666 
Mr. D’Amours. Has there been a change of position in general on 
this by NOAA or is this something specific? For instance, just last 
week NOAA testified before the Public Works Committee that it 
supported the recovery of research costs in this initiative. 
Has there been a general change of position as to recovery of re- 
search costs or is this something aimed specifically at this legisla- 
tion or has this been a change of opinion with regard to this specif- 
ic legislation in the last day or two? 
Mr. Swanson. I believe I have to answer your question in two 
parts. This is not a general reconsideration of using user fees to re- 
cover research costs. It is addressed specifically to this particular 
bill and the amendments to the bills. Second, in reviewing the leg- 
islation over the last week, there has been some change in policy. 
Mr. Expsness. Mr. Chairman, may I add something to that? 
Mr. D’Amovurs. In just a minute. 
Why do you distinguish present recovery of research costs in gen- 
eral and the attempt to do so in this proposal? 
Mr. Swanson. There are a number of issues with respect to re- 
search in this particular proposal. Much of the research necessary 
to be conducted is in fact generic in nature, and as a consequence 
of that it is very difficult to tie it directly to the permit process. 
Second, I think there is concern that the important research that 
might have to be done in order to carry out the generic aspects of 
the program could not logically be funded directly by a select group 
of permittees. 
Mr. D’Amours. Isn’t the generic nature of research pertinent to 
the other bills where you are supporting user fees? 
Mr. SwAnson. I am not competent to answer that question. 
Mr. D’Amours. You are not familiar with the other bills? 
: a Swanson. I am not familiar with the details of the other 
ills. 
Mr. D’Amours. Could you be more specific? What is there about 
the research fees in this bill that tend to make them generic and 
therefore not susceptible to the imposition of user costs? 
Mr. Swanson. The designation of sites is generally tied specifi- 
cally to a locality and a particular geographic region or spot in the 
ocean, and much of our research that we feel is important in the 
generic sense covers broad geographic areas. For example, the 
question of disposing in the Gulf Stream has recently been raised. 
The nature of the research that would be necessary in that case is 
quite broad, and to ask a municipality or a small group of munici- 
palities to fund it would perhaps be too much of a strain and also 
inappropriate. 
Mr. D’Amours. It would seem though that it is rather difficult to 
consider any worthwhile research not to be generic. Can you think 
of any research that is worthwhile that wouldn’t have general ap- 
plication or would be “generic?” 
Mr. Swanson. I guess all research has a generic aspect. Howev- 
er, the background information going into specific site designation 
is something that perhaps should be carried out by an individual 
municipality, or funded through an individual municipality. But, in 
the boarder aspects of looking at the east coast as a region for 
waste disposal sites, I think it would be difficult to tie this to a 
small group of municipalities. 
