Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55) - United States of America (Ratification: 1938)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports on Conventions Nos 55 and 147. In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues to be addressed in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine these matters in a consolidated comment, as follows.

The Committee recalls that, in the framework of the Standards Review Mechanism, the ILO Governing Body, as recommended by the Special Tripartite Committee on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), classified Conventions Nos 55 and 147 as “outdated”. At its 343rd Session (November 2021), the Governing Body: placed an item on the agenda of the 118th Session (2030) of the International Labour Conference concerning, inter alia, the abrogation of Convention No. 55; it also requested the Office to launch an initiative to promote the ratification on a priority basis of the MLC, 2006 among the countries still bound by outdated Conventions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress towards the ratification of the MLC, 2006.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of seafarers’ rights as laid out in the Convention. In this regard, the Committee refers to the resolution adopted by the Governing Body in its 340th Session (GB.340/Resolution) concerning maritime labour issues and COVID-19 disease, which calls on Member States to take measures to address the adverse impacts of the pandemic on seafarers’ rights and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any temporary measures adopted in this regard, their duration and their impact on seafarers’ rights.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Article 1(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 9 and 11. Scope of application and equality of treatment for all seafarers. For many years, the Committee has referred to the need to amend Title 46 of the United States Code (USC) §30105 which prohibits non-resident foreign seafarers working on vessels registered in the United States from claiming injury or death benefits if they are employed by a person engaged in the exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, and the incident occurred in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that: (i) should there be no legal remedy available in the foreign countries, the seafarer may pursue legal remedies in the United States; (ii) prior to the enactment of 46 USC §30105, United States courts would have been forced to subject the parties to the time and cost of making a forum non conveniens determination; and (iii) 46 USC §30105 does not negate any responsibilities of the shipowner, it simply assists the seafarer in applying the most appropriate forum. While taking due note of this information, the Committee reiterates that, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race, must enjoy equality of treatment. The Committee also recalls that it is clear from Article 9 of the Convention that the Member State concerned has to secure rapid and inexpensive settlement of disputes concerning the shipowner’s liability.  The Committee therefore requests the Government, once again, to take the necessary measures to fully implement the Convention ensuring equality of treatment to all seafarers irrespective of their nationality and domicile and to secure rapid and inexpensive settlement of disputes concerning the shipowner’s liability.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Substantial equivalence to the requirements of Articles 6, paragraph 3(10) and (11) and 10–14 of Convention No. 22. Mandatory inclusions. Conditions for termination. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its legislation prescribes conditions substantially equivalent to Article 6, paragraph 3(10) and (11), and Articles 10–14 of the Seamen’s Articles of Agreement Convention, 1926 (No. 22). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that, based on tripartite reviews of its legislation conducted prior to the ratification of Convention No. 147, it is of the view that its laws and regulations adequately address the objectives and principles of the Conventions listed in the Appendix to Convention 147. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that national laws and regulations prescribe conditions that are substantially equivalent to Article 6, paragraph 3(10) and (11) and Articles 10–14 of Convention No. 22.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes that in its reports sent on the application of the abovementioned maritime Conventions, the Government indicates that: (i) the President’s Committee meeting on the ILO (PC–ILO) called on the PC–ILO’s Tripartite Advisory Panel on International Labor Standards (TAPILS), in conjunction with the US Coast Guard, to expedite and complete its review of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), and to report to the PC–ILO on the feasibility of ratification; (ii) the US regulations were amended to create a new Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) endorsement for able seafarer deck; and (iii) the US Coast Guard adopted the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 02-13 on Guidance Implementing the MLC, 2006. While noting these efforts to bring the national legislation into conformity with the MLC, 2006, and assess the feasibility of its ratification, the Committee will continue to examine the conformity of national legislation with the requirements of ratified maritime Conventions. In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues to be addressed in relation to the application of these Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine these issues in a consolidated comment, as follows.

Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936 (No. 55)

Article 1(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 9 and 11. Scope of application and equality of treatment for all seafarers. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the need to amend Title 46 of the United States Code (USC) §30105 which prohibits non-resident foreign seafarers working on vessels registered in the United States from claiming injury or death benefits if they are employed by a person engaged in the exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, and the incident occurred in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that in this circumstance, an injured non-resident foreign seafarer must first pursue legal remedies in a court of the foreign country that asserts jurisdiction over where the incident occurred or in the country in which the seafarer is a citizen. The Government further indicates that: (i) should there be no legal remedy available in the foreign countries, the seafarer may pursue legal remedies in the United States; (ii) prior to the enactment of 46 USC §30105, United States courts would have been forced to subject the parties to the time and cost of making a forum non convenience determination; and (iii) 46 USC §30105 does not negate any responsibilities of the shipowner, it simply assists the seafarer in applying the most appropriate forum. While taking due note of this information, the Committee reiterates that, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race, must enjoy equality of treatment. The Committee also recalls that it is clear from Article 9 of the Convention that the member State concerned has to secure rapid and inexpensive settlement of disputes concerning the shipowner’s liability. The Committee therefore requests the Government, once again, to take the necessary measures to fully implement the Convention ensuring equality of treatment to all seafarers irrespective of their nationality and domicile and to secure rapid and inexpensive settlement of disputes concerning the shipowner’s liability.

Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 147)

Article 2(a)(i) of the Convention. Safety standards. Substantial equivalence to the requirements of Article 5(1) of Medical Examination (Seafarers) Convention, 1946 (No. 73). Medical examination. The Committee recalls its previous comments on the need to amend former legislation which compelled medical examinations of seafarers only every five years and failed to ensure substantial equivalence to the compulsory medical examination for seafarers once every two years as required by Article 5(1) of Convention No. 73. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that, in 2013, the Coast Guard adopted new rule (Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) §10.301(b)(1) in the context of the implementation of the STCW, providing that medical certificates of mariners serving under the authority of an STCW endorsement are issued for a maximum period of two years unless the mariner is under the age of 18, in which case the maximum period of validity is one year. The Committee takes note with satisfaction of the adoption of this regulation.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 4 and 11. Scope of application and equality of treatment and protection for all seafarers; maintenance, injury and death benefits. The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years concerning the treatment of claims by non-resident foreign seafarers working on vessels registered in the United States (US). The Committee notes the information that the Government has provided with respect to law and practice as well as statistics. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications that: (i) the adoption of differing procedures for making claims in court for different groups of seafarers (for example, foreign nationals as opposed to citizens or resident aliens) is not necessarily inconsistent with the Convention; (ii) foreign seafarers not domiciled in the US, if injured on vessels registered in the US operating in waters that are in the territory of another Member may, in addition, under international law, have alternative remedies available in their home countries or host nations and, if not, there is recourse also provided for in courts in the US; and (iii) in fact, there are very few foreign seafarers working on board vessels registered in the US. Recalling that the Convention applies to all persons employed on board any vessel, other than a ship of war, registered in the Member and ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation, the Committee requests the Government to explain how it ensures that the protection of the Convention is applied to those (albeit few) foreign seafarers who are working on board vessels registered in its territory.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2, 9 and 11. Scope of application and equality of treatment for all seafarers. The Committee has been commenting for many years on the need to amend section 688(b) of the Jones Act in line with the requirements of Article 11 of the Convention, which provides that national laws or regulations relating to sickness or injury benefits have to be so interpreted and enforced so as to ensure equality of treatment to all seafarers irrespective of nationality, domicile or race. The Committee notes the Government’s renewed statement that the mere creation of different classes (i.e. foreign nationals as opposed to United States citizens or resident aliens) does not violate the Convention and that foreign seafarers not domiciled in the United States may have remedies available in their home countries or host nations. The Committee further notes the Government’s interpretation of section 688(b) of the Jones Act, according to which foreign citizens cannot maintain an action under that Act if they are employed by an enterprise engaged in exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, in the territorial waters of a foreign nation and have a remedy available to them under the laws of the country where the injury occurred or their place of citizenship.

Noting that there has been no progress since the Committee first raised this point more than 20 years ago, the Committee is obliged to recall that, while the application of the Convention could possibly be limited with regard to drilling activities – as drilling platforms are not ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation – the Convention remains fully applicable with regard to such other activities as transporting supplies, equipment or personnel. Due to the specificity of maritime employment and the uncertainties of the seafarers’ access to legal remedies due to their constant movement, Article 2 imposes the primary liability for the payment of sickness and injury benefits on the shipowner. In case of the shipowner’s failure to pay, section 688(a) of the Jones Act allows any seafarer who is a United States citizen or resident alien to sue for damages arising from personal injury suffered in the course of employment. Section 688(b) imposes on seafarers who are neither United States citizens nor resident aliens, an additional precondition, bearing also the burden of proof, that their home countries or the host countries in the territorial waters of which their ships navigate have no available remedy. In the Committee’s view, having to prove that the social insurance institutions of the seafarer’s home or host country could not provide remedy, constitutes an additional threshold for foreign non-resident seafarers and is therefore inconsistent with Article 11 of the Convention.

The Committee wishes to refer, in this regard, to the preparatory work that eventually led to the adoption of Article 11, which shows that the drafters’ intention was to include an explicit affirmation of the principle of equality of treatment in view of the fact that, in practice, non-resident seafarers were not able to receive the same benefits as national or foreign resident seafarers employed on the same ships (see ILC, 1936, 22nd Session, Record of Proceedings, page 257). Despite objections to the effect that, where an exception was not made in respect of foreign workers, equality of treatment was presumed and it was therefore unnecessary to insert a special provision, Article 11 was put to a vote and adopted. In addition, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that an equally comprehensive definition of the term “seafarer” is contained in Article II(1)(f) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), to mean “any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship”. Moreover, it is also clear from Article 9 that the member State concerned has to secure rapid and inexpensive settlement of disputes concerning the shipowner’s liability. It is the member State’s responsibility to establish such a system. By requiring non-nationals to pursue their claims in the host or home State, it is not securing the settlement of their disputes, let alone securing that the process is rapid and inexpensive. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in order to amend section 688(b) of the Jones Act, possibly taking into account the distinction between drilling and other activities, so as to ensure that all foreign non-resident seafarers employed on board any vessel registered in the United States and ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation, benefit without any prior condition from the protection accorded by the Convention.

Finally, the Committee takes this opportunity to recall that the Convention, as well as 36 other international maritime labour Conventions, are revised by the MLC, 2006. The main provisions of the Convention are now reflected in Regulation 4.2 and the corresponding Code of the MLC, 2006. The Committee considers, therefore, that compliance with the Convention will facilitate the implementation of the respective provisions of the MLC, 2006. Noting that the Government has initiated the review and consultation process with a view to the future ratification of the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any further developments with respect to the possible ratification of the MLC, 2006.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11. Scope of application and equality of treatment for all seafarers irrespective of nationality, domicile or race. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 688(b) of the Jones Act which prohibits non-resident foreign seafarers from claiming injury or death benefits if they are employed in an enterprise engaged in the exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation, and when they or their dependants have a remedy available under the laws of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred, or under the laws of either the seafarer’s country of nationality or residence.

The Government states in its report that, since the United States believes that section 688(b) of the Jones Act, as amended in 1982, is in compliance with Convention No. 55, there are currently no plans to amend this provision of the Jones Act. The Government explains that the 1982 amendment to the Jones Act recognized the practical reality that offshore oil worker activities related to exploration, development or production of mineral or energy resources generally take place without the worker leaving his or her own national waters. The Government recognizes that the amendment creates a difference of treatment for foreign nationals who are not residents of the United States, but considers this difference justified since non-resident foreign seafarers may pursue remedies in more appropriate forums.

In accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, however, all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race, must enjoy equality of treatment. As the Convention does not allow for the right to protection to be made subject to any prior condition, non-resident foreign seafarers should be able to claim for compensation in the same way as national or resident seafarers.

A distinction might be drawn between different activities encompassed by the terms of section 688(b) of the Jones Act: “exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources”. According to the Act, such activities may include drilling, mapping, surveying, diving, pipelaying, maintaining, repairing, constructing, or transporting supplies, equipment or personnel. While the application of the Convention could be limited with regard to drilling activities, as drilling platforms are not ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation, the Convention remains fully applicable with regard to the other activities, and equality of treatment is to be ensured.

The Committee hopes that the Government will reconsider its position on this matter, and take the necessary measures to amend section 688(b), possibly taking into account the distinction between drilling activities and other activities, so as to ensure that all foreign seafarers employed on board any vessel, registered in the United States and ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation, benefit without any prior condition from the protection accorded by the Convention. It asks the Government to supply in its next report information on any progress made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraph 1 (scope of the Convention), together with Article 11 (equality of treatment for all seafarers irrespective of nationality, domicile or race). In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the effect of the 1982 amendment to the Jones Act (46 USC section 688(b)), which prohibits non-resident foreign seafarers from claiming sickness, injury or death benefits, if they are employed in an enterprise engaged in exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation; and when they or their dependants have a remedy available under the law of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the territorial waters, or under the law of either the seaman’s country of nationality or residence. The Committee observes that, contrary to what it stated previously, the Government recognizes in its last report that section 688(b) of the Jones Act, as amended, also precludes a foreign seafarer from bringing a claim under any other maritime law of the United States for maintenance or care. However, the Government states further that section 688(b) does not deny foreign seafarers the right to maintenance and care. It merely requires them to first pursue their remedies under the law of the country that maintains sovereignty over the area where the injury occurred and governs the commercial activities in question, or of the country where the seafarer resides or maintains citizenship. If the seafarer proves that neither of these jurisdictions is competent to provide a remedy, then he will be in a position to pursue a Jones Act claim or a claim for maintenance and care under any other maritime law of the United States. The Government also stated that the amendment concerned foreign offshore workers whose activities and status as seafarers was questionable; these workers had limited ties to the United States, and taking into account their situation, other national jurisdictions constitute a more logical legal forum to assert foreign workers’ claims.

However, the Committee notes that section 688(b) refers in general terms to foreign seafarers employed in enterprises engaged in exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources. Their activities may include transporting supplies, equipment or personnel. The 1982 amendment may thus have a negative impact on the rights of seafarers covered by this Convention, which in accordance with Article 1 applies to all persons employed on board any vessel ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race, must enjoy equality of treatment. As the Convention does not allow for the right to protection to be made subject to any prior condition, foreign seafarers should therefore be able to claim for compensation in the same way as national seafarers. In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to take the necessary measures to amend section 688(b), so as to ensure without any prior condition that all foreign seafarers employed on board any vessel, registered in the United States and engaged in maritime navigation, benefit from the protection accorded by the Convention. It asks the Government to supply in its next report information on any progress made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Article 1, paragraph 1 (scope of the Convention), together with Article 11 (equality of treatment for all seafarers irrespective of nationality, domicile or race). In its previous comments, the Committee drew the Government’s attention to the effect of the 1982 amendment to the Jones Act (46 USC section 688(b)), which prohibits non-resident foreign seafarers from claiming sickness, injury or death benefits, if they are employed in an enterprise engaged in exploration, development, or production of offshore mineral or energy resources in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation; and when they or their dependants have a remedy available under the law of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the territorial waters, or under the law of either the seaman’s country of nationality or residence. The Committee observes that, contrary to what it stated previously, the Government recognizes in its last report that section 688(b) of the Jones Act, as amended, also precludes a foreign seafarer from bringing a claim under any other maritime law of the United States for maintenance or care. However, the Government states further that section 688(b) does not deny foreign seafarers the right to maintenance and care. It merely requires them to first pursue their remedies under the law of the country that maintains sovereignty over the area where the injury occurred and governs the commercial activities in question, or of the country where the seafarer resides or maintains citizenship. If the seafarer proves that neither of these jurisdictions is competent to provide a remedy, then he will be in a position to pursue a Jones Act claim or a claim for maintenance and care under any other maritime law of the United States.

In its previous report, the Government stated that the amendment concerned foreign offshore workers whose activities and status as seafarers was questionable; these workers had limited ties to the United States, and taking into account their situation, other national jurisdictions constitute a more logical legal forum to assert foreign workers’ claims. However, the Committee notes that section 688(b) refers in general terms to foreign seafarers employed in enterprises engaged in exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources. Their activities may include transporting supplies, equipment or personnel. The 1982 amendment may thus have a negative impact on the rights of seafarers covered by this Convention, which in accordance with Article 1 applies to all persons employed on board any vessel ordinarily engaged in maritime navigation. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, all seafarers, irrespective of nationality, domicile or race, must enjoy equality of treatment. As the Convention does not allow for the right to protection to be made subject to any prior condition, foreign seafarers should therefore be able to claim for compensation in the same way as national seafarers. In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to take the necessary measures to amend section 688(b), so as to ensure without any prior condition that all foreign seafarers employed on board any vessel, registered in the United States and engaged in maritime navigation, benefit from the protection accorded by the Convention. It asks the Government to supply in its next report information on any progress made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

Article 1, paragraph 1 (scope of the Convention), together with Article 11 (equality of treatment for all seamen irrespective of nationality, domicile or race). In previous comments, the Committee questioned the effect on the application of the Convention of section 688(b)(1) of the Jones Act, as amended in 1982 which prohibits non-resident foreign seamen from claiming sickness, injury or death benefits if: they are employed in an enterprise engaged in exploration, development, or production of off-shore mineral or energy resources in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a foreign nation; and they have a remedy available under the law of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the territorial waters, or under the law of either the seaman's country of nationality or residence. In reply to the Committee's comments the Government states in its report that the benefits prescribed under the Convention may be claimed by all seamen, regardless of nationality, in a common law maintenance and cure claim brought under the general maritime law. The Government adds that the Jones Act, as amended in 1982, bars foreign seamen in certain circumstances from bringing claims for additional damages which a seaman may be entitled to as a result of fault or negligence on the part of the shipowner, but that these claims are outside the scope of the Convention.

The Committee notes this information, as well as the extensive documentation supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes, however, that in Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration, the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the clause "under any other maritime law of the United States for maintenance and cure or for damages" of section 688(b)(1) of the Jones Act as amended in 1982, as barring all claims under the general maritime law, and not just Jones Act-based claims (838 F.2d 1374, 1377). Therefore, it appears that foreign seamen who fit the conditions set out in the 1982 Amendment are also barred from bringing a common-law maintenance and cure claim. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, such as amending section 688(b)(1), to ensure that all foreign seamen employed on board any vessel engaged in maritime navigation, excluding ships of war, have the right to recover all entitlements specified in the Convention. It asks the Government to supply in its next report information on any progress made in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Article 1, paragraph 1 (scope of the Convention), together with Article 11 of the Convention (equality of treatment to all seamen irrespective of nationality, domicile or race). The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It notes, in particular, that the courts have not yet addressed the specific issue that concerns the effect of a 1982 amendment to the Jones Act (46 USC section 688) on the application of the Convention to certain foreign seafarers. It also notes the Government's statement that, should the issue be presented in some future case, a court may conclude that, in view of the legislative history of the amendment, the amendment may be construed in a manner consistent with the Convention. The Government suggests that it may be useful to await further judicial development of the issue before reaching another conclusion about the proper interpretation of the amendment.

The Committee takes due note of the Government's views on the subject. It hopes that it will be possible to review, in the near future, the effect of this amendment on the application of the Convention to foreign seafarers - other than permanent residents in the United States - employed by enterprises engaged in the exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, on vessels operating in the waters overlying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States. The Committee is, however, of the opinion that, to avoid any doubts on the effect of the 1982 amendment to the Jones Act on the application of the Convention, it would be advisable to modify the legislation to more clearly reflect the requirements of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1988, published 75th ILC session (1988)

Article 1, paragraph 1, together with Article 11 of the Convention. In its previous direct request the Committee noted that the amendment of 29 December 1982 to the Jones Act (46 USC section 688) appeared (subject to an exception the burden of proof of which is on the seaman) to exclude from the protection provided by these provisions of the Convention foreign seafarers employed by enterprises engaged in the exploration, development or production of offshore mineral or energy resources, in the case of injury occurring in the territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that, in so far as the activities concerned involve transportation on water, this need not involve "maritime navigation" as it understands this term, namely navigation on the high seas only. The Committee would point out that, under the 1958 Convention on the High Seas (in particular article 1) and the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf (in particular articles 1 and 3) waters overlaying the continental shelf form part of the high seas. The Committee therefore requests the Government, in the light of these considerations, to review the effect of the 1982 amendment to the Jones Act on the application of the Convention to foreign seafarers - other than permanent residents in the United States - employed by enterprises engaged in the activities covered by this amendment on vessels operating in the waters overlaying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States.