56
sponsibilities under the Water Pollution Control Act that applied.
My understanding is since the treaty, those provisions do not apply
and, therefore, they are not liable for penalties under that law.
At least that is my understanding preliminarily from counsel.
We can look at this matter further and advise you on it.
Mr. LENT. One of the reasons we asked that question is to deter-
mine whether there might be not a duplication of insurance if, for
example, a container were carrying insurance for that kind of act,
and at the same time they were paying through the rate structure
on the tolls for that kind of protection to the canal itself, there
would be a duplication.
Mr. GIANELLI. I assume in the one case, Mr. Lent, you would be
talking about, for example, charges for cleaning up a mess that
might result from an oil spill. On the other hand, it seems to me
part of what we have been talking about in terms of claims or dam-
ages that would occur to the ship.
Whether the oil spill would be included as part of those I think is
something we would have to look at.
Mr. LENT. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. HUBBARD. Congressman Tauzin?
Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McAuliffe, let me express to you publicly my appreciation
for having the chance to meet you, sir, and work with you and for
your appearance here today. As I understand the manner in which
the toll system works and the liability of the Commission functions
under the act, the assessment of tolls is a matter in which the risk
of the Commission for damage to a single vessel traversing the
canal is spread across all of those vessels traversing the canal.
If we were to go to a different system, whereby the vessels them-
selves were to be obligated as in the case of automobiles-my good
friend from New York used the analogy-would not that require
the spreading of the risk for damage while traversing the canal
over all vessels insured generally in the global insurance market,
whether or not they traverse the canal?
Mr. GIANELLI. If it were not a Commission responsibility, then
the Commission would certainly not have to include in its toll
structure provisions for paying those claims. I assume then if the
ships had that responsibility, that would be reflected by the indi-
vidual policies which they would pay.
Mr. TAUZIN. My point is if ships generally had to be responsible,
the ships that ended up not traversing the canal might end up in
the insurance rating that is applied for ships carrying part of the
risk, those vessels that did traverse the canal.
The current system guarantees only those vessels traversing the
canal through the toll system which will share the risk of those
that are damaged in the process of going through the canal; isn't
that correct?
Mr. GIANELLI. I think that is right.
Mr. TAUZIN. Second, in answering the gentleman from New
York's question with reference to the liability of the canal having a
pilot on board a ship, my understanding of the law in reading it is
that the liability attaches outside the locks unless there is a show-
ing of contributory negligence on the part of the master, the crew,