ment and rules of one sort, Oregon another, California another, and so on." Id., at 14-15. Here, Congress has taken unto itself the matter of tanker design standards, and the Tanker Law's design provisions are unenforceable.

16 Elsewhere in the Senate Report it is stated: "The committee fully concurs that multilateral action with respect to comprehensive standards for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of tankers for the protection of the marine environment would be far preferable to unilateral imposition of standards." Senate Report, at 23.

17 The Senate Report notes that eliminating foreign vessels from Title II would be "ineffective, and possibly self-defeating," because approximately 85% of the vessels in the navigable waters of the United States are of foreign registry. Id., at 22. The Report adds that making the Secretary's regulations applicable only to American ships would put them at a competitive disadvantage with foreign flag ships. Ibid.

18 The Department of State and the Department of Transportation, as well as 12 foreign nations, expressed concern about Title II's authorization of the unilateral imposition of design standards on foreign vessels. Id., at 23.

435 U.S. 151, 158-168, 173, 177–178.

For S. Rept. 92-724 (on the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972), see, also, the [1972] U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, Vol. 2 (1973), p. 2766.

As a sequel to the Supreme Court's decision, the Secretary of Transportation, Brock Adams, issued an interim navigation rule for Puget Sound on March 14, 1978, which prohibited for 180 days, until September 9, 1978, operation of oil tankers of more than 125,000 deadweight tons, bound for a port or place in the United States, in United States waters of Puget Sound lying east of a straight line extending from Discovery Island Light to New Dungeness Light and to all points in the Puget Sound area north and south of those lights. In issuing the interim rule, Secretary Adams stated:

BACKGROUND

1. I am issuing this rule as an interim measure under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 122127). The rule is necessary to maintain the current de facto level of protection of the navigable waters of Puget Sound and adjacent waters in the State of Washington, and the resources therein, from environmental harm resulting from vessel or structure damage, destruction, or loss until the possible issuance of additional vessel traffic service regulations.

2. The United States Supreme Court on March 6, 1978, in the case of Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., No. 76-930, declared unconstitutional several provisions of the State of Washington Tanker Law directed to preventing environmental damage by oil tankers in

Puget Sound. Among the provisions struck down by the Court was one prohibiting oil tankers exceeding 125,000 deadweight tons from entering Puget Sound. While the litigation has been in progress, tanker operators refrained from using oil tankers exceeding 125,000 deadweight tons in Puget Sound. For reasons outlined hereafter, I believe it to be necessary to continue this practice on a temporary basis.

3. Although there are certain operating restrictions currently in effect for Rosario Strait because of navigational hazards peculiar to that area, the Coast Guard has not yet taken action to limit the size of vessels entering Puget Sound. The Coast Guard has been conducting studies necessary to determine the need for, and the substance of, possible additional vessel traffic service regulations. Under Title I of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Secretary of Transportation and his delegees are required to consider the existence of state and local practices and customs in determining whether it is necessary or desirable to exercise authority under the Act. Until the Washington statute was declared unconstitutional, it was not necessary to exclude larger tankers under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 while the Coast Guard review was pending.

4. The Coast Guard will now draw its studies to a tentative conclusion and initiate rulemaking action. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking will be published in the very near future. and opportunity for participation in the rulemaking will be provided to the public, including State and local governments, representatives of the marine industry, port and harbor authorities, environmental groups, and other interested parties. While rule making is in process, this 180-day emergency rule will continue, as a matter of Federal action, the similar restrictions of the State of Washington regarding oil tanker traffic in Puget Sound.

Fed. Reg., Vol. 43, No. 57, Mar. 23, 1978, p. 12257 (to be codified in 33 CFR Part 161, as Appendix A). For the Coast Guard's advance notice of proposed rulemaking governing operation of tank vessels in the Puget Sound area. issued Mar. 22, 1978, see ibid., No. 59, Mar. 27, 1978, pp. 12840-12841.

On Aug. 31, 1978, Secretary Adams extended the interim navigation rule to June 30, 1979. Ibid., No. 175, Sept. 8, 1978, pp. 39994-39995, and No. 176, Sept. 11, 1978, pp. 40224-40225.

§ 10 811

Scientific Research

International Watercourses

U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

On November 22, 1978, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Donald Jamieson signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 at Ottawa, Canada. The 1978 Agreement updated and strengthened the original

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972, which it superseded, by providing for additional programs and measures to meet problems in Great Lakes pollution which had not been evident or fully understood in 1972. The 1978 Agreement contained the following significant revisions or improvements over the 1972 Agreement:

-provision of revised and new water quality objectives, both general and specific.

-provisions to largely eliminate discharge of toxic substances into the Great Lakes and to establish warning systems which will point up those that may become evident.

-dates on which municipal (December 31, 1982) and industrial (December 31, 1983) pollution control programs are to be completed and operating are set.

-improved monitoring and surveillance requirements to enable assessment of the effectiveness of remedial programs.

-provisions for dealing with pollution from land use activities and for examining the problem of airborne pollutants.

-a definition of new, interim phosphorus loadings with provision for an eighteen-month review and new strategies for controlling phosphorus as necessary.

-provision for an annual public inventory of discharges and pollution control requirements.

Articles II, "Purpose", and III, "General Objectives" of the Agreement read:

Article II
PURPOSE

The purpose of the Parties is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In order to achieve this purpose, the Parties agree to make a maximum effort to develop programs, practices and technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes System. Consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, it is the policy of the Parties that:

(a) The discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated;

(b) Financial assistance to construct publicly owned waste treatment works be provided by a combination of local, state, provincial, and federal participation; and

(c) Coordinated planning processes and best management practices be developed and implemented by the respective jurisdictions to ensure adequate control of all sources of pollutants.

Article III

GENERAL OBJECTIVES

The Parties adopt the following General Objectives for the Great Lakes System. These waters should be:

(a) Free from substances that directly or indirectly enter the waters as a result of human activity and that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits, or that will adversely affect aquatic life or waterfowl;

(b) Free from floating materials such as debris, oil, scum, and other immiscible substances resulting from human activities in amounts that are unsightly or deleterious;

(c) Free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as a result of human activity that alone, or in combination with other materials, will produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions in such a degree as to interfere with beneficial uses;

(d) Free from materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as a result of human activity that alone, or in combination with other materials, will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life; and

(e) Free from nutrients directly or indirectly entering the waters as a result of human activity in amounts that create growths of aquatic life that interfere with beneficial uses. Article IV, "Specific Objectives", set out basic operational rules within which the parties agree to work toward the attainment of specific objectives for the concentrations or levels of a comprehensive list of pollutants, set out in Annex 1 to the Agreement, also entitled "Specific Objectives." (Annex 1 established the level at which dissolved oxygen should be maintained in the connecting channels and in the upper waters of the Lakes; for hypolimnetic waters (not thermally stratified), the oxygen level should be not less than necessary to support fishlife, particularly cold water species. It also established the permissible range for acidity/alkalinity. Annex 1 contained commitments regarding: asbestos; temperature; settleable and suspended solids and light transmission (freedom from substances attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges resulting from human activity); substantial freedom from microbiological (bacteria, fungi, or virus) pollution for waters used for body contact recreation activities; and radioactivity levels.) Article IV, paragraph 1(f) of the Agreement provided for designation of limited use zones in the vicinity of present and future municipal, industrial, and tributary point source discharges, within which some of the specific objectives set out in Annex 1 may be designated by the responsible regulatory agencies as not applying. Principles for designating and regulating limited use zones were set out in Annex 2 to the Agreement.

Article VI, "Programs and Other Measures," read:

Article VI

PROGRAMS AND OTHER MEASURES

1. The Parties shall continue to develop and implement programs and other measures to fulfill the purpose of this Agreement and to meet the General and Specific Objectives. Where present treatment is inadequate to meet the General and Specific Objectives, additional treatment shall be required. The programs and measures shall include the following:

(a) Pollution from Municipal Sources. Programs for the abatement, control and prevention of municipal discharges and urban drainage into the Great Lakes System. These programs shall be completed and in operation as soon as practicable, and in the case of municipal sewage treatment facilities no later than December 31, 1982. These programs shall include:

(i) Construction and operation of waste treatment facilities in all municipalities having sewer systems to provide levels of treatment consistent with the achievement of phosphorus requirements and the General and Specific Objectives, taking into account the effects of waste from other sources;

(ii) Provision of financial resources to ensure prompt construction of needed facilities;

(iii) Establishment of requirements for construction and operating standards for facilities;

(iv) Establishment of pre-treatment requirements for all industrial plants discharging waste into publicly owned treatment works where such industrial wastes are not amenable to adequate treatment or removal using conventional municipal treatment processes;

(v) Development and implementation of practical programs for reducing pollution from storm, sanitary, and combined sewer discharges; and

(vi) Establishment of effective enforcement programs to ensure that the above pollution abatement requirements are fully met.

(b) Pollution from Industrial Sources. Programs for the abatement, control and prevention of pollution from industrial sources entering the Great Lakes System. These programs shall be completed and in operation as soon as practicable and in any case no later than December 31, 1983, and shall include:

(i) Establishment of waste treatment or control requirements expressed as effluent limitations (concentrations and/or loading limits for specific pollutants where possible) for all industrial plants, including power generating facilities, to provide levels of treatment or reduction or elimination of inputs of substances and effects consistent with the achievement of the General and Specific Objectives and other control requirements, taking into account the effects of waste from other sources;