85 



Mr. Anderson. 



Mr. Anderson [California]. Thank you. 



Tn restating your answer to my colleague here a moment ago, are 

 you looking for amendments first, that would change the law to "the 

 lowest practical level" instead of "levels approaching zero mortality.*' 

 and. second, you want continued and expanded research programs 

 and. third, shorter time of permit procedures which you feel are cur- 

 rently too Ion of? 



Are that basically the changes? 



Mr. Felando. We would remove ourselves as the act provided in 

 1072-74, remove ourselves from the permit procedure. 



We would be subject to regulations by the administrator. 



Mr. Anderson [California]. So instead of shortening: the time of 

 permit procedures, you would remove yourself from them? 



Mr. Felando. That is right, a return to what existed during the 

 period 1972 through 1974. ' 



Mr. Anderson [California]. These three amendments then are 

 what you are looking for. Mr. Felando? 



Mr. Felando. Yes, basically we are looking at section 101 that 

 deals with commercial fishing and section 111. 



Mr. Anderson [California]. Following up where you want us to 

 go: when marine mammal act came back from the Senate side, and 

 we were in conference on the wording that they had put in: "levels 

 approaching zero mortality'': at that time the emphasis was on the 

 word "levels" and everyone seemed to agree on that. 



We were talking about lowering the level, which is exactly what 

 has taken place. 



Won't you have somewhat the same problem if you change the 

 wording to "lowest practical level"? 



I can see the same kind of vagueness in this new phase. We didn't 

 know what the levels approaching zero mortality really meant, ex- 

 cept that it was explained that it was a gradual lowering of the 

 level, and that was how it would work. 



It worked that way, except that it was interpreted by the courts 

 differently. 



Aren't vou going to have the same trouble with lowest practical 

 level? 



Mr. Felando. I hope not. 



The only answer I have is that we have a limited experience dur- 

 ing which regulations were promulgated and enforced, based, I thiak, 

 on that language. 



That is the language that is contained in section 111. 



So my answer to you is : You might be right, except we are look- 

 ing back at the experience during that 2 years. 



I think there is no question that we would have to incorporate the 

 language contained in section 104(b) with reference to making sure 

 that any regulations would take into account the population levels 

 of the porpoise, fishery conservation programs, and the technical and 

 economic feasibility of the implementation of the proposed regs. 



I hope we wouldn't come into the same problem. 



I am hoping that that language would be definite enough so as to 

 allow a more realistic type of regulatory regime. 



