tionable in principle, but also far more stringent 
than necessary to protect land-based producers 
from possible adverse effects. 
e It gives the Seabed Authority extremely broad, 
open-ended power to regulate all other mineral 
production from the seabed “as appropriate.” 
e It could be read as giving the Authority unaccept- 
able new power to regulate scientific research in 
the area. 
e It fails to adequately protect minority interests and 
would, accordingly, allow the abuse of power by 
an anomalous “majority.” 
e It allows the distribution of benefits from seabed 
exploitation to peoples and countries not parties 
to the Convention. 
® It seriously prejudices the long-term character of 
the international regime by requiring that, if agree- 
ment to the contrary is not reached within 25 
years, the regime automatically be converted into 
a “unitary” system, ruling out direct access by 
contractors, except to the extent that the Author- 
ity might seek their participation in joint ventures 
with it. 
For a system that would manage half of the 
Earth’s surface, these are serious deficiencies. They 
would unnecessarily inhibit, and perhaps even pre- 
vent, deep seabed development. The next session of 
the Law of the Sea Conference is scheduled for 
spring 1978. Ambassador Richardson feels that the 
next session will reveal finally whether a compre- 
hensive treaty is possible in the near future. 
The Federal Role and Congressional Initiatives 
While the United States continues to pursue a 
satisfactory international resolution in the Law of 
the Sea Conference, the Administration also supports 
the enactment of interim legislation that would au- 
thorize U.S. seabed_miners.to move forward. U.S. 
legislation establishing a domestic regime for seabed 
mining will be needed, whether there is an inter- 
national treaty or not, to regulate U.S. seabed mining 
in accordance with sound conservation p ‘nciples. 
Additionally, in the absence of a treaty, the United 
States will need assurance that existing international 
rights in the areas beyond national jurisdiction are 
protected. “777 
If there is to be any meaning to the concept of 
a “common heritage of mankind,” those with the 
technology and resources to make seabed mining 
a reality must be allowed to move forward. In the 
Administration’s view, legislation should meet the 
following criteria: 1°° 
‘© Be interim in nature, providing for its own suc- 
cession by a treaty; 
¢ Contain provisions for harmonizing U.S. regula- 
% Op. cit. note 103. 
tions with those of reciprocating states so as to 
avoid conflict; 
e Provide for resource conservation, including envi- 
ronmental protection; 
e Provide that seabed mining by U.S. companies 
produce financial benefits for the international 
community. 
e Not require that processing plants be located in 
the United States; 
e Not offer U.S. mining companies financial protec- 
tion against adverse effects of a treaty concluded 
subsequent to the passage of legislation and ex- 
penditures by those companies; and 
e Assure that all provisions of the legislation leave 
undisturbed the concept of freedom of the high 
seas. 
In 1977, the Congress considered several bills that 
would establish a domestic authority for deep seabed 
mining. Two of these bills, H.R. 3350 and S. 2053, 
are likely to be considered further in 1978. The 
Administration is proposing amendments to H.R. 
3350 which, if adopted, would bring the bill into 
_alinement with the criteria listed above. 
“Under the verms of the proposed deep seabed 
mining acts, the United States would issue licenses 
for exploration and permits for mining manganese 
nodules on the deep seabed. The acts would provide 
for development of deep seabed mining technology 
and regulation of operations of U.S. citizens con- 
sistent with sound resource conservation principles. 
These operations would be conducted in accordance 
with the doctrine of Freedom of the High Seas. 
Licenses and permits would be issued to qualified 
U.S. citizens under regulations to be promulgated 
by an administering agency. All provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 would 
be adhered to in the licensing and permitting oper- 
ation. 
Licensed operators and permit holders would be 
required to follow resource conservation regulations, 
including environmental controls, established by the 
administering agency after suitable public hearings. 
These operations would be subject to continuing in- 
spections and monitoring. 
Environmental Aspects of Seabed Mining 
Today, the broader major potential problems cen- 
ter around the following: 
e The Law of the Sea (LOS) negotiations and in- 
dustry and the U.S. Government cencerns; 
© USS. seabed mining legislation vs. Law of the Sea 
negotiations; 
*@ The jack of information on environmental effects 
- in areas with new technology; and 
e Environmental regulation in an 
arena. 
This discussion will focus on those problems specific- 
ally involving environmental concerns. 
international 
VI-28 
