April 18, 2005

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-6125

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This letter provides the views of the Department of Commerce on S. 361,
the "Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005" as reported by
the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

This legislation would provide for the implementation and maintenance of
an integrated ocean and coastal observing system. The Department
supports the legislation's goals as described in Sec. 2, "Findings and
Purposes," which are similar to the goals outlined in the
Administration's report to the Congress, *An Integrated and Sustained
Ocean Observing System for the United States: Design and Implementation*
(February 26, 2003).

S. 361 also generally supports the Administration's broader objectives
for development of a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)
as reflected in documents and subsequent actions emanating from the
Earth Observation Summit held in Washington, D.C., on July 31, 2003. The
Committee may want to consider including reference to a broader
(terrestrial and atmospheric, as well as oceanic) integrated Earth
observing system.

The Department requests that the legislation be consistent with
Executive Order 13366 and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which were
published in December 2004 in response to the report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. Consistent with the U.S. Ocean Action Plan,
interagency coordination is essential for all ocean science and
technology priorities and in particular for planning and implementation
of an Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). As such an interagency
body should provide high level oversight for the IOOS and an interagency
program office should develop plans and requirements for that
interagency body's ultimate approval.

Each agency that participates in IOOS brings different capabilities and
areas of expertise to the program. The roles and responsibilities of
each agency need to be clearly defined and explicitly outlined. The
Administration, through the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and
Technology of the National Science and Technology Council and the
Committee on Ocean Policy, is currently working to address this issue.
However, for the purposes of implementation and operation of IOOS, the
Department and the Administration recognize the importance of having a
clear point of accountability. As such, the Department and the
Administration believe that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration should be the lead federal agency for the administration
and implementation of IOOS.

The Department opposes directing any specific percentage or amount of
appropriations for the IOOS to regional associations, and requests that
the authorization levels be consistent with the President's FY 2006
Budget Request. The enclosed comments provide a more detailed analysis
of the bill.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to present these views on S.
361. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the transmittal of these views from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.

Sincerely,

Jane T. Dana

Acting General Counsel

Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Co-Chairman,

> Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

The Honorable Olympia Snowe, Chairman,

> Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard

The Honorable Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,

> Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard

The Honorable John Sununu, Chairman, National Ocean Policy Study

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Ranking Member, National Ocean Policy Study

Comments of the Department of Commerce on

S. 361, the "Ocean and Coastal Observation System Act of 2005" as
reported by

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

1.  Executive Order 13366 and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan provide for a
    new governance structure to coordinate national ocean policy[^1]
    among Federal agencies, the States, and private and nongovernmental
    organizations. The structure includes several interagency bodies,
    including a Committee on Ocean Policy and an Interagency Committee
    on Ocean Science and Resource Management Integration. The
    Administration will work with your Committee to ensure the various
    oversight and coordinating bodies identified in S. 361 are
    consistent with those being implemented by the Administration.

2.  The legislation seeks to integrate and build upon existing
    infrastructure and capabilities, maximizing the benefits of current
    investments while at the same time promoting a more dynamic system.
    This approach is consistent with the goals of the Department and the
    U.S. Ocean Action Plan.

3.  The Administration appreciates and supports the inclusion of the
    Great Lakes within the scope of the Integrated Ocean Observing
    System (IOOS) in S. 361.

4.  The Department concurs that---

    a.  An interagency body should have high level oversight of IOOS,

    b.  An interagency program office should develop plans and
        requirements for the interagency body's ultimate approval, and

    c.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        should serve as the lead Federal agency for the administration
        and implementation of IOOS.

5.  With respect to section 4(g), the Department is willing to explore
    alternatives that may address civil liability of regional
    associations. We note that last year the Department of Justice
    opposed language similar to section 4(g), which would deem regional
    associations to be entities of NOAA for purposes of the Federal Tort
    Claims Act, Suits in Admiralty Act, and Public Vessels Act. Justice
    opposed such language because it threatens a significant expansion
    of Federal liability with inadequate Federal control over the
    regional associations or their employees. Also, while sub-national
    elements, such as regional associations, can ensure that IOOS meets
    distinct regional requirements, the legislation does not
    differentiate between regional and national needs.

6.  The primary objective for IOOS is implementation of an *operational*
    system that provides services to the Nation. One common analogy is
    that IOOS should provide ocean-related services similar to how
    existing atmospheric observing systems support weather forecasting
    and services. In addition, IOOS will provide much needed data for
    improving ocean resource management decisionmaking. IOOS should
    support research & development and education & outreach components
    and these important activities are noted in Section 4 along with
    operational and data management components. It is unclear why a
    separate Section 5 dedicated solely to research & development and
    education & outreach is required. Doing so seems to overemphasize
    these activities in relation to operations and data management. The
    Department would not oppose provisions allowing for research &
    development and education & outreach grants to State and local
    governments, academic, private, and non-profit institutions to
    support IOOS; however, such support should be distinguished from
    support provided to regional associations for development of
    requirements and operational activities.

7.  The Department opposes obligating a fixed percentage of IOOS-related
    appropriations to regional associations. Such a requirement
    contradicts the underlying premise that such associations must earn
    and maintain accreditation. Regional associations are to be
    operational entities and the relationship between the Federal
    government and regional associations should be contractual.
    Furthermore, the agency should have discretion to provide funding,
    such as research grants, to entities other than regional
    associations.

# 

# Technical Comments

**Throughout the legislation:** All references to the scope of the
system should be "coastal, ocean and the Great Lakes."

**Long Title:** The phrase "improve management of coastal and marine
resources," should be included among the purposes of the long title.

**Section 2(b)(1)**: Add the word "planning" at the beginning, so it
begins "the planning, development and maintenance . . ."

**Section 2(b)(2)**: Here and throughout the legislation the word
"outreach" should follow the word "education" to clarify that informing
the public outside of formal educational institutions is within the
scope of the legislation.

**Section 2(b)(3)**: Add the phrase "and ensure usefulness of data and
information for users" at the end to support the goal of providing data
and services that meet users' needs.

**Section 4(a)(7)**: Change the introductory clause to, "Providing
information that supports implementation and refinement . . ." because
the system is one of many sources of scientific data that will support
ecosystem approaches.

[^1]: The term "ocean policy" as used herein includes Federal activities
    concerning the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes of the United States,
    including international ocean policy matters.