44 



of the United States on the high seas and to anyone in waters under the juris- 

 diction of the United States or land appurtenant thereto. It would also establish 

 a Marine Mammal Commission to review United States activity pursuant to 

 existing laws and international agreements relating to marine mammals and 

 make recommendations on additional measures for their protection. 



As written, the provisions of H.R. 10420 would be administered by the Secre- 

 tary of the Interior. Section 1 of Reorganisation Plan Number 4 of 1970 trans^ 

 ferred the functions of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to the Secretary of 

 Commerce. The protection of fisheries resources, including certain mammals, 

 generally falls within the domain of that Bureau's successor, the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service. It is therefore recommended that Section 3(3) of 

 H.R. 10420 (page 3, lines 4-5) be amended to reflect the present allocation of 

 authority between the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior. 

 Section 103 of the bill would require notice and an opportunity for public 

 hearings prior to the issuance of a permit to take mammals. This requirement 

 might result in a significant administrative burden. Many Alaskans, for example, 

 make items for the tourist trade from seal skin. Presumably they would not 

 be exempted imder Section 107(a) of the bill because of this commercial sale 

 and the necessary permits, and potential hearings, could run into the thousands. 

 Section 102 of the bill would provide for notice and an opportunity for public 

 hearing prior to the Secretary's determination of how many mammals of each 

 species could be taken each year, when, and how they could be taken. This 

 hearing would appear to provide a sufficient opportunity for persons to be heard 

 and avoid the necessity of having a hearing on each permit. 



Section 109 of the bill (page 13) would direct the Secretary to develop 

 arrangements with the several States for the protection of marine mammals. 

 It also would provide that mammals taken pursuant to such arrangements would 

 be deemed to have been taken lawfully within the meaning of the bill. This 

 policy appears to be desirable, since most marine mammals spend a majority 

 of their time in state waters and have traditionally been managed by the States. 

 However, the bill does not specify that the protections provided in its other 

 sections should be applied to the state arrangements. Under the present wording 

 the Secretary and state oflScials apparently would be free to set limits and 

 seasons and issue permits without the public hearing that would be required if 

 the Federal Government approached the problem alone. If this is the bill's 

 intent it should be more clearly stated ; if not, the language should be changed. 

 Section 110 of H.R. 10420 (pages 13-15) would require the Secretary to "un- 

 dertake an immediate review of the current activities involved in the taking of 

 fur seals in the Pribilof Islands for the purpose of determining whether such 

 activities are consistent with the purposes and policy of this Act." If he decided 

 that they were not, the bill would give Canada and Japan the option of taking, 

 in lieu of the skins to which they would be entitled under the International 

 Convention for the Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals, either the average 

 value of such skins, or 9,000 seal skins. The Convention entitles Japan and 

 Canada 15% of the annual harvest of skins. The bill's inconsistency with that 

 treaty obligation involves a foreign policy question as to which the Department 

 of Justice defers to the State Department. 



Section 201(a) (page 15, lines 20-22) would establish a Marine Mammal Com- 

 mission composed of three members appointed by and serving at the pleasure 

 of the President. The second sentence of section 201(b) would require the Presi- 

 dent to make his selection from a list, submitted to him by the Chairman of the 

 Council on Environmental Quality, of individuals knowledgeable in the fields of 

 marine ecology and resource management. As a matter of policy we do not be- 

 lieve that the President's discretion is selecting appointees should be limited 

 to those on a list prepared by a subordinate officer in the Executive Branch. 



Under Section 202(c) (page 18, lines 12-19) all of the Commission activities 

 and papers in its files, including those from other governmental officers and 

 agencies, scientists and specialists in private life, and the public at large would 

 be matters of public record. Thus, for example, the Commission activities on 

 purely internal "housekeeping" matters, such as personnel actions, and papers 

 and correspondence from another governmental agency or a scientist or specialist 

 in private life in regard to the reports and recommendations pursuant to section 

 202(a) and (b) would be matters of public record. 



Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, codifies the Public Information 

 Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, and is applicable to any federal 

 agency, such as the Commission would be. That section prescribes the informa- 



