On May 22, 1981, the Department of Commerce informed the State Department that this arrangement would not be possible since the proposed extension did not relate directly to Commerce Department functions. In any event, the functions outlined in the proposed new task are either being done by the Federal Government as part of the Law of the Sea Policy review or could be accomplished by government personnel. With respect to progress under the original contract, the first scheduled progress report should have been provided during the week ending May 31, 1981. Although the contract specified that some delay might occur due to developments at the Tenth Session of the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference, the relevant NOAA program office agreed with the contractor that developments at that session need not cause delay in completing the work. To ensure timely completion of the work it was agreed that the emphasis of the contract would be altered slightly. In an informal meeting on March 30, 1981, halfway through the Tenth Session, the contractor assured NOAA that the work was progressing and there was no delay. On June 1, we were orally informed by the contractor that the progress report will not be delivered until June 27 or 28. The reason given for the delay in the delivery of this midterm report was the attendance by the chief investigator on the contract, Leigh Ratiner, at meetings concerning Law of the Sea. In general, I feel that the justification for the original contract remains valid. However, we regret the delay in its completion. We plan to work with the contractor at the midterm briefings to achieve timely completion of the project. Question. NOAA and the State Department are presently involved in reciprocating states negotiations pertaining to deep seabed mining. Would you please discuss the relationship between the completion of the reciprocating states arrangements and the timing of the issuance of the first domestic licenses. Answer. The principal purpose of reciprocating states arrangements is to provide for mutual recognition of licenses and resolution of conflicts. In order to be prepared for such mutual recognition, the reciprocating states arrangements should be completed on a schedule consistent with provisions in the domestic regulations for receiving initial license applications by January of 1982. If reciprocal arrangements are delayed beyond the time when NOAA recognizes domestic rights to specific mine sites, their purpose would be substantially defeated. After the United States or any other potential reciprocating state grants rights to mine sites, it could be extremely difficult to arrange for mutual recognition of sites. Therefore, reciprocal arrangements providing for conflict resolution need to be established before NOAA begins the process of accepting license applications from explorers. Question. As I am sure you are aware, this committee has had a long standing interest in deep seabed mining and ocean thermal energy conversion. This interest resulted last year in the passage of two pieces of legislation, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980. NOAA's Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy is responsible for implementing this legislation. What are your thoughts regarding the importance and future status of OME and could you please summarize NOAA's activities to implement their responsibilities as outlined by these two acts? Answer. I attach great importance to NOAA's new Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy. Seabed mining and Ocean thermal energy conversion represent promising new uses of the oceans, and I intend for NOAA to be in the forefront of these developments. I will ensure that adequate resources are made available to the Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy so that their work in creating licensing programs for each of these technologies is carried forward in an efficient and timely manner. Although it has only been 11 months since passage of the seabed mining act and 9 months since passage of the OTEC licensing act, NOAA has already issued proposed licensing regulations for both programs and, in addition, issued draft programmatic environmental impact statements for each program. Five-year environmental assessment plans, as called for in both pieces of legislation, are also in final stages of review within the Administration. I anticipate that the statutory deadlines for the issuance of final regulations and final environmental impact statements will be met in both program areas. NOAA should be in a position to receive applications for OTEC licenses in September of 1981 and seabed mining exploration licenses in January 1982. Question. The reciprocating states negotiations have in the past primarily been conducted through NOAA's Office of Ocean Minerals and Energy (OME). However, there appears to be a push by the State Department to absorb and take the lead in these negotiations even though the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, passed last year, expressly states that the NOAA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State and others, shall conduct these negotiations. Given this and the fact that international negotiations hinge on the trust built up with time between the individuals involved, how do you intend to ensure that NOAA will maintain its lead agency role as mandated by the law? Answer. Yes, NOAA's lead agency role in reciprocating states negotiations is an integral part of its implementation of Public Law 96-283 and therefore must be maintained. Close coordination between NOAA and the State Department is mandated by the statute and I am, therefore, pleased that the new State Department leadership intends to devote greater attention to this effort. As the agency administering the domestic seabed mining program and the agency responsible for organizing the reciprocating states negotiations, NOAA should continue to develop the substantive framework for negotiations. Good progress has been made during the last six months of reciprocating states negotiations under the leadership of NOAA personnel. Representatives of potential reciprocating states look to the United States delegation, but especially to NOAA as the originating agency, for development of detailed proposals concerning resolution of conflicts or overlaps of exploration areas, compatibility of national seabed mining programs, and other related issues. I believe that NOAA's initiatives in these negotiations must continue. Ultimately, the negotiation of relevant international agreements requires an active State Department role, and NOAA will cooperate with the Department of State toward that end. Question. Do you favor the current location of the National Climate Program within NOAA's Office of Policy and Planning, or should it be a separate entity reporting directly to the Administrator? Answer. I have not yet determined in my own mind where the National Climate Program should be housed within NOAA. For the time being my view is that the National Climate Program Office should continue to be located in the Office of Policy and Planning. Among other responsibilities, the Office of Policy and Planning carries out NOAA's coordinating and leadership responsibilities for national multiagency programs. This includes the National Marine Pollution Program, and the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, as well as the National Climate Program. The Assistant Administrator for Policy and Planning reports directly to the Administrator. This location assures that the national programs are highly visible to top NOAA management, and have ready access to NOAA's operating elements. I assure you that I will devote the time needed to make the National Climate Program realize its full potential. A decision as to the most appropriate administrative home for the Program will be made at a later date. Question. The climate related activities of several Federal agencies are coordinated through the National Climate Program Office of NOAA. Testimony before this committee has made it apparent that there is general dissatisfaction with the ability of the Climate Program Office to prompt the Federal agencies to follow its guidance. Legislative or executive solutions to accomplish better coordination could provide authority for the Climate Program Office to require specific actions by Federal agencies, or could make available discretionary or passthrough funds for such agencies for the fulfillment of Climate Program objectives. Could you state your views concerning the best way to enhance the National Climate Program Office's management authority? Answer. In my view, the role of the National Climate Program Office is to ensure that the national priorities contained in the Five Year Plan, which is developed in cooperation with Federal agencies, are reflected in the actual climate activities of the participating agencies. The Program Office's management role in achieving this can be enhanced in several ways. First, the Office must carry out its own mandated programmatic responsibilities for the Intergovernmental Climate Program, the Experimental Climate Forecast Centers program, and international program coordination. Second, the Office must do the necessary staff work to assure the effective operations of the interagency decision-making Climate Board. Third, the Office must have small amounts of money to fill the gaps among agency programs and support National Program priorities. This could be accomplished by pass-through funding. Finally, the Office must use its authority to interact with agencies at critical points in their program planning and development, such as when they develop priorities for agency climate budgets or evaluate agency performance in climate activities. I understand that last March, some dissatisfaction was expressed about aspects of the Climate Program at oversight hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agricultural Research and Environment. As a result, an ad hoc group was formed from the Climate Board of the National Academy of Sciences, the Climate Program Advisory Committee, the American Association of State Climatologists, and representatives of Federal agencies. This group will shortly recommend ways to strengthen the National Climate Program. I will study their recommenda tions as I seek to assure that the Program meets its responsibilities and lives up to its initial promise. I consider this to be an extremely important program. Question. NOAA's present organization has seven Assistant Administrators for Management and Budget, for Policy and Planning, for Fisheries, for Coastal Zone Management, for Oceanic and Atmospheric Services, for Research and Development, and for Satellites. Are you satisfied with the current organization and if not, could you please indicate where you believe changes may be warranted? Answer. The organization of NOAA is an important question, and I plan to give it considerable attention during my first year as Administrator. Because of the complexity of any reorganization and the potential for disruption of programs during the transition, I will proceed very cautiously in this area. It is my intention to visit as many of the working elements as possible before making any major reorganiza tions. There are several reasons to review the organization of NOAA. During the last year NOAA has received new responsiblilities which warrant certain organizational adjustments. Implementation of the President's program of economic recovery will result in changing programmatic priorities which also have organizational implications. In addition, the Department of Commerce has initiated a thorough review of the administrative functions in all units of the Department, and some streamlining of administrative support functions will likely result. In any case, I think that NOAA has evolved and matured during its first decade and a careful look at organizational adjustments and fine-tuning is an opportunity to improve NOAA in its second decade. Question. There has been much discussion of the reductions in Federal personnel (RIFS) proposed by the Administration. The Committee is aware that the effect would be to reduce NOAA's personnel levels below those at the time of the agency's creation, while no commensurate change or reduction in legislative responsibility is being proposed. Please discuss, for each major activity in NOAA the negative qualitative effect those proposed reductions will have. Answer. The major impacts in the area of Research and Development include the phase-out of the Sea Grant Program by the end of fiscal year 1982, the termination of RD reimbursable programs which are performing research, supporting analysis of meteorological and oceanic problems, and program management for other Federal agencies, and the reduction of selected Program Management functions in the Office of Research and Development. The major impact in the Coastal Zone Management area will be the complete termination of Section 306 Program Administration Grants, Energy Impact Formula Grants and CEIF Loans, Guarantees, and Repayment Assistance. The Office of Coastal Zone Management will continue to implement other provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program and the Marine Sanctuary Program. The major impact on the National Marine Fisheries Service will be the termination or reduction of nonsalmonid aquaculture research, anadromous fisheries grants, fisheries grants to states, fisheries export trade promotion, fisheries research and development, and industry grants. In addition, baseline monitoring for ocean pollution will be reduced, and porpoise research will be eliminated. The major impact in Environmental Satellite Services will be the termination of the NOSS program. The major effects in the National Weather Service are reduction or elimination of special services to industry, services to general aviation, and local weather support for 38 locations. Fruit frost forecasts will be eliminated. Aviation forecasts will be changed and area forecasts services for general aviation will be revised and centrally prepared. Weather Service offices reduced or eliminated and will have their responsibilities reassigned to adjacent offices. Offices with NOAA Weather Radio transmitters will be operated remotely from neighboring offices. The major impact on the National Ocean Survey will be the laying up of three ships and the reduction in the preparation of aeronautical charts and fewer surveys for airport obstruction charting. Two of the ships to be layed up are used primarily to support research for the Department of the Interior. The major impact in the Environmental Data and Information Service will be the reduction of solar-terrestrial and geophysical data services. Question. Acknowledging the need for substantial budgetary restraint in all departments how do you intend to meet budget goals while retaining the core NOAA mission? Answer. I support the President's program for national economic recovery. The overall benefits of the President's program to the Nation justify the budgetary restraints that face Federal departments. As the Administrator of NOAA, I would follow a constructive and flexible approach to the maintenance of NOAA's core programs in light of the President's objective of budgetary restraint. I am optimistic that NOAA can continue to perform its basic missions to satisfy public needs. I will cite a few opportunities to adjust NOAA programs to the budgetary limits set by the Administration. NOAA's basic and specialized weather service programs can benefit from greater reliance on new technologies for observation, analysis and product dissemination. Realignment of certain programs, such as aviation weather services, and the promotion of increased service by the private sector permit further budget adjustments. Mapping and charting activities can be made more efficient through improvements in data collection by vessels and aircraft. In addition, certain technical support functions can be performed satisfactorily by the private sector. Satellite remote sensing will offer even greater opportunities for NOAA's programs of services and research in the years ahead. In fisheries research, management and enforcement, greater economies might be obtained by careful attention to planning and coordination of programs. A new process to stimulate fisheries research planning has recently been developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This will permit quicker response to the highest priority needs of fisheries management, habitat protection and the protection of marine mammals. NOAA maintains excellent atmosphere and ocean research programs. Careful attention to the highest priority needs for research to support NOAA missions will allow continuation of NOAA's strong expertise in the environmental sciences. In Coastal Zone Management, NOAA will shift to implementation of the Federal/ state partnership that has been developed during the last eight years. Special emphasis will be placed on state plan review and application of "consistency" provisions, coordination of Federal programs in coastal areas, and the designation of estuarine and marine sanctuaries. Question. Despite passage of the 200-mile limit legislation 5 years ago, foreign fishermen still catch by far the greatest amount of fish in the North Pacific and Bering Sea. If American fishermen are to displace foreign fishermen, we must be able to market our product overseas. Marketing cannot be done by Government, but it can be assisted through market-export briefs. Staffing in the Foreign Fisheries Division has been cut in half in the last year. No other Government entity fills this vital function. Will you review NMFS foreign marketing efforts and report back to the Committee on how we can improve our overseas efforts? Answer. In addition to distributing market-export briefs, NOAA regularly provides U.S. seafood exporters with a substantial amount of market information collected by the overseas personnel of the Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and other organizations. In cooperation with industry and other Federal agencies, NOAA also engages in export promotion activities, such as trade fairs, sales missions, and export seminars which provide additional export information to the U.S. fishing industry. These efforts are reviewed continually by NOAA as market conditions and the needs of the industry change. Question. Despite substantial progress in the last few years, there is still a large volume of underutilized fish stocks within the Fishery Conservation Zone. How do you intend to direct Government efforts towards more complete utilization of the resources? Answer. In cooperation with the fishing industry, NOAA will continue its research program on the major technological, economic, market, and regulatory barriers to the further development of underutilized resources. A priority objective will be to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation on the American fishing industry. Attention will be given to industry-Government cooperative efforts to assure consistent quality in seafood products, and to identify foreign markets for those high-quality products. We will continue to identify trade opportunities and to reduce impediments to export through implementation of our "fish and chips" policy. Question. Conflicts between the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act persist. What are your views as to how the balance between marine mammals and fish should be struck? Answer. Marine mammals and fish interact in the marine environment. Programs for their protection, conservation, and management must be based on sound scientific judgments. A consistent set of objectives and standards should guide equitable consideration of the economic and social impacts on users and on the needs of the resources. I will work with NOAA fisheries experts to develop consistent policy objectives in order to avoid conflicts in NOAA's programs under both acts. Question. A great deal of the rhetoric has been expended in the last few years over the need for streamlining the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Manage ment Act. In particular, the approval process for a Fisheries Management Plan can exceed 18 months. What will you do to aid our efforts towards greater efficiency in fisheries management? Answer. This process for reviewing fisheries plans and amendments can and should be improved. Public review and comment is necessary. In addition, an adequate review of significant plans and regulations by the Secretary and the OMB require substantial time. Efforts are now underway in NOAA and in the Councils to streamline the process consistent with the President's mandate for careful analysis of all Federal regulations. I support these efforts. Fisheries cannot be managed effectively under the Act if all management decisions require amendments to plans. Fishery management can be more effective if framework plans are developed that operate continuously for substantial periods of time without amendment. Under such plans, regional management decisions are made as implementing actions within the plan. Question. The cornerstone of the MFCMA is the regional council system. For that system to survive, it must be able to evolve with changing needs. How will you work to strengthen council autonomy? Answer. I support efforts to decentralize fishery management responsibilities by developing multi-year plans. This will allow more management decisions to be made at the regional level. We also need to assess the administrative and reporting requirements under which the Councils are operating. HON. ROBERT PACKWOOD, Dirksen Senate Office Building, PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, Seattle, Washington, May 14, 1981. Dear SENATOR PACKWOOD: We understand that Dr. John V. Byrne has been designated by the Administration for the position of Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. We are pleased with this designation and want to let you know that we fully support Dr. Byrne's confirmation. He has an excellent background for this position through his respected work in oceanography and his experience as Vice President of Oregon State University for Research and Graduate Studies. Because of the increasing complexity of this country's fisheries, a man of Dr. Byrne's qualifications is badly needed. We urge your support for Dr. Byrne in his Senate Confirmation Hearings. HON. ROBERT PACKWOOD, W. V. YONKER, Executive Vice President. NEW BEDFORD SEAFOOD COUNCIL, New Bedford, Massachusetts, May 27, 1981. Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the New Bedford Seafood Council, which represents the vessels and crewmen who fish out of the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts, I would like to express our support for Mr. Jonn Byrne as the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He is a very highly qualified individual and will certainly execute the duties of that office with competence, integrity, and leadership. We urge the Committee to approve Mr. Byrne's nomination as soon as possible. Sincerely, CHARLES H. FRITTS, Legislative Counsel. |