House was agreed to by voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1961 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 22, 2013.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1961, a bill to
amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption
from the fire-retardant material construction requirement for
vessels operating within the boundary line.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Puro.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 1961--A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the
exemption from the fire-retardant material construction
requirement for vessels operating within the boundary line
In 2008, the Congress removed an exemption in law that
allowed certain vessels constructed of wood and containing
stateroom accommodations to carry more than 50 passengers. H.R.
1961 would reinstate that exemption and permit those vessels to
exceed the 50-passenger limit until 2028. CBO estimates that
there is one vessel affected by the exemption, a historic
steamboat currently based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would have no
impact on the federal budget because the United States Coast
Guard would continue to inspect the vessel under the provisions
of the bill or under current law. Enacting H.R. 1961 would not
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures do not apply.
H.R. 1961 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sarah Puro. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goal and objective of this legislation is to extend
the exemption from the fire-retardant materials construction
requirement for vessels operating within the Boundary Line.
Advisory of Earmarks
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. No
provision in the bill includes an earmark, limited tax benefit,
or limited tariff benefit under clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of
rule XXI.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to section 3(j) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013),
the Committee finds that no provision of H.R. 1961 establishes
or reauthorizes a program of the federal government known to be
duplicative of another federal program, a program that was
included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-
139, or a program related to a program identified in the most
recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
Pursuant to section 3(k) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013),
the Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 1961 does not
specifically direct the completion of any specific rule makings
within the meaning of section 551 of title 5, United States
Code.
Federal Mandate Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 1961 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability of Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
Section-by-Section Analysis of Legislation
Section 1. Extension of exemption
Section 1 extends through October 31, 2028 the exemption
from vessel fire-retardant material construction requirements
for certain vessels in operation before 1968 and operating in
internal waters.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle II--Vessels and Seamen
* * * * * * *
Part B--Inspection and Regulations of Vessels
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3503. Fire-retardant materials
(a) A passenger vessel of the United States having berth or
stateroom accommodations for at least 50 passengers shall be
granted a certificate of inspection only if the vessel is
constructed of fire-retardant materials. Before November 1,
[2008] 2028, this section does not apply to any vessel in
operation before January 1, 1968, and operating only within the
Boundary Line.
* * * * * * *
DISSENTING VIEWS
Perhaps no other peril invokes fear on a ship more than the
threat of fire. The history of maritime trade is replete with a
long list of tragic losses of hundreds of vessels and thousands
of lives due to catastrophic fire. Consequently, the prevention
of fires on ships remains a paramount concern among all
seafaring nations.
An inferno aboard the ocean liner, SS MORRO CASTLE in 1934
claimed the lives of 137 passengers and crew off the New Jersey
coast. This disaster provoked the United States in 1937 to
adopt new stringent regulations requiring the use of automatic
fire doors, ship-wide fire alarms, emergency generators,
mandatory crew training in fire fighting procedures, greater
attention to fire drills and procedures, and importantly, the
use of fire retardant construction materials. These new
measures built upon basic fire safety standards that had been
in effect since 1914 when the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) adopted the International Convention of the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
In the 1960s, a series of fires aboard international
passenger ships, most notably the YARMOUTH CASTLE fire disaster
on November 13, 1965 that killed 90 passengers and crew,
highlighted deficiencies in existing fire safety regulations.
Since 1966, all passenger vessels operating in the U.S. must
have been built of non-combustible materials, and must have
either a fixed fire sprinkler system or fixed fire detection
system installed. The IMO ultimately adopted these and many
other changes to strengthen fire protection, fire detection and
fire extinction requirements in the 1974 SOLAS Convention.
These requirements have been incorporated into the
International Fire Safety Systems (FSS) Code and the IMO
continues to refine and improve fire safety standards.
Yet even with contemporary fire safety requirements fire
can, and does, wreak havoc on gleaming, modern passenger
vessels. Members only have to look at press clippings from the
Carnival SPLENDOR fire in 2010, the 2012 fire that disabled the
Carnival TRIUMPH, or the 2013 fire aboard Royal Caribbean Lines
GRANDEUR OF THE SEAS to realize that fire can happen at any
time, on any ship. These fires underscore the reason why the
National Transportation Safety Board includes fire safety
across all modes of transportation, including vessels, on its
Most Wanted List (http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl.html).
Recognizing this history and the very serious threat of
maritime fire, it is discomfiting for the majority to move
legislation so contrary to public safety. H.R. 1961 would
reinstate an ill-advised statutory exemption from the
requirement that all passenger vessels carrying over 50
passengers on overnight excursions be constructed with fire
retardant materials for an aged, paddlewheel steamship built in
1927, the DELTA QUEEN. The irresponsibility of the action is
accentuated by the absence of any oversight by the majority.
The list of factors about this vessel for which we know
little or nothing illustrates that the majority has acted less
on fact and more on blind faith in approving this bill.
First, nothing is known about the present condition of the
vessel. She has sat immobile and out of service along the
Coolidge Park Landing in Chattanooga, Tennessee since 2009. She
may have been maintained in an exemplary manner. But
considering that the vessel's prior owner, Ambassadors
International, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
2011, odds are that she has not been adequately maintained. The
Committee has acted without knowing if the vessel has become
even less fire safe than when she was last inspected in 2008,
or if the Coast Guard would even issue a Certificate of
Inspection to operate now.
Second, since 2008 when the Congress voted down legislation
to extend the DELTA QUEEN's exemption, ownership of the vessel
has changed hands from Ambassadors International to TAC Cruises
LLC, an affiliate of Xanterra Holding Corp. Recent newspaper
articles report a new sale of the vessel is pending but the
investors remain unknown. Absent any oversight, we have no way
of knowing whether the pending owners have any competence in
maritime operations. For that matter, we have no way of knowing
whether the prospective owners appreciate the genuine risk of
fire on the DELTA QUEEN.
Additionally, the bill's advocates claim that the
prospective new owners have plans to invest $7 million to $9
million to retrofit the vessel to address fire safety
deficiencies. To date, however, no plans have been presented
for the Committee's review. Furthermore, I am concerned that
the open-ended nature of the exemption may be more a
disincentive, than incentive, for future intensive capital
investment in the DELTA QUEEN.
Last, no reasons have been provided by the bill's sponsor
or its proponents to justify granting this exemption through
October, 2028--a full fifteen years. Each of the nine previous
exemptions granted by the Congress had been for five years.
This bill would grant the owners of the DELTA QUEEN an
exemption three times as long as any previous exemption.
Granting this exemption is a profoundly bad idea considering
the advanced age of the vessel. But granting it without any
justification is an abdication of the Committee's oversight
responsibilities.
Contrast these points with what we do know.
The DELTA QUEEN is an American stern wheel steamboat that
was built in 1927. The vessel's steam boilers and engines are
virtual antiques, and the vessel's superstructure is built
almost entirely out of wood. While intrinsic to the vessel's
designation as a National Historic Landmark, both present
significant fire hazards. This is an indisputable fact. Also
indisputable is the fact that the DELTA QUEEN would have ceased
to operate decades ago, at least from overnight voyages
carrying fifty or more passengers, in the absence of statutory
exemptions from the fire retardant construction materials
requirement.
Second, the Coast Guard's 2008 Traveling Inspector Special
Inspection report found numerous deficiencies in the vessel's
condition and operation and noted that ``the Coast Guard has
consistently opposed legislation to prolong the service life of
the DELTA QUEEN.'' This report also substantiated that the
vessel's wood construction or propulsion technology ``present
an unnecessary and unacceptable accumulation of combustible
fire load'' that remains a risk to its passengers and crew.
Oral communications from the Coast Guard prior to the mark-up
affirmed that the Coast Guard's positions remain unchanged from
those stated in the 2008 report.
Third, we know that the casualty history of the DELTA QUEEN
is abysmal. According to the Coast Guard's Marine Information
for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) data base, since 1992
the DELTA QUEEN has suffered 38 casualty events. The most
recent fire occurred on March 22, 2008 in the generator room
which necessitated the discharge of the fixed CO2 extinguishing
system. Fortunately no one was injured. Records indicate that
this fire was a result of an electrical short in the generator;
just one piece of aged equipment on a vessel full of the same.
The casualty record and age of the vessel strongly suggests
that another fire is likely to happen. The difference, of
course, is that the next fire may be deadly.
Fourth, we know that the renewal of this exemption is not
necessary to maintain the economic viability of the DELTA
QUEEN. The vessel would still be able to carry passengers on
day time excursions for sight-seeing or charters, provided, of
course, that the vessel's condition and operation still allows
the Coast Guard to issue a Certificate of Inspection.
We also know that navigation on the Mississippi River and
its main tributaries is fraught with significant hazards. Heavy
commercial ship traffic, variable water levels and visibility,
swift currents, narrow channels, shifting shoals and sandbars,
and both engineered and natural obstructions make navigation on
these inland waterways a constant challenge. Accordingly, the
navigation history of the Mississippi drainage is littered with
a litany of marine casualties including vessel collisions and
allisions, groundings, capsizings, spills, sinkings, and yes,
deadly fires. It is simply foolish to allow a vessel that the
Coast Guard considers an unacceptable fire hazard to passengers
and crew to return to overnight service on this river system.
In closing, I recognize that the majority is motivated in
the interest of preserving the DELTA QUEEN as a functioning
part of America's maritime history and to provide new jobs for
U.S. mariners. But as much as I am sympathetic to those
objectives, they are outweighed by the future risk of fire on
board this vessel. The public's safety must come first.
Keeping the DELTA QUEEN in service is not necessary to
preserve the vessel, witness the fate of her sister, the DELTA
KING, which now sits inactive along the Sacramento River
waterfront preserved as a floating hotel (http://
www.deltaking.com/). Also, for those seeking to experience
riding on a paddle wheel vessel, modern replicas are available
today for overnight excursions on the Mississippi River. For
example, the QUEEN OF THE MISSISSIPPI is a modern paddle
wheeler built entirely to fire safety standards that was
launched in 2012 by American Cruise Lines.
And regarding the creation of maritime jobs, I agree
entirely with the objective. However, I contend that there are
many other positive actions we could take to create maritime
jobs, such as adhering to the Jones Act, enforcing U.S. cargo
preference requirements, expanding short sea shipping and
revitalizing domestic shipbuilding, than to enable the DELTA
QUEEN to return to overnight service by passing this
legislation.
John Garamendi.