[DOCID: f:er019.110]
From the Executive Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
110th Congress Exec. Rept.
SENATE
2d Session 110-19
======================================================================
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE CONTROL OF HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS
ON SHIPS
_______
September 11, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany Treaty Doc. 110-13]
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred
the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-
Fouling Systems on Ships, adopted on October 5, 2001 and signed
by the United States on December 12, 2002 (the ``Convention'')
(Treaty Doc. 110-13), having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with two declarations, as indicated in the
resolution of advice and consent, and recommends that the
Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as
set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of
advice and consent.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Major Provisions.................................................4
IV. Entry Into Force.................................................7
V. Implementing Legislation.........................................7
VI. Committee Action.................................................7
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................7
VIII.Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification................10
I. Purpose
The purpose of the Convention is to control the adverse
effects of anti-fouling systems that have an impact on the
marine environment and human health, and to encourage the
continued development of anti-fouling systems that are
effective and environmentally safe. An anti-fouling system is
any surface treatment, paint, surface, or device that is used
to prevent the growth of marine organisms, such as algae and
barnacles, on the hull of a ship.
II. Background
In the 1960s, organotin-based anti-fouling systems with
Tributyltin (TBT) (a biocide)\1\ were introduced to the
shipping industry. By the late 1960s, a breakthrough in anti-
fouling systems came in the form of ``self-polishing'' or
``ablative'' TBT-based paints, which controlled the release
rate of the biocide over the life of the paint so that ships
could go for several years between hull recoatings. By the
1970s, TBT-based anti-fouling paints were widely used, not only
on pleasure craft, but also on large ocean-going vessels.\2\
These systems are generally used to keep the hulls of ships
smooth and free of ``fouling'' or hull-borne species that would
otherwise reduce the maximum speed of a vessel and increase
fuel consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\TBT is an organotin that is a biocide. The most common
organometallics used in anti-fouling paint are TBT oxide and TBT
methacrylate.
\2\Slick Alternatives: Silicone-based fouling release systems gain
in popularity, Marine Log (March 2007), p. 31 (noting that ``[b]y the
1970s, TBT-containing anti-fouling paint was used on the hulls of most
of the world's oceangoing ships'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers found, however, that TBT in the marine
environment was not only killing hull-borne species, it was
also killing sea life in the water.\3\ Studies revealed high
concentrations of TBT in shellfish and accumulations in fish
and sea mammals, causing shell deformations in oysters, sex
changes and sterility in certain mollusks, and various
alternative adverse affects on other marine life. There was
further evidence that TBT was entering the food chain and might
therefore adversely affect human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\A publication by the Environmental Protection Agency, which goes
into considerable detail regarding the damage that TBT causes to the
marine environment, noted that ``[TBT] is a problem in the aquatic
environment because it is extremely toxic to non-target organisms, is
linked to imposex and immuno-supression in snails and bivalves, and can
be persistent.'' See Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for
Tributyltin (TBT) final, Office of Water, 4304T, EPA-822-R-03-031,
December 2003, Executive Summary. The publication goes on to cite a
number of technical review papers that cover the hazards of TBT in the
aquatic environment at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress recognized the harmful effects of organotin
compounds in anti-fouling systems on marine and freshwater
organisms in 1988 and enacted legislation intended to protect
the aquatic environment by restricting the use of such
systems.\4\ In 1990, the International Maritime Organization's
Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a
resolution which recommended that governments adopt measures to
control the potential for adverse impacts on the marine
environment from the use of anti-fouling paint containing TBT
and, as an interim measure, to specifically consider
eliminating the use of such anti-fouling paint on non-aluminum
hulled vessels of less than 25 meters in length and the use of
anti-fouling paints with a leaching rate of more than four
microgrammes of TBT per day, which was consistent with U.S.
law.\5\ In November 1999, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) adopted an Assembly resolution that called
for a legally-binding treaty that would address the harmful
effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships. This resolution
led to the Anti-Fouling Convention, which was adopted by the
IMO on October 5, 2001. The United States played a leading role
in the negotiation of the Convention and signed it on December
12, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Section 2 of P. L. 100-333 (signed into law on June 16,
1988); the Organotin Anti-Fouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA), 33
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2401-2410.
\5\The United States was already doing this pursuant to OAPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last several years, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has been working to phase out the use of TBT as an
anti-fouling coating on ships in the United States. The EPA has
achieved this by, for example, canceling registrations for TBT
anti-fouling systems permitted under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).\6\ Administration
officials have informed the committee that as of December 1,
2005, the last FIFRA registration for a TBT anti-fouling system
to be used on the hulls of ships and boats was cancelled,
giving the registrant until December 31, 2005, to sell any
existing stock of its product produced before December 1, 2005.
Beyond December 31, 2005, the registrant could no longer
legally sell or distribute the product. Since the functional
shelf-life of TBT anti-fouling systems is limited,
administration officials testified that significant use of such
systems at this time ``seems unlikely.'' Nevertheless, TBT-
based paints continue to be applied to ships in countries that
have not prohibited TBT use. In testimony before the committee,
administration officials stated that ``TBT-based systems are
still produced in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia and Korea .
. . .'' Under the treaty, however, ships using TBT paints in
violation of the Convention's requirements would not be allowed
into U.S. ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To mitigate the damaging impact of these anti-fouling
systems, the Convention: 1) requires Parties to prohibit the
use of anti-fouling systems containing organotin compounds
acting as biocides (if not properly sealed) on ships that fly
their flag or operate under their authority and provides for
prohibiting ships that use such systems from entering Parties'
ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals; 2) requires Parties to
take appropriate measures to safely and in an environmentally
sound manner collect, handle, treat, and dispose of wastes
resulting from the application or removal of controlled anti-
fouling systems; 3) provides a procedure through which new,
harmful anti-fouling systems can be added to the prohibited
list in Annex 1 in the future, after a comprehensive and
technical review process; 4) obligates Parties to take
appropriate measures to promote and facilitate scientific and
technical research, as well as share information, regarding
anti-fouling systems; and 5) addresses the inspection of ships
to determine compliance with the Convention and requires
Parties to establish sanctions for violations that are
``adequate in severity to discourage violations'' of the
Convention.
The coatings industry has developed alternatives that do
not contain TBT. Some of these coatings are silicone-based.
They are ``super slick'' coatings that prevent any organisms
from attaching to the hull when the ship is moving.\7\ Because
they have a lower tension surface, a side benefit is that the
silicone-based coatings make the ship more fuel efficient. Some
ships may choose to first remove the existing coating that
contains TBT before applying a coating that is TBT-free, but it
is more likely that ships will first apply a sealant to the
existing coating to prevent leaching of the harmful compounds
into the water and then apply a TBT-free coating, which is an
alternative provided for in the Anti-Fouling Convention. For
structures that do not move through the water, such as buoys, a
``prickly'' coating has been developed that keeps organisms
from attaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Slick Alternatives: Silicone-based fouling release systems
gain in popularity, Marine Log (March 2007), p. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ratification of this treaty is favored not only by the
administration and environmental organizations, but also by the
shipping industry and major manufacturers and importers of
anti-fouling systems. Industry participated in discussions that
led to the Convention. At the IMO, the International Chamber of
Shipping, for example, ``urged the Marine industry to follow
the dates in the Convention and requested that Governments
control the manufacture of TBT antifoulings in support of the
dates for the TBT ban.''\8\ In testimony before the committee
on July 10, 2008, Ambassador David Balton noted that ``the U.S.
anti-fouling paint industry favors this Convention. Why?
Because it promotes a single regulatory program for all
countries that will likely increase the use of environmentally
friendly anti-foulants that they, the U.S. industry, have
developed. U.S. shipyards are also interested in the single
international standard because it provides a more level playing
field as between them and shipyards in other countries.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\IMO TBT Antifouling Ban--Account of discussions at IMO-MEPC47
(4-8 March 2002) and Summary of Reaction to IMO Antifouling Systems
Convention (IMO-AFS) available at http://www.intersmoothspc.com/
environment/Interswift _IMO.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Major Provisions
A detailed article-by-article analysis of the Convention
may be found in the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of
State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty
Document 110-13. A summary of key provisions is set forth
below.
Prohibitions on Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems
Article 4 requires each Party to ``prohibit and/or
restrict'' the application, re-application, installation, or
use of the anti-fouling systems listed in Annex 1 on ships that
fly its flag or operate under its authority, as well as on
ships that enter its ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals.
Specifically, the Convention prohibits the presence on ships'
hulls of anti-fouling systems that contain organotin compounds
acting as biocides, unless the compounds have been sealed so
that no leaching occurs. The United States would implement such
obligations through new implementing legislation.
The Handling of Waste Resulting from the Application or Removal of
Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems
Article 5 requires Parties to take ``appropriate measures''
within their territory to require that wastes from the
application or removal of an anti-fouling system that contains
organotin compounds acting as biocides are collected, handled,
treated, and disposed of in a safe and environmentally sound
manner to protect human health and the environment. The United
States would implement this obligation through existing
legislation. Specifically, certain wastes generated during the
application and removal of anti-fouling paints may be
considered hazardous wastes, due to their solvent and/or active
ingredient content. Hazardous wastes are subject to Solid Waste
Disposal Act requirements, including those addressing
generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal.\9\ In addition, section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the
United States. Discharges from industrial facilities such as
shipyards and dry-docks may be subject to permitting under the
Clean Water Act. Such permits would establish technology-based
effluent limits for discharges of pollutants from such
facilities and, where necessary, any more stringent limits
needed to achieve applicable water quality standards adopted by
States or the EPA under the Clean Water Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6922, 6923, and 6924.
\10\See 33 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1292 and 1311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Anti-Fouling Systems That Are Deemed Harmful Can Be Restricted
Through the Convention
Article 6 provides a mechanism for adding new anti-fouling
systems to the list of controlled anti-fouling systems in Annex
1 if, after a comprehensive review process, such systems are
determined to pose a potential for unreasonable risk of adverse
effects on non-target organisms or human health. The Convention
provides that the standing IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee would review such proposals. The United States has a
permanent seat on the IMO Marine Environment Protection
Committee by virtue of U.S. membership in the IMO and would
therefore participate in this process, regardless of whether
the United States joins the Anti-Fouling Convention.\11\
Nevertheless, it is necessary to be a Party to the Convention
in order to have an effective voice in many of the decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\In accordance with Article 37 of the Convention on the
International Maritime Organization, the Marine Environment Protection
Committee shall consist of all the Members. The United States became a
Member of the IMO in 1950 and according to testimony from the executive
branch, the United States plays a ``strong and active role in this
Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If representatives of the Parties to the Convention sitting
on the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee decide that
a more in-depth review is warranted, a technical group is
established in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention to
review the system.\12\ The technical group would ultimately
report back to, among others, the Parties, the IMO, and the
Committee. The Committee would then decide whether to approve
any proposal to amend Annex 1 of the Convention, but only
representatives of the Parties to the Convention sitting on the
Committee could participate in making this decision.
Ultimately, each Party decides through the amendment process
set forth in Article 16 whether it wishes to be bound by the
amended annex, as described further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Article 6(6) makes it clear that ``[o]nly Parties may
participate in decisions taken by the committee described in paragraphs
(3) and (5),'' and the decision as to whether a more in-depth review is
warranted, is one that is covered in paragraph 3 and thus only Parties
to the Convention sitting on the committee may participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 10 of the proposed Anti-Fouling System Control Act,
which has been submitted by the executive branch to Congress to
implement the Convention, includes proposed rules to govern
U.S. participation in the treaty mechanism provided for in
Article 6 for adding new anti-fouling systems to Annex 1. Among
other things, the legislation provides that ``[u]pon referral
of any anti-fouling system to the technical group . . . for
consideration of new or additional controls, the Secretary of
State shall convene a public meeting of the Shipping
Coordinating Committee, for the purpose of receiving
information and comments regarding controls on such anti-
fouling system.''
Research and Technical Cooperation Regarding Anti-Fouling Systems
Article 8 requires Parties to take ``appropriate measures''
to promote and facilitate scientific and technical research on
the impact of anti-fouling systems on the environment. In
addition, Article 8 also requires Parties to take ``appropriate
measures'' to monitor the impact of anti-fouling systems and
promotes the sharing of information between Parties on such
things as scientific and technical activities undertaken in
accordance with the Convention and other information regarding
anti-fouling.
Section 11 of the proposed Anti-Fouling System Control Act
would implement this article by providing the EPA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the
authority to ``undertake scientific and technical research and
monitoring pursuant to Article 8 . . . .'' In addition, the
Navy continues to research alternative anti-fouling systems
that do not contain organotin, NOAA currently conducts
monitoring of TBT concentrations as part of its ``Mussel
Watch'' program, and the EPA generally requires research on the
ecological effects of biocidal anti-fouling systems as a
condition of their registration under FIFRA.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See the Secretary of State's Letter of Submittal at VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certifying and Inspecting Ships, and Establishing Sanctions for
Violations to Ensure Compliance
Article 10, in conjunction with Annex 4, requires a Party
to ensure that certain ships entitled to fly that Party's flag
or operate under its authority are surveyed and certified to
ensure that each ship's anti-fouling system fully complies with
the Convention. Article 11 provides that a ship to which the
Convention applies may be inspected in any port, shipyard, or
offshore terminal of a Party. Unless there are clear grounds
for believing that a ship is in violation of the Convention,
the inspection is to be limited to: 1) verifying that, where
required, there is a valid onboard International Anti-fouling
System Certificate or a Declaration on the Anti-Fouling System;
and/or 2) a brief sampling of the ship's anti-fouling system,
taking into account guidelines developed by the IMO. If there
are clear grounds to believe that the ship is in violation of
the Convention, a thorough inspection may be carried out, again
taking into account IMO guidelines. Copies of these guidelines
can be found in Annex II of this report. Further, Article 11
provides that a Party may take steps to warn, detain, dismiss,
or exclude from its ports a ship that is ``detected to be in
violation'' of the Convention. Article 3, however, exempts
warships, naval auxiliaries, and other ships owned or operated
by a Party and used in governmental non-commercial service from
the application of these (and other) provisions. Finally,
Article 12 requires Parties to prohibit any violations of the
Convention and to establish sanctions under domestic law
``adequate in severity to discourage'' such violations. The
proposed Anti-Fouling System Control Act would implement these
requirements.
Dispute Resolution
Article 14 of the Convention, provides that Parties shall
settle any disputes concerning the interpretation or
application of the Convention by peaceful means of their own
choice, which may include, inter alia, mediation, conciliation,
or negotiation.
IV. Entry Into Force
With Panama's ratification of the Convention on September
17, 2007, 25 States representing over 25 percent of the world's
merchant shipping tonnage have now ratified the Convention and
thus, in accordance with Article 18(1), the Convention will
enter into force on September 17, 2008, for those States that
have ratified the Convention. The Convention will enter into
force for the United States three months after the date the
United States deposits its instrument of ratification with the
Secretary-General of the IMO.
V. Implementing Legislation
Existing law, including the Solid Waste Disposal Act\14\
and the Clean Water Act,\15\ would be relied upon to implement
aspects of this Convention; however, further legislation would
be needed to allow the United States to comply with all of the
Convention's obligations. Organotin-based anti-fouling systems
are already regulated through OAPCA; however, the Act does not
satisfy all of the Convention's requirements. For example,
OAPCA only prohibits use of organotin-based anti-fouling paints
on vessels under 25 meters in length (excluding aluminum hulls,
outboard motors, and external drive units), while the
Convention applies restrictions on the use of organotin-based
anti-fouling systems more broadly, without regard to the length
of a ship. On February 14, 2008, the executive branch submitted
to Congress proposed legislation titled the ``Anti-Fouling
System Control Act,'' which would replace OAPCA in its entirety
and fully implement the Convention. The committee understands
that the United States will not deposit its instrument of
ratification until the legislation necessary to allow the
United States to fully implement the Convention's obligations
has been enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.
\15\33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Committee Action
The committee held a public hearing on the Convention on
July 10, 2008. Testimony was received from Ambassador David A.
Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and
Fisheries. A transcript of this hearing can be found in Annex
II to Executive Report 110-15.
On July 29, 2008, the committee considered the Convention
and ordered it favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum
present and without objection.
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments
The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the
Convention would serve to protect the U.S. marine environment
and U.S. ecosystems from the harmful effects of anti-fouling
systems and in particular the hazardous leaching of organotin,
a well-known biocide, in our ports and other waters. U.S.
ratification and enactment of the proposed implementing
legislation would together require foreign vessels entering
U.S. ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals to stop using
harmful anti-foulants containing organotins. Moreover, given
that the United States has already implemented prohibitions
against organotin use, widespread ratification of the
Convention will help to create a level playing field for the
U.S. anti-fouling paint industry. Finally, joining the
Convention would permit the United States to participate in
decisions on the inclusion of other harmful anti-fouling
systems in the future. Accordingly, the committee urges the
Senate to act promptly to give advice and consent to
ratification of the Convention, as set forth in this report and
the accompanying resolution of advice and consent.
A. AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEXES
Article 16 of the Convention sets forth procedures for
amending the Convention and its annexes. There are four annexes
to the convention: Annex 1--Controls on anti-fouling systems;
Annex 2--Required elements for an initial proposal; Annex 3--
Required elements of a comprehensive proposal; and Annex 4--
Surveys and certification requirements for anti-fouling
systems. In general, amendments to the Convention, including
its annexes, are adopted by a two-thirds majority of the
Parties present and voting. Amendments to the body of the
Convention must be individually approved by each Party in order
for them to enter into force for the approving Party. For
amendments to an Annex other than Annex 1 of the Convention,
Parties have a twelve-month period (unless the IMO Marine
Environment Protection Committee decides on a different time
period) after adoption, during which they can object to an
amendment. If a Party does not object to such an amendment
during the proscribed time period, that amendment will enter
into force for that Party.
An amendment to Annex 1, which contains a list of the anti-
fouling systems that are controlled by the Convention, would be
handled in the same manner as an amendment to the other
annexes; however, Parties are given the additional option of
either 1) notifying the Secretary-General prior to entry into
force of a particular amendment, that such an amendment shall
enter into force for it only after a subsequent notification of
its acceptance; or 2) making a declaration at the time it
deposits its instrument of ratification or accession to the
Convention that any amendment to Annex 1 shall enter into force
for it only after notification to the Secretary-General of its
acceptance of such amendment. The declaration included in the
proposed resolution of advice and consent below would allow the
United States to exercise the second option with respect to
Annex 1 amendments, so that the executive branch would have
time to transmit such amendments to the Senate for advice and
consent. In the committee's view, any amendment to Annex 1
would require the advice and consent of the Senate.
The other three annexes of the Convention, however, are of
a different nature. Annexes 2 and 3 provide procedural and
technical details regarding what is needed for proposals to
amend Annex 1, in accordance with the process set forth in
Article 6 of the Convention. Specifically, Annex 2 lists the
basic information a Party is to include in an initial proposal
to amend Annex 1, which will be considered by the IMO Marine
Environment Protection Committee. Should the IMO Marine
Environment Protection Committee decide that further review of
the proposal submitted with the information required by Annex 2
is desirable, Annex 3 lists the elements needed for a more
comprehensive proposal to amend Annex 1, as discussed in
Article 6(3). Annex 4 similarly sets forth procedural
regulations that would govern the survey and certification of
ships under the Convention, as noted in Article 10 of the
Convention. The committee recognizes that the tacit amendment
procedure provided in Article 16 for amending these annexes
makes it possible for the implementation of the Convention to
evolve without going through a standard amendment process,
which can take years to complete. Amendments to Annexes 2, 3,
and 4 should not, in the normal course, rise to the level of
those that require the advice and consent of the Senate. If
there is any question, however, as to whether an amendment to
any of these three annexes goes beyond the current mandate of
the Annex being amended as described in Articles 6 and 10 or
might require Senate advice and consent for some other reason,
the committee expects the executive branch to consult with the
committee in a timely manner in order to determine whether
advice and consent is necessary. Moreover, the committee
expects that under such circumstances, the executive branch
will make appropriate use of the objection procedure described
above to prevent an amendment from entering into force for the
United States before the conclusion of consultations on whether
Senate advice and consent is necessary.
B. RESOLUTION
The committee has included in the resolution of advice and
consent two proposed declarations; only one of them would be
included in the instrument of ratification. Both are discussed
briefly below.
First Declaration
This proposed declaration is contemplated in Article 16 of
the Convention and essentially mandates that any amendments to
Annex 1 of the Convention that have been adopted by States
Parties would enter into force for the United States if and
only if the United States notifies the Secretary-General of the
IMO that it will accept the amendment. This declaration was
recommended by the executive branch and would ultimately be
included in the U.S. instrument of ratification. As noted above
in the discussion regarding amendments to the annexes of the
Convention, this declaration would be made in order to be sure
that the executive branch would have time to transmit any such
amendments to Annex 1 of the Convention to the Senate for
advice and consent.
Second Declaration
This second proposed declaration states that the Convention
is not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included
statements regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in
resolutions of advice and consent, but in light of the recent
Supreme Court decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346
(2008), the committee has determined that a clear statement in
the resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII
of Executive Report 110-12.
VIII. Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification
Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),
SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO TWO DECLARATIONS
The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling
Systems on Ships, adopted on October 5, 2001 (Treaty Doc. 110-
13), subject to the declaration of section 2 and the
declaration of section 3.
SECTION 2. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration, which shall be included
in the instrument of ratification:
The United States of America declares that, pursuant
to Article 16(2)(f)(ii)(3) of the Convention,
amendments to Annex 1 of the Convention shall enter
into force for the United States of America only after
notification to the Secretary-General of its acceptance
with respect to such amendments.
SECTION 3. DECLARATION
The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following declaration:
This Convention is not self-executing.