202 



We do mit understand why the industry cannot meet us halfway. 

 rather than renewing its bellicose demands £or legislative relief based 

 upon exaggerated claims of economic ruination and practical infeasi- 

 bilitv of implementation of the proposed regulations. 



We would remind this committee of our testimony '2 weeks ago to 

 which we adhere today- the acl is finally working. To weaken or 

 destroy by amendment a decisionmaking structure painfully worked 

 out by trial and error over the last 5 years would be a tragic mistake, 

 particularly since the elements in the 1977 regulations most com- 

 plained of now by the industry are of concern at best for only a few 

 more weeks, and need never recur. 



I would like to supplement this testimony with comments on five 

 areas that were discussed with the committee and Dr. White this 

 morning. This section of my testimony will be ever so brief also. 



There was discussion about the inevitable delay which allegedly 

 will have to take place in implementing the final regulations because 

 of court review and the 30-day comment period. It is our position, 

 operating from common sense, that the court review is not likely to 

 delay the implementation of these final regulations. 



As T believe you pointed out, the ATA will file, I assume, for a 

 general permit. Last year's permit was between 10 or 15 pages long. 

 I don't see what the court could review about that. 



The certificates of inclusion are a page or two long, and it is my 

 interpretation that the court wants only to make sure these docu- 

 ments are filed. The court of appeals cannot seriously review such 

 permit requests after the regulations have been filed, given the court's 

 lack of expertise and busy schedule. 



T would look for this to delay not at all the effectiveness of the 

 1977 regulations. 



Second of all, also in line with the discussion of the chairman and 

 other members of the committee this morning, it is our interpretation 

 that the 30-day review period could be abbreviated or even eliminated 

 entirely. We have a difference of agreement with the NMSF legal 

 authorities on this subject, because they point out that the law speci- 

 fically requires a 30-day comment period. 



However, arguably, from our point of view, there has been more 

 than a 30-day comment period on this permit, the application for 

 which was initially filed last August or September. There have been 

 hearings ad naseaum, administrative and oversight, and public com- 

 ment periods on regulations of all types. 



The chairman asked this morning if anyone in the room would 

 have any comments during this 30-day period. The answer was no. 

 It is difficult to conceive how any comments could raise significant 

 new points during this period of time not already considered. 



The actual intent of the act's comment period was not sterile for- 

 mality ; therefore, if it can be argued that the comment period has 

 been running simultaneously with the adjudicative hearings and 

 related briefing schedule, it strikes me as highly unlikely that a court 

 would attempt to intervene and enjoin the implementation of the 

 1977 regulations at any time within the next 30 days. 



That is my own legal interpretation, but it makes some common 

 sense. 



