B -17 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: There was general agreement that in 



fact a regime would have to go north of 60 degrees South. 



We had anticipated that this might in fact be a stumbling 



block, but after initial discussion it did not turn out to 



be. There was, I think, unanimity on this point, was there 

 not? 



MR. SCULLY: On that part. 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: And by definition it would have to 

 be handled by the treaty. 



MR. GOTTSCHALK: One Other question, if I may. 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: Yes, sir. 



MR. GOTTSCHALK: Along these lines we are obviously con- 

 cerned about the nature and amount of regulatory mechanisms 

 that might be needed and put into force, and it occurs to us 

 that this is going to require some kind of a management author- 

 ity established under any treaty that might come up. 



Would this be covered in the Environmental Impact State- 

 ment in detail, so that we could analyze the character of the 

 machinery that would be established with respect to the capa- 

 bility for management — including enforcement? Would this 

 all be covered by EIS, or would it just be tacitly assumed 

 that there would be a system development? 



MR. SCULLY: If I could make one point on that. Looking 

 at the question of drafting an EIS, one has to reach some 

 happy medium between trying to anticipate in detail all of -- 



MR. GOTTSCHALK: In other words there is an infinite ar- 

 ray of — 



MR. SCULLY: Exactly, yes. 



A specific or proposed management system with all of the 

 necessary details filled in, I think that is one extreme — 



And the other extreme is just to assume a mechanism. 



What we would hope to do in the EIS is to try to meet 

 both concerns somewhere in the middle. In other words, try to 

 have some description of the kind of mechanism that would be 

 necessary in terms of the functions it would perform — and in 

 a kind of general outline, without trying to get too specific 

 concerning the details. 



