U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–125PDF 2012

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 

Serial No. 112–67 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Adminstrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 27 

Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Adminstrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................................................................................... 53 

Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD) .................................................................................................. 79 

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record 

Mercury News Editorial: ‘‘Don’t Reduce Tsunami Alerts’’ ................................... 108 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BUDGETS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, TEXAS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment Hearing 

An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

and the Environmental Protection Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 

2013 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Panel 1 

The Honorable Jane Lubchenco, Aclministrator,~tional Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Panel 2 

Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 

Environmental Protection Agency 
3 

V.S. H<jlVSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

, HEARING CHARTER 

An Overview of the National Oceanic ai,d Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection 

Agenl;y Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013 

PURPOSE 

,Tuesday, March 6, 2012 

i 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.rn. 

2318 tYburn House Office Buildiug 

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. th;Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology will hoI a hearing to examine the Administration's Fiscal Year 2013 budget 

requests for the National Oceanic and Atru pheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EPA) Science and Technology (I,: &T) Programs. 

WITNESSES 

Panel! 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Panel II 

Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

BACKGROUND 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admibistration I 

The President's fiscal year (FY) 2013 budgJt request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) is $5.06 billion, a 3.1 percent incr~ase above the FY 2012 levels. 

NOAA's core mission and activities includ~ weather forecasting, climate prediction, and management of fisheries, 

coastal and ocean resources, as well as cros~-cutting research to support and advance these operational areas. 

NOAA carries out this mission through five major line offices: 

• National Ocean Service (NOS), responsible for mapping and charting coastal areas and providing other 

navigation support services. ' 

• National Weather Service (NWS), respOnSible for weather forecasts and warnings. 

National Environmental Satellite, Data:lnd Information Service (NESDIS), responsible for development and 

operation of satellites that monitor and;1 ansmit data for weather forecasting, climate prediction, space 

weather forecasting, and earth and oce science research. 

• Office of Oceanic and Atruospheric Re arch (OAR), responsible for research in support of most NOAA 

missions including atruospheric, coastalr and oceanic sciences, climate and air quality research, ecosystem 

~=~::~' :!~:h;;;~~:: ~~::,~:r~~~;~:c~ewardship of living marine resources through the 

conservation, management, and promoTn of healthy ecosystems. 

Table I shows the primary accounts or line <ilffices of the agency's budget. The FY 2013 budget request includes 

increases above FY 2012 enacted levels for \he Office of Oceanic and Atruospheric Research (OAR), the National 

Enviromnental Satellite, Data and Informati6n Service (NESDlS) and Program Support (PS). 

1 
4 

The Administration's budget proposes to decrease funding for National Ocean Service (NOS), the National 

Weather Service (NWS), and the Kational Marine Fisheries Service (l'<'MFS). 

Table 1: NOAA FY 2012 Budget Request (dollars in millions) 

FY13 Request 

FYll FY12 FY13 FY12 Enacted 

Account Enacted Enacted Request $ % 

National Ocean Service* 550.2 490.0 478.1 (11.9) (2.4) 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research 427.0 384.7 413.8 29.1 7.6 

National Weather Service 976.5 991.9 972.2 (19.7) (2.0) 

National Environmental 

Satellite Data Information 

Service 1,444.1 1,877.8 2,041.4 163.6 8.7 

National Marine Fisheries 

Service** 967.5 895.0 880.3 (14.7) (1.6) 

Program Support 490.2 467.1 476.8 9.7 2.1 

Totals: 4,596.9 4,906.6 5,060.5 153.9 3.1 

* JunsdICtlOn of the NOS line office is shared WIth the Natural Resources Committee. 

** NMFS is solely in the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee. 

NOTE: As of March 5, 2012, NOAA had not delivered its detailed congressional budget justifications to the 

Committee. The figures in this charter are taken primarily from the NOAA "Blue Book" chapters of the request. 

As a result, baseline funding and program percentage increases and decreases are not available for many 

activities. 

National Weather Service (NWS) 

NWS provides weather, hydrologjc, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, adjacent waters, 

and ocean areas, and maintains a national infrastructure of observing systems that gather and process data 

worldwide from the land, sea, and air. 

The FY 2013 request forNWS is $972.2 million, a decrease of$19.7 million, or 2.0 percent, below FY 2012 

levels. The Administration is requesting a $36.1 million decrease for the NWS Operations, Research and 

Facilities (ORP) accounts and $6.3 million increase for the NWS Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction 

(PAC) accounts. 

A substantial amount oftbe decrease is attributed to the Local Warnings and Forecast account. The 

Administration is proposing to implement efficiencies by establishing regional Information Technology (IT) 

coIJaboration units. According to the budget, these regjonal support teams would reduce the number of 

Information Technology Officers (ITO) from 122 (one ITO in every forecast office) to a total of24 across all 

"N'WS regions. With technological improvements such as the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing Systems 

(A WIPS), NWS hopes to fulfill many of the responsibilities assigned to ITOs remotely. 

There are several other programs proposed for elimination or substantial reductions. The Administration is 

zeroing out funding for the National Air Quality Forecasting Capability (NAQFC). This program provides air 

quality forecasts for ozone and particulate matter, and is used by the Envirorunental Protection Agency, State and 

local agencies to provide air quality health alerts to the public. Despite this reduction of $3.1 miJIion, NWS will 

maintain the on-demand, operational forecasts for volcanic ash, smoke transport and emergency releases. 
5 

The budget request also includes a decrease of $2.4 million for the NOAA Profiler Network program. This 

program consists of35 unmarmed DoppJer Radar sites that provide hourly vertical wind profile data. Although 

considered cutting edge technology in the late 1980s and early 1990s, these profilers would require substantial 

investment to upgrade and keep current. NOAA is proposing to retire these sites and develop new technology to 

generate data similar to the information provided by these profilers. 

The FYI3 budget request includes a decrease of $4.6 million to terminate partner funding for education and 

awareness programs to the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and reduce the operations and 

maintenance for the Deep-ocean Assessment and Report Tsunamis (DART) buoys. The FYI 3 budget request 

includes an increase of $2.4 million for the' Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) Array. The TAO Array is a 

network of buoys that provide data that directly contributes to the prediction ofEI Niiio and La Niiia climate 

events. EI Niiio and La Niila events are disruptions of normal ocean-atmosphere systems and can lead to 

changing weather patterns including shifts in temperature, flooding and drought. The requested increase will go 

towards additional costs associated with the operations and maintenance of the network and a technology upgrade 

to the buoys to provide real-time transmission of the data. Another requested increase includes $7.0 million for 

the NWS Telecommunications Gateway .. The gateway is the telecommunications hub for the collection and 

transmission of data and products, how NWS takes in and distributes the large amount of data generated every 

day. The request is to support the design and implementation of a new system architecture to support the 

increasing volume of observational information and weather forecast and warning information. 

The budget proposes a decrease of$1 1 million for the "congressionally directed use of funds for the National 

Mesonet Network," program intended to integrate commercial and government meteorological data to improve 

forecasting. The budget notes that this cut is requested because "~-WS receives a portion of observations from 

private sector networks free of charge and incorporates these data into operational weather forecast models. 

NOAA will collaborate with the private sector to continue such agreement~." Despite NOAA's intent to work 

with the private sector to receive such information free of charge, it is unlikely that this arrangement will 

continue. 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) 

The President's budget request for the National Enviromnental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) 

is $2.041 billion, an 8.7 percent increase over FY 2012 enacted levels. The majority of this request is for 

procurement and acquisition under two satellite programs, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)! and the 

Geostationary Operational Enviromnental Satellite R-Series (GOES-R). 

NESDIS Operations Research and Facilities (ORF) Account 

The ORF budget for NESDIS contains programmatic funding for management and processing of data received 

from all of NOAA's ground- and space-based weather monitoring equipment and is separated into three separate 

functions: Enviromnental Satellite Observing Systems; Archive, Access and Assessments; and Data Centers and 

Information Services. The net requested increase is $8.4 million over the FY2012 appropriation for operations. 

The Administration is requesting $9.4 million to process and distribute environmental data from the Suomi 

'N'POESS Preparatory Project (NPP) satellite mission. Suomi NPP is the first of the next generation of polar 

satellites launched in October 20 I I. Initially a research satellite intended to be a proof of concept, NPP was retasked as an operational satellite as continued delays and problems in the almost 20-year old polar satellite 

program did not yield a viable replacement for the existing polar satellites currently in orbit. 

1 This program was previously the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). a triagency program with the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). 

As part of the FY201 J budget request, the Administration split NPOESS into two programs. NOAA and NASA have 

responsibility for the JPSS program to cover the afternoon satellite orbit. DoD has already canceled its separate polar 

weather satellite program for the early morning orbit. 
6 

NOAA's Data Centers have started to transition from their legacy archive storage systems to ne\,\. Enterprise 

Archive system. This will allow data centers to deal with expanding volumes of data from satellites. weather 

radars. high resolution weather, ocean. and climate models, and other large data sets. The FY13 budget requests 

an increase of$5,8 million for the National Climatic Data Center to provide operations and maintenance of the 

Enterprise Archive and Access system and increase communications bandwidth to deliver large volumes of data. 

To offset this increase. the budget includes a decrease of $3.8 million for the National Oceanographic Data 

Center. The request also includes a reduction 01'$2 million for the Climate Database '-1odernization Program. 

This program digitizes climate and temperature data currently stored on paper and microfilm. A It hough paper 

records will he maintained, they will no longer be made accessible in a digital format. The Administration is also 

proposing to reduce Regional Climate Centers (RCCs) and the Regional Climate Service Directors (RCSDs) hy 

$1.0 million. These six centers funded in partnership with the States have been providing information and 

products to governments and private entities for more than two decades. The proposal would have the RCSDs 

directly manage the NOAA contract tor each of the RCCs. thereby reducing management overhead costs. 

NESDIS Procurement. Acquisitions, and Construction (PAC) Account 

The budget for NESDIS is dominated by acquisitions for NOAA's two weather satellite systems; the PolarOrbiting Environmental Satellites (POES). which orbit the earth and provide infonnation for medium to longrange weather forecasts; and the geostationary satellites (GOES), which gather data above a fixed position on the 

cm1h's surface and provide information for short-range warnings and current weather conditions. To maintain the 

continuity of weather forecasting datu as older satellites retire. a new series of satellites are under development for 

both systems. The net requested increase is $153.7 million above the FY20 12 appropriation for operations. 

Increases and decreases in the PAC account reflect different phases of satellite acquisition. For example. there is a 

proposed increase of$186.4 million above the FY20 12 appropriated level for the current series of GOES 

satellites. GOES-R, due to continued spacecraft and ground system development and support integration. testing 

and delivery of the first Flight Units. The funding increase will also allow a scaling up of ground system 

integration and test activities. Originally scheduled for launch in 2014. GOES-R has been delayed until late-20 15. 

and its projected cost has grown by $4.7 billion from the original estimate of$6.2 billion. The Administration 

now estimates the cost of the new GOES series at $10.9 hill ion through 2036. 

The PAC account also rellects the $33.5 million requested decrease for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). 

The JPSS total request of $916.4 million includes funding for continuing the development of the ground system, 

spacecrat, and instruments for JPSS-l. JPSS evolved from a tri-agency effort to develop a satellite system known 

as NPOESS2 The data and products from polar satellites are considered "mission-critical" for both civilian and 

military weather forecasting and climatology needs; however. the NPOESS program had major problems 

throughout its existence, Since 2002, oversight hy Congressional committees, Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) reports, and independent review teams had documented problems with satellite instrumentation. 

cooperation among the agencies involved. and the programts life-cycle cost. GAOls most recent testimony to the 

SSeT Committee indicated that total cost estimates for the polar satellite program had grown to more than $14 

billion. However. NOAA is calculating the totallife-cyde costs for JPSS to be $12.9 billion through 2024. 

Due in large part to these serious management issues. schedule slips. and cost over-runs, a major restructuring of 

NPOESS occurred in 2010. The decision dissolved the integrated program into two separate programs: a military 

program managed by the Department of Defense (000). and a civilian program managed by NOAA/NASA. The 

NOAA/NASA program known as JPSS is responsible for satellites Hying in the afternoon orbits while DoD 

satellites are responsible for tile morning orbits. The DoD program, the Defense Weather Satellite System 

(DWSS) was cancelled in FY 2012. DoD has not announced its plans for replacing DWSS. Whatever the toll owon DoD program will be. it is expected to deliver data to the same NOAA ground system. and :-.IOAA will 

J. NOAA. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DoD) collaborated to 

develop NPOESS. This tri-agency effort was split into two separate programs in February JO 1 o. 

4 
7 

continue to operate all satellites while in orbit'. The United States will rely on European satellhes for operational 

weather observations for the remaining late-morning. orbit. 

in addition to procuring these satellite systems. the Administration's request for JPSS includes $9.5 million to 

restore high priority climate sensors that were de-manifested from the NI'OESS program in 2006 as a result ofthc 

Nunn-McCurd:y mandated restructuring of the program. 

NOAA oversees several satellite systems in addition to GOES and POES. The Deep Space Climate Obselvatory 

(DSCOVR), tbmlerl), known as Triana. requests $22.0I11illion. a decrease of$6.9 million. to continue 

refurbishment of the satellite and develop a Coronal Mass Imager (CME) to maintain continuity of solar wind 

data used for geomagnetic storm warnings. DSCOVR is ajoint program with NASA, and NOAA has partnered 

with the U.S. Air Force to provide the launch vehicle and services. The JASON satellite series is managed in 

partnership with the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). The 

JASON-3 satellite FY 2013 budget request is a $1 0.3 million increase over the FY 2012 level of $20 million to 

continue the development of this altimetry satellite that will provide data for ocean climatolo,;.v and hurricane 

intensity forecasting. The launch of JASON-3 is scheduled for 2014. however. a launch vehicle has not yet been 

selected. 

Oceanic (m" Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

The omce of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is the primary research arm of NOAA. conducting the 

scientific research. environmental studies. and technology development necessary to improve NOAA operations. 

OAR activities are carried out at NOAA and via extramural research activities at 30 National Sea Grant colleges 

and universities. The Administration's FY2013 budget request for OAR is $413.8 million, a $29.1 million 

increase above the FY2012 level. The requested increase is primarily for climate research. 

CI iroate Research 

The President's FY2013 budget request for climate research at NOAA is for $212.7 million. a $28.2 million 

increase above FY2012 appropriated levels. The Administration's proposal includes a request for an increase of 

$0.5 million for the NOAA climate portal. Another requested increase in the FY2013 budget is $1.7 million for 

the Climate Model Data Archive. This program is intended to develop and implement an archiving capability for 

next generation climate analyses currently running on supercomputers in NOAA. the National Science 

Foundation and the Department of Energy. 

The Administration is proposing an increase of$8.0 million for Earth System Modeling for Urgent Climate 

issues. This request will continue funding for the development of Earth System Models that specifically explore 

uncertainties in sea-level risc pn~jections, examine the terrestrial carbon cycle and address gaps in the 

understanding of the Arctic climate system. The FY2013 budget request also includes an increase of$2.6 million 

to create a permanent ability to produce national and regional climate assessments. The Global Change Research 

Act of 19904 requires a scientitic assessment not less than every 4 years. 

The FY2013 request includes an increase of$4.6mi1lion for the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) to 

support critical ocean observations and analysis, progress in observational efforts in the Arctic. and develop 

technology to improve understanding of the deep ocean. Another requested inerease includes $1.5 million 10r the 

National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDlS). The funding for competitive research grants and 

contracts will heJp progress the Regional Drought Early \Van1ing Infonnation System by providing focused 

drought impacts research. 

The Administration requests an increase 01'$6.5 million for climate science on the global carbon cycle. aerosols 

and atmospheric chemistry. Funding will support NOAA labs and Cooperative Institutes to advance the 

understanding of the global carbon cycle and the role of aerosols and greenhouse gases in the global climate 

3 NOAA has been operating the Defense Meteorological Satellites for DoD since May 1998. 

'P.L. 10t-606 

5 
8 

system. Finally. the FY2013 budget request includes an increase of$3.1 million for Regional Intcgrated Sciences 

and Assessments (RISAs). This funding will support external research teams who work with stakeholders to 

develop and lIlilize new information aboUl the impacts of climate 011 communities, natura! and managed 

resources, infrastructure, transportation and heal tIl. 

Weather and_Air Chemistr\' Research 

The Administration is requesting $69.5 million tor weather and air chemistry research. Within this account the 

budget highlights an increase of almost $1.0 million for wind boundary layer research, This funding supports 

improved forecasts of wind at mid-altitudes. at heights where wind turbines arc deployed. In panicular. the 

request calls for funding to "deploy regional wind test beds designed to determine the optimal mix of 

instrumentation needed for wind resource characterization and forecast improvement within the region," 

Ocean, Cml&?l. and Gre~~t Lakes Research 

The Administration is requesting $108.8 million for FY20 13. a $6.8 million decrease below FY20 12 appropriated 

levels. Within this request. the Administration is proposing a $1.7 million decrease for the Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL). According to the budget. this decrease is possible through 

realizing efficiencies and relying more on partner agencies slich as the Environmental Prote(:tion Agency. 

Another proposal in the FY20 13 budget includes a decrease of$1.0 million for aquatic invasive species research 

and outreach \vithin the NOAA Sea Grant program. NOAA is also proposing to eliminate the National Undersea 

Rescarch Program (NURP) for a reduction or $3.9 million. 

Natiollal Ocean Service (NOS) 

The National Ocean Service (NOS) protects thc National Marine Sanctuaries and advocates coastal and ocean 

stewardship. The NOS also introduced electronic nautical charts that interface with Global Positioning Systems 

(GPS) to enhance the safety and efficiency of navigation of U.S. waterways. The President's FY 2013 request of 

$478.1 million would reduce overall fundillg for NOS programs by $11.9 million. or 2.4 percent. eompared to the 

FY 2012 enacted level. 

The Administration proposes a reduction 01'$2.3 million to eliminate the Navigation Response Team (NRT) 

program in FY2013. NRT's provide emergency hydrographic survey support to the U.S. Coast Guard, POI1 

officials and other first responders following accidents or natural events that create navigation hazards. and help 

to recommence safe and efficient marine transportation and commerce. The FY2013 budget request includes a 

$1.2 million increase Itlr the Tide and Current Data Program. This funding will enable the inspection of an 

additional 60 Natiollal Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) Stations per year. This data is critical for 

safety, oil spill response. National Weather Service storm surge and tsunami warnings. and long-term 

change planning. 

The budget request for the Ocean Assessment Program includes. an increase in funding for the Integrated Ocean 

Observing System (lOOS) regional observations of$6.6 million to develop and improve marine sensors that 

monitor changing conditions in the occans, coasts and Great Lakes. The Administration also proposes to 

reallocnte an additional $3.4 million from funds available to the regional association and a cooperative institute 

spc(:ifically for marine sensor development, demonstration, testing and evaluation. 

'rile FY 2013 budget request includes a $1.6 million increase for the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

(NCCOSl. for thc competitive research program to focus on harmful algal blooms. hypoxia. and coastal 

research. The NOS Procurement. Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account is also reduced by $8 

The Administration is not requesting any PAC funding for NOS for FY20 13. 

Program Support 

The Program SUppOI1 line office supports corporate services and agency management. This includes the Under 

Secretary's office. the office of the Chief Financial Officer. the Program. Planning and Intcf,,'Tation Officc. and the 

NOAA Education Program. OveralL the Administration requests an increase in the Program Support account of 

$C).7 million, for a total 0[$476.8 million, a 2.1 percent increase over the FY 1:2 enacted level. 

6 
9 

Environmental Protection Agency 

The President's FY 2013 budget request I(lf the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is $8.34 billion, a 

reduction of 1.0 percent below FY 2012 levels. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has 

,iurisdiction over the Science and Technology budget listed in Table 2 below. 

Table 2: EPA FY 2013 Budget Re uest I dollars in millions) 

FY13 Request 

Versus 

FYll FY12 FYI3 FYll Enacted 

Account Enacted Enacted Request S %) 

Science and Technology 813.5 793.7 807.3 13.5 1.7 

Office of Research and 

Development 581.7 568.0 575.6 7.6 1.3 

Superfund R& D 26.8 23.0 23.2 0.2 1.0 

FY 2f1]3 Science & Technology Account: Office '!f Research and Deve/opmem 

The Administration's budget request for S&T is $807.3 million. This includes $575.6 million for the OtTice of 

Research and Development (ORD). S&T activities conducted by other program offices (e.g. Office of Air, ornCt 

of Water). as well as $23.2 million rtqoested for S&T activities associated with the Superfund program. In the 

past. the Superfund S&T funds were drawn primarily from the Superfund trust that was funded by the dedicated 

Superfund tax. Since the expiration of the tax all funds must be appropriated from general revenues. 

Approximately 74 percent of S&T funding is for EPA's ORD. whieh is the primary research arm of the agency. 

Most of the remaining S&T funds go to the Office of Air and Radiation, and a smaller amount to the Office of 

Water and to the other program offices. 

ORD conducts and sponsors both fundamental research in environmental science and more targeted research to 

inform EPA '5 regulatory programs. For example, ORD provides scientific information to support and implement 

the Clean Water Act. ORD also develops the scientific risk information for the agency's Integrated Risk 

Information System (lRIS), a database of human health efiects of certain chemicals. This program is used by 

EPA. individual states, and other government agencies to dctcnninc ha7-2.rctous waste site clean-up. drinking 

water, and other health-based standards. ORD develops the scientific underpinning for EPA's air quality 

standards in areas such as particulate matter and ozone. ORD also investigates the environmental implications of 

emerging areas such as nanotechnology and endocrine disruptors. 

ORD carries out these responsibilities by conducting intramural research at EPA'5 laboratories, a\varding 

contracts, and supporting fellowships and research at colleges and universities through the Science to Achieve 

Results (STAR) grant program. The FY2013 budget request includes $81 million for the STAR grant 

$5 million increase over fV20! 2 enacted levels. to invest in the next generation of environmental 

leverage wider scientific community expertise on key issues. 

EPA has identified five major goals of the Agency, and presents its hudget broken down into funding for each of 

the five goals. 

EPA's nrst goal is Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality. The research program in ORD 

supporting this goal is tbe Air. Climate. and Energy Research Program. The Administration's FY20 13 budget 

request ttlr Air, Climate, and Energy is $105.9 million. a $7 million increase above FY2012 enacted levels. 

Within this program, the Agency plans to develop eflieient. high-performing, and cost-effective air quality 

monitors. The program will also support the improvement ofthe Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

7 
10 

modeling system, a major tool llsed to determine compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) levels. Improvements to this model will enhance the ability to accurately model changes in ozone, 

particulate matter. and hazardous air pollutant concentrations. The FY2013 budget request will also support study 

of the generation, fate, transport, and chemical transformation of air emission to identify individual and 

population health risks. The request also includes funding for research on hydraulic fracturing. specifically 

assessing the potential air. ecosystem and water quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing, This request is $4.5 

million to be split among EPA. the Department of Energy. and the Department of the Interior. EPA's portion of 

this effort is $14 million. an $8 million increase above its individual hydraulic fracturing study effort undertaken 

in FYI2. 

EPA"s second goal is Protecting America"s \Vaters. The research program at ORD supporting this goal is the 

Safe and Sustainable \Vater Resources research program. The Administration"s FY2013 request for this research 

program is $1 21.2 million. a $7.7 million increase above FY2012 enacted levels. This proflram will support 

research that helps decision-makers identifY necessary actions to protect water resources, including information 

about complex tradeoffs, water contaminants and nutrient management on watershed. regional and national scales. 

This research will inform the Agency's National Wetlands Condition Report. The Safe and Sustainable Water 

Resources research program will continue to support the development and implementation of guidance 011 green 

infrastructure projects. 

EPA's third goal is Clean Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development. The research program at 

ORD supporting this goal is the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHCRP). The 

Administration'S FY2013 request for this research program is $165.7 million. a decrease ofS5.0 million below 

FY20 J:: enacted levels. This research program uses interactive social media and other means to assist 

communities and stakeholders in the planning. design. and implemcntation of data and tools that support 

sustainahle community decisions. This program also conducts research in forecasting and assessing ecological 

and community health. SHeRP also assesses cutting edge sustainable practlces for four community decision 

areas: waste and materials management: energy and water infrastructure: transportation; and planning and zoning 

for building and land usc. 

EPA's fourth goal is Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution. The research program at ORD 

supporting this goal is the Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research Program (CSSRP). The Administration's 

FY20 I 3 request for this research program is $94.2 million, an increase of$2.5 million above FY20 12 enacted 

levels, CSSRP support research in developing enhanced chemical screening and testing techniques. This 

includes efforts to validate and use computational toxicology and high throughput screening methods. 

EPA's tillh goal is Enforcing Environmental Laws. There are no research programs that directly support this 

goal. 

8 
11 

Table 3: EI'A ORD FY 2013 Budget Request (dollars in millions) 

FY13 R~quest I vs. 

FYII FY12 FY13 FY12 Enacted 

~!''!I-. ____ Pr"gr~I1l/Pr~ Enacted Enacted Request . . .s._L...-Y~ 

Science and Congressionally Mandated Projects 0.0 5.0 0.0 (5.0) (100.0) 

Technology Homeland Total Progral)1 24.6 24.6 24.3 (OA) (L6) 

Secl.\r1ty: Decrmlamination 15.5 15.6 15.4 (0.2) (1.1) 

Preparedness, Safe Buildings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Response. and Other Research I -

I 

Recovery 9.1 9.0 8.8 (0.2) I (2.5) I I , 

Human Health Risk Assessment 43.0 39.6 40.5 1.0 2.4 

Research: Air, Total Program 106.3 98.8 105.9 7.0 7:1 

Climate. and Global Change 20.4 18.3 20.3 2.0 11.0 Energy Research 

Clean Air 81.6 78.5 82.9 4.3 5.5 Research 

Other Research 4.2 2.0 , 2.8 0.7 35.1 

Research: Safe Total Program 117.3 113.5 121.2 7.7 6.8 

and Sustainable .' Drinking Water I 

Water Research 50.9 50.2 51.7 1.5 2.9 

Resources Water Quality 

h;6A 63.3 69.5 6.3 9.9 Research 

Research: Tota! Program 173.8 170;7 1.65.7 (5.0) (2.9) 

Swstainable and Human Health 46.4 45.3 44.5 (0.8) (1.8) I Healthy Research I 

Communities Ecosvstems 62.3 60.8 60.2 (1.0) Rese~rch I 

I 

-----_. . Other Research 65.2 64.6 61.1 (3.6) (5.5) I 

Research: Total Program 89.2 91.7 94.2 25 2.7 I 

I 

Chemical Sarety Endocrine 

I and " Disruptors 15.9 16.9 16.3 (0.6) (3.6) 

I I Sustainabiliiy Research 

I 

21.1 I 21.2 I 21.3 0.1 OA I 

I 

~~.~~C;~'tv I 

Other Research 52.2 53.7 r 56.7 3.0 5.6 

S&T Appropriation Total 554.3 544.0 551.8 7.8 1.4 

I LUST* Research: Sustainable and Healthy 0.4 OA I 0.5 0.1 I ~, ~ 

~lllalldOil Communities ... J. r 

Research: Sustainable and Healthy 0.7 I 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.8 ~SpilJs Communities 

I Superfund Homeland Security: Preparedness, 2.1 2.0 2.1 0.1 7.4 ReSPollse. and Recovery 

I ~1 Health Risk Assessment 4.0 3.3 I 3.3 0.0 (0.6) 

Research: Sustainable and Healthy 20.6 17.7 

~~~.~--- 0.1 0.7 Communities -----_._- Su~erf\llld A~~ro~riation Total 26.8 23.0 0.2 1.1 

, Grand Total 582.2 568.0 I 576.1 8.2 1.4 

* Leakmg llndergmund Sto! age 1 ank PlOgram 

9 
12 

Chairman HARRIS. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency Budgets 

for Fiscal Year 2013.’’ In front of you are the packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony Disclosures for today’s witness panel. I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing. Unfortunately, I have to begin by expressing a matter of disappointment. 

The President’s budget request for the Federal Government was released more than three weeks ago, but NOAA has still not delivered its budget justification documents to Congress. This Subcommittee oversees NOAA’s $5 billion budget and has a responsibility to review and react to the details of the President’s budget. 

In the absence of budget details, we are simply unable to provide 

a complete assessment of the request. Last week, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science had to cancel its hearing as a result of that delay. We have chosen to go forward with this hearing due to scheduling constraints, but I must 

impress upon you, Administrator Lubchenco, that this abdication of 

such a simple responsibility influences the perception on the Hill 

that the Administration is not being a good steward of taxpayer 

money. 

One of the major themes of the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request has been the need to make tough choices. Only in Washington, as we face an unprecedented fiscal train wreck and continue to be forced to borrow 40 cents on the dollar, can a requested 

budget increase of 3.1 percent for NOAA and 1.4 percent for EPA 

be characterized as making tough choices. Even within these requested increases, the Administration is prioritizing its political environmental agendas ahead of the core scientific needs of the Nation. 

For NOAA, satellites now comprise 40 percent of the total budget 

request. This is up from 31 percent just two years ago. While the 

Committee applauds the successful launch of the Suomi NPP satellite, we continue to have grave concerns with the current trajectory of the Joint Polar Satellite System program. Even NOAA’s 

own optimistic schedule of a launch of the next polar satellite in 

the early part of 2018—and I say optimistic since it took 18 years 

to get the first satellite off the ground—still leaves us with an almost certain gap in data availability. 

The limited budget information provided to the Committee thus 

far provides no indication that NOAA has a plan to develop a solution that ensures continual, high-quality data for weather forecasting. The extreme weather events just last week and this week 

further highlight the importance of this data to saving lives and 

property. Further, the delays and cost over-runs so systemic to 

NOAA’s satellite programs is forcing significant reductions in the 

budget for important activities such as oceans, fisheries, and 

weather. 

Another big winner in NOAA’s budget request is climate research. In the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research alone, 

more than $212 million is allotted for climate research, a 15 per-
13 

cent increase above last year, whereas less than $70 million is set 

aside for research in weather and air chemistry. Taken together 

with the cuts to the National Weather Service, the budget indicates 

the Administration has prioritized understanding climate conditions decades from now over predicting weather conditions tomorrow. Given the potential for innovations in weather forecasting to 

greatly aid the economy and save lives and property, the continued 

prioritization of climate over weather is highly disappointing and 

should be rejected by Congress. 

The Administration’s budget request for science and technology 

activities at EPA is similarly concerning. In a series of hearings on 

EPA’s research activities, this Subcommittee examined in detail 

the line between politics and science at the Agency. While Administrator Jackson has stated that ‘‘Science is the backbone of everything we do at the EPA,’’ it is a very weak backbone struggling to 

support the enormous weight of the Administration’s regulatory 

ambitions. The Office of Research and Development represents less 

than seven percent of the $8.3 billion request for EPA. Instead of 

conducting fundamental environmental research, the Agency sacrifices sober analysis in favor of the outcome-driven science demanded by the President’s anti-energy agenda. All too often, what 

passes for peer review of Agency science is a rubber stamp by supposedly independent scientific advisors who also happen to be recipients of EPA’s largesse. 

The President’s focus on climate change and the ongoing efforts 

to find a regulatory angle to restrict the shale gas revolution comes 

at the expense of worthwhile R&D. EPA is requesting substantial 

increases for these two areas, including more than $240 million for 

duplicative climate change activities and $14 million for work on 

hydraulic fracturing of questionable value. 

Following the sloppy and highly questionable actions of the 

Agency in investigating water concerns in Pavillion, Wyoming, and 

Dimock, Pennsylvania, and the inability to follow its own peer review guidelines in the endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, 

I have little confidence in EPA’s ability to conduct trusted, quality 

science in this area, and as such cannot support the significant expansion of hydraulic fracturing research called for in this request. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee, and I look forward to a constructive discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing to examine the Administration’s fiscal year 2013 budgets for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Unfortunately, I have to begin by expressing my extreme disappointment. The 

President’s budget request for the Federal Government was released more than 

three weeks ago. However, NOAA has incredibly still not delivered its budget justification documents to Congress. This Subcommittee oversees NOAA’s five billion 

dollar budget and has a responsibility to review and react to the details of the President’s request. In the absence of budget details, we are simply unable to provide 

a complete assessment of the request. Last week, the Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Justice, and Science had to cancel its hearing as a result of NOAA’s 

delays. We have chosen to go forward with this hearing due to scheduling con-
14 

straints, but I must impress upon you, Administrator Lubchenco, that this abdication of such a simple responsibility influences the perception on the Hill that the 

Administration is not being a good steward of taxpayer money. 

One of the major themes of the President’s FY 2013 budget request has been the 

need to make tough choices. Only in Washington, as we face an unprecedented fiscal 

train wreck and continue to be forced to borrow 40 cents on the dollar, can a requested budget increase of 3.1 percent for NOAA and 1.4 percent for EPA be characterized as making ‘‘tough choices.’’ Even within these requested increases, the Administration is prioritizing its political environmental agendas ahead of the core scientific needs of the Nation. 

For NOAA, satellites now comprise 40 percent of the total budget request. This 

is up from 31 percent two years ago. While the Committee applauds the successful 

launch of the Suomi NPP satellite, we continue to have grave concerns with the current trajectory of the Joint Polar Satellite System program. Even NOAA’s own optimistic schedule of a launch of the next polar satellite in the early part of 2018— 

and I say optimistic since it took 18 years to get the first satellite off the ground— 

still leaves us with a ‘‘almost certain’’ gap in data availability. The limited budget 

information provided to the Committee thus far provides no indication that NOAA 

has a plan to develop a solution that ensures continual, high-quality data for weather forecasting. The extreme weather events just last week further highlight the importance of this data to saving lives and property. Further, the delays and cost overruns so systemic to NOAA’s satellite programs are forcing significant reductions in 

the budget for important activities such as oceans, fisheries, and weather. 

Another big winner in NOAA’s budget request is climate research. In the Office 

of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research alone, more than $212.0 million is allotted for 

climate research—a 15 percent increase above last year—whereas less than $70 million is set aside for research in weather and air chemistry. Taken together with the 

cuts to the National Weather Service, the budget indicates the Administration has 

prioritized understanding climate conditions decades from now over predicting 

weather conditions tomorrow. Given the potential for innovations in weather forecasting to greatly aid the economy and save lives and property, the continued 

prioritization of climate over weather is highly disappointing and should be rejected 

by Congress. 

The Administration’s budget request for science and technology activities at EPA 

is similarly concerning. In a series of hearings on EPA’s research activities, this 

Subcommittee examined in detail the line between politics and science at the Agency. While Administrator Jackson has stated that ‘‘Science is the backbone of everything we do at the EPA,’’ it is a very weak backbone struggling to support the enormous weight of the Administration’s regulatory ambitions. The Office of Research 

and Development represents less than seven percent of the $8.3 billion request for 

EPA. Instead of conducting fundamental environmental research, the Agency sacrifices sober analysis in favor of the outcome-driven science demanded by the President’s anti-energy agenda. All too often, what passes for peer review of Agency 

science is a rubber stamp by supposedly independent scientific advisors, who also 

happen to be recipients of EPA’s largesse. 

The President’s focus on climate change and the ongoing effort to find a regulatory angle to restrict the shale gas revolution comes at the expense of worthwhile 

R&D. EPA is requesting substantial increases for these two areas, including more 

than $240 million for duplicative climate change activities and $14 million for work 

on hydraulic fracturing of questionable value. Following the sloppy and highly questionable actions of the Agency in investigating water concerns in Pavillion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania, and the inability to follow its own peer review 

guidelines in the Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gases, I have little confidence in EPA’s ability to conduct trusted, quality science in this area, and as such 

cannot support the significant expansion of hydraulic fracturing research called for 

in this request. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee, and I look 

forward to a constructive discussion. 

Chairman HARRIS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller for five 

minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also want to welcome the witnesses today, Dr. Lubchenco from NOAA, and later, 

Mr. Kadeli from the EPA. I want to thank both of you for being 

here today. 
15 

We are likely to spend much of this hearing discussing two subjects these agencies are now tackling, if subcommittee and committee hearings in this Congress are any indication at least, first, 

understanding the environmental and human health effects of a 

massive expansion in oil and gas drilling, principally fracking; and, 

second, understanding the nature of our changing climate and 

what effects it will have. 

Those are critical research areas that EPA and NOAA are 

uniquely qualified to undertake. But a discussion limited to hydraulic fracturing and climate change ignores the broad scope of 

the scientific activities these agencies pursue and the critical role 

they play in our lives every day. 

From forecasting the weather to protecting public health by ensuring cleaner air and water, those roles are too easily disregarded 

and unfairly demonized at times in the fog of partisan politics. We 

must not lose sight of the contribution that decades of science and 

technology research have provided to our economy and public 

health. 

While today we will see areas of agreement and disagreement on 

the appropriate resources and directions for NOAA and EPA, I 

think that we should all agree that good policy begins with good 

science, and that good science is not free. 

We must recognize the value of those programs and work together to protect every American’s right to cleaner air and water 

and a healthier environment. 

I understand the need to set priorities in times of fiscal restraint 

as we appear now to be in and commend the Administration for 

doing that, but there are aspects of each of the budgets that concern me. Despite the challenging economic times, it is unwise to 

sacrifice the services that the public relies on such as weather forecasting and our warning capabilities, nor should we undermine 

America’s future by failing to invest in the next-generation workforce of scientists. We can be fiscally responsible while still making 

the necessary investments to keep our country and our environment healthy and the American economy competitive. 

It is hard at times to avoid cliches in politics, but I try. There 

is a phrase that is widely used because it is frequently apt. We are 

eating our seed corn. That is my great concern about our budget 

for research. 

Dr. Lubchenco and Mr. Kadeli, as you testify today, please explain how the proposed cuts and increases will affect your Agency’s 

ability to protect the health and well-being of our citizens and communities, and how the President’s request will move our Nation’s 

science enterprise in the right direction. I look forward to working 

with you both, with all of you, in the months ahead. 

I will support the agencies on a lot of things, but I think you 

should get your budget justification in, too. Second, I understand 

the Department of Commerce is now resisting documents I am not 

sure the Committee still wants on the basis that they are predecisional. I will not support agencies in refusing to release documents based upon exceptions to the requirements of FOIA. The 

Congress request, it is not pursuant to FOIA. The courts do recognize a limited pre-decisional immunity from production, but it is 

very limited. If there is any reason for producing it, the Adminis-
16 

tration should produce it. And there is almost always a reason 

when Congress asks that a document that outlines how the decision—made the decision they made—is a sufficient basis for Congress to ask for it. So I also urge the Administration, EPA, NOAA, 

Commerce to release documents without regard to whether they 

are pre-decisional or post-decisional. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BRAD MILLER

Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also wish to welcome the witnesses, Dr. 

Lubchenco from NOAA, and later, Mr. Kadeli here from the EPA. Thank you both 

for being here today. 

We are likely to spend much of this hearing discussing two subjects these agencies are now tackling. First, understanding the environmental and human health effects of a massive expansion in oil and gas drilling; and second, understanding the 

nature of our changing climate and what effects it will have. 

These are critical research areas that EPA and NOAA are uniquely qualified to 

undertake. However, a discussion limited to hydraulic fracturing and climate change 

ignores the broad scope of the scientific activities these agencies pursue and the critical role they play in our lives every day. 

From forecasting the weather to protecting public health by ensuring cleaner air 

and water, these roles are too easily disregarded, and unfairly demonized, in the fog 

of partisan politics. We must not lose sight of the contribution that decades of 

science and technology research have provided to our economy and public health. 

While today we will see areas of agreement and disagreement on the appropriate 

resources and directions for NOAA and EPA, I think that we should all agreee that 

good policy begins with good science, and that good science is not free. 

We must recognize the value of these programs and work together to protect every 

American’s right to cleaner air and water and a healthier environment. 

I understand the need to set priorities in times of fiscal restraint and commend 

the Administration for doing so; there are aspects of each budget that concern me. 

Despite the challenging ecomonic times, it is unwise to sacrifice serivces that the 

public relies on, such as weather forecasting and warning capabilities. Nor should 

we undermine America’s future by failing to invest in the next-generation workforce 

of scientists. We can be fiscally responsible while still making the necessary investments to keep our country and environment healither and the American economy 

competitive. 

It is hard to avoid cliches in politics, but I try. There is a phrase that is widely 

used because it is frequently apt: we are eating our seed corn. That is my great concern about our budget for research. 

Dr. Lubchenco and Mr. Kadeli, as you testify today, please explain how the proposed cuts and increases will affect your agencies’ ability to protect the health and 

well-being of our citizens and communities, and how the President’s request will 

move our Nation’s science enterprise in the right direction. 

I look forward to working with you all in the months ahead. I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. If there are 

Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 

statements will be added to the record at this point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witness for the first 

panel. The Honorable Jane Lubchenco is the Administrator of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the Department of Commerce. She is a marine ecologist and environment scientist by training with expertise in oceans, climate change and 

interactions between the environment and human well-being. She 

received her M.S. in zoology from the University of Washington 

and her Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard University. 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee today. As you 

should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, after 

which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each 
17 

to ask questions, and I now recognize you as our witness for the 

panel, Dr. Lubchenco. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for your leadership and your 

continued support of NOAA. I would like to start by extending 

NOAA’s condolences to the families who lost loved ones in last 

week’s tornados. Our local forecasters in the affected communities 

know the pain and the long road to recovery these destructive 

storms create. They also know the resilience of these communities. 

As home of the National Weather Service, NOAA is proud to be 

the Nation’s first line of preparedness against severe weather. The 

March 2 outbreak was classified as a major outbreak. 2012 now 

ranks in the top five years for the number of tornados from January 1 through March 2 since detailed records began in 1950. 

These events highlight the importance of everyone being ready 

for severe weather. That is why NOAA is making a Weather-Ready 

Nation a top priority. Last week our forecasters were able to give 

communities three days to prepare for Friday’s storms, and as tornados were bearing down, lifesaving warnings were issued an average of 16 minutes prior to each tornado striking. Our towns will 

rebuild, and NOAA’s National Weather Service will continue to deliver the lifesaving services our Nation relies upon. 

I am honored to be here today to discuss the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request. Just as families and businesses have 

made tough choices with tighter budgets, NOAA has prioritized our 

activities. We have proposed targeted investments while looking for 

efficiencies in our operations and in some cases, terminating or severely reducing activities. We have put forward a budget that reflects our dedication to providing some of the most critical lifesaving jobs and job-supporting services that America’s businesses, 

individuals and communities rely upon. 

We sincerely apologize for the delay in sending NOAA Congressional justification to Congress. Staff producing the CJ are working 

hard to complete the product as quickly as possible. As you know, 

the majority of the CJ lays out the justification for funding changes 

in the base. The major reason for the delay was that the fiscal year 

2012 spend plan was not finalized until a few days ago, which kept 

the base levels of many programs in flux. Furthermore, adjustments that were made as the fiscal year 2012 spend plan was being 

finalized also led to late changes in the fiscal year 2013 funding 

levels. The result was uncertainty surrounding many of the numbers, affecting a large portion of the CJ until very recently. We will 

deliver the NOAA CJ to you by March 14. We are committing to 

reviewing the process for the CJs to ensure timely delivery in the 

future. In the meantime, we hope the budget in brief that was 

available provided some critical information, and we are happy to 

provide more briefings now that more information is available. 

Turning to the fiscal year 2013 request, our request which totals 

$5.1 billion is an increase of $153 million, 3.1 percent above the fiscal year 2012. To construct this budget, we sought administrative 
18 

savings and made very tough choices to enable our top priorities. 

NOAA anticipates reaching our fiscal year 2012 target of $68 million in administrative savings. An additional $16 million is targeted for 2013. While we take significant steps to help reduce government spending, key investments are necessary to meet the 

growing demand for NOAA’s science and services. 

One of the greatest challenges that NOAA faces is the continuity 

of our satellite operations. We appreciate the broad, bipartisan 

Congressional support these programs received last year. Sustained 

funding for these satellites is important. The JPSS, the Joint Polar 

Satellite System, and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series programs are two of our highest priorities. Together they will inform what we need to keep people safe. 

We have done everything possible to contain costs in these satellite 

programs. Funding is critical to keep the programs on track and 

minimize the duration of the expected gap between the recently 

launched Suomni NPP satellite and JPSS. Without full funding, 

the risk that there would be a more significant gap increases greatly. 

2011 rewrote the record book on extreme weather and provided 

a sobering reminder of our vulnerability. In response, the National 

Weather Service launched an initiative called Weather-Ready Nation. The 2013 budget requests $972 million to produce and deliver 

forecasts and services and improve the economic value of weather, 

water, and climate information. 

Our coastal communities are major contributors to the economy, 

and our budget supports those in numerous ways. Vibrant coastal 

communities depend on healthy oceans and thriving maritime commerce. NOAA’s request includes $478 million for the National 

Ocean Service. 

In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you today, and I look forward to your questions today as well as 

continuing discussions as you make decisions on this very important budget. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:] 
19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
20 

fishermen (putting healthy seafood on our plates or enjoying a family day out on the water) all 

trust NOAA's nautical charts and tide and current data 10 operate safely and efficiently. Fanners 

rely on our long-range forecasts to decide which crops to plant and when. Coastal communities 

rely on NOAA's stewardship of fisheries and coastal resources to support local industries. such 

as tourism and fish processors. The list goes on and on. It is hard to imagine a sector of the 

economy that does not depend on NOAA in one way or another. We support stewardship that 

makes economic sense for a healthy environment and economy, and invest in science for today 

for a better tomorrow. 

The FY 2013 President's Budget will: 

(I) Provide life-saving and job-supporting services needed to prepare and protect 

American citizens, communities, businesses and infrastructure; 

(2) Provide the core scientific information underlying our mission, and 

(3) Invest in the resiliency of our vibrant coastal communities. 

The NOAA budget reflects difficult choices and continues our commitment to find efficiencies 

in our operations while seeking new partnerships. 

FY 2013 BUDGET REQUEST AND FY 2011 HIGHLIGHTS 

The NOAA FY 2013 proposed budget totals $5.1 billion, an increase of$153.9 million, or 3.1 percent 

above FY 2012. NOAA's staff of dedicated professionals, working with extramural researchers. 

industries. and domestic and international partners, are expanding meteorological prediction 

capahilities; enhancing our knowledge of climate change; improving eoastal resource management; 

continuing to chart our seas and coaSLS; and enhancing environmental stewardship. NOAA is 

committed to understanding and monitoring our oceans and atmosphere, predicting changes in the 

Earth's environment. and conserving and managing ocean and coastal resources, while making sure 

that we deliver as economically as possible the highest level of service. 

President Obama has called upon the entire federal government to be more efficient and effective. As 

a result. the Department of Commerce continues to seck ways to improve the efficiency of programs 

without reducing their effectiveness. Building on NOAA's FY 2012 savings of$67.7 million, an 

additional $15.8 million in savings is targeted for FY 2013. 

NOAA had numerous outstanding accomplishments in FY 20 II. NOAA and the Natural Resource 

Damage co-trustees reached an unprecedentcd agreement with British Petroleum (BP) to provide $1 

billion for early restoration projecLs in the Gulf of Mexico, as a down payment for economic and 

ecological recovery from the 20 I 0 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. NOAA put in place annual catch 

limits and accountability measures for almost all 528 federally-managed fish stocks and complexes, 

ensuring that the Nation's fisheries are on the long path to sustainability. NOAA skillfully forecasted 

Hurricane Irene's track with a 48-hour track error of 71 nautical miles - 20 percent better than the 5-

year mean of90 nautical miles. And NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters were able 

to issue warnings well in advance of numerous record-breaking severe weather events, such as 4-

month advanced warnings for emcrgency managers and citizens about severe flooding in the midwest. These accomplishments set the stage for our FY 2013 request. 

2 
21 

The FY 2013 budget request focuses on three core mission areas, beginning with the need for a 

Weather-Ready Nation, 

Weather-Ready Nation: Communities that are ReadY. Responsiye, and Resilient 

Record weather and climate disasters occurred in 2011, including extreme drought. heat waves, 

floods, unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires. a tsunami, and winter storms. 

Tornadoes, hail. and severe thunderstorms caused an estimated $46.5 billion in economic losses 

($25.8 billion in insured losses) in the United States. Sadly. 2011 was the deadliest tornado season 

since 1936, with 552 direct fatalities. 

More and more sectors of the U.S. economy are looking for ways to increase their resilience to 

severe weather and reduce the potential of significant societal and economic impacts. Even 

though NOAA was able to provide advanced warning of many severe events this year. the loss of 

life and property was still too high. To address these issues. NWS launched a new initiative this 

year called Weather-Ready Nation. NOAA envisions a Weather-Ready Nation as a society that is 

prepared for, and responds to, weather-related events. The FY 2013 President's Budget support, 

the highest priority core requirements necessary to address NOAA's Weather-Ready Nation 

goal, requesting $972.2 million for the NWS. The request allows the NWS to produce and 

deliver accurate and timely forecasts, provide services in a cost-effective manner, continue to 

work with communities and emergency managers to reduce weather-related fatalities, and 

improve the economic value of weather. water, and climate information. 

A nationwide survey indicates that 96 percent of the U.S. public obtains, either actively or 

passively, 301 billioll forecasts each year. Based on an average anllual household value of $286 

placed on weather information, the American public collectively receives $31.5 billion in 

benefits from forecasts each year.2 

The FY 2013 budget includes an increase of $7 million to support the critical upgrade and update 

of the NWS Telecom Gateway, the backbone ofNWS's information delivery system. and an 

increase of $12.4 million for ground system readiness to ensure that the NWS is prepared to 

ingest data coming from NOAA's new weather satellites. While these increases are required, 

NWS has developed a new more cost-effective IT service delivery solution for maintaining the 

IT systems at the 122 Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs). NWS requests a decrease of$9.7 

million to consolidate Information Technology Officer positions at each WFO into regional IT 

collaboration units reducing staffing requirements by 80 percent without affecting the quality of 

services including warnings and forecasts. Reducing staff is never easy and NOAA is committed 

to making every eff()rt to reduce staffing through attrition and explore offering buyouts or early 

retirement. 

NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) oversees the scientific 

investments that ensure NOAA's weather and climate information is state of the art. The FY 

2013 request of $413.8 million for OAR focuses on the highest priority and most essential 

services for building a future Weather-Ready Nation. OAR research continually improves our 

::: l K. Lazo. R. E. Morss, 1. L. Demuth, 300 billion served: sources. perceptions. uses, and values of weather 

forecasts. BlIiietin oj/he American Meleoroiogie"i Society, 90(6) (June, 2009). 

3 
22 

warning systems and predictive capacity with programs such as the on-going development of the 

next generation of weather radars, Multifunction Phased Array Radar, and hurricane models that 

are now in operation at the National I-l urricane Center. One of the largest investments NOAA is 

making in FY 2013 is an increase of$28.1 million for a total of$212.7 million in climate 

research in OAR (A total of$342 million is proposed to support the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program). These funds-much of which will be competitively awarded to academic 

institutions-- will improve our understanding of the changing climate system and its impacts 

through more sophisticated climate modeling, national assessments, external and private-sector 

partnerships. as well as regional climate information and delivery. Easily accessible and relevant 

information is required to help communities better prepare for these events and make informed 

decisions. Within that funding level. continued development and use of state-of-the-art Earth 

System Models to address urgent climate issues, including sea level rise and Arctic climate 

change, will be supported by an investment of$8 million. and an increase of$4.6 million in 

Arctic monitoring and full ocean depth profiling floats will improve seasonal forecasts, as well 

as our ability to chart ocean and sea ice levels. The OAR request also includes an investment or 

$855 thousand to support research into wind boundary layers. a fertile area for clean energy 

generation. 

Further support for a Weather-Ready Nation is found in thc FY 2013 budget request for NOAA's 

fleet, with a request of $241.1 million for the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. These 

vessels and airplanes are data acquisition platforms crucial to providing scientific observations 

and maintaining our observing systems. This budget requests an increase of $2.0 million to 

provide for more flight hours that will be used for hurricane reconnaissance and research missions 

aimed at improving hurricane intensity forecasts, as well as observations for accurate and reliable 

winter stonll warnings and forecasts. snow pack surveys, and ocean wind data. 

NOAA missions, from issuing accurate hurricane warnings to providing timely weather forecasts 

and accurate seasonal predictions. depcnd on data from an integrated suite of observing systems. 

These systems provide a global picture of the atmosphere and oceans, as well as high-definition 

3-dimensional views of individual storms. J turn next to a crucial component of the suite -

NOAA's geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites. 

Satellites; High-tech Environmental Observations that Help Protect Lives and Property 

One of the greatest challenges facing NOAA today is ensuring continuity of satellite operations. 

NOAA's satellites provide the data and information for forecasts and warnings that are vital to 

every citizen. From safe air, land, and marine transportation to emergency rescue missions, 

Americans rely on satellite observations daily. Timely and accurate information supports the 

NWS, federal and state agencies. and local emergency management agencies, enabling advance 

warnings of emerging severe weather such as hurricanes, flash floods, tsunamis. winter storms, 

and wild fires. Along with the skill of NOAA meteorologists, NOAA's satellites are critical to 

the success of national forecasts and are the backbone of the global earth observing system and 

the global weather prediction capability. Satellite observations also assist NOAA's National 

Ocean Service (NOS) in monitoring coastal ecosystem health. such as coral bleaching, and 

identifying and monitoring potential maritime hazards from sea ice - key issues addressed in the 

National Ocean Policy. Although satellites do not observe fish stocks directly, the National 

4 
23 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can utilize satellite measurements such as sea-surface 

temperature, sea-surface height. ocean color. ocean winds and sea ice to characterize critical 

habitat that influences marine resources. 

The FY 2013 President's Budget Request of$2.0 billion for NOAA's National Environmental 

Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) supports the highest priority and most essential 

services for developing. acquiring. and managing satellite and satellite data operations. The Joint Polar 

Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOESR) programs are two of NOAA 's highest priorities. The FY 20 I 3 request reflects the need for 

increases within the satellite portfolio necessary to maintain these crucial instruments. This includes a 

planned increase of$186.4miliion for the GOES-R program, as well as an investment of$9.4 million 

for data processing and distribution for the Suomi-National Polar-orbiting Partnership mission and the 

same support filr the follow-on program. JPSS. 

The next generation of GOES-R is expected to be launched by 2015. and will become fully 

operational by 2017. The increase in FY 2013 President's Budget for GOES-R is necessary to 

secure the launch vehicle and support further development of the satellite and its instruments. 

This series of satellites will include upgraded technology. such as an improved Advanced 

Baseline Imager (ABI), which will provide faster and higher-resolution image scans, covering a 

larger geographic area. Enhanced ABI capabilities will help decrease forecast error and expand 

the list of geostationary products NOAA offers. Improved tropical forecasts from GOES-R 

products are expected to prevent annual losses to the recreational boating industry valued at $3 I 

million in 2015 3 The new ABI technology will also enhance volcanic ash plume tracking, so 

pilots can receive advance warning and be routed around the damaging and deadly plumes. The 

annual net economic benefit to the airline industry from these enhancements is estimated to be 

$58 million in 2015.') 

NOAA satellites also help forecast energy demands for communities, largely based on 

temperature forecasts. GOES-R data will allow for more accurate temperature forecasts, thereby 

enabling energy providers to better prepare for changes in energy demand. Annual savings for 

the energy sector are expected to be $256 million in 20]5 5 Finally. improved information from 

GOES-R will enable researchers and forecasters to produce more accurate forecasts. That, in 

turn, will result in irrigation water being lIsed more efficiently by fanners. The projected annual 

net economic benefit for the agricultural sector is valued at $30 million in 2015.6 

Thanks to the Committee's support. the FY 2012 appropriation provides a foundation for NOAA 

to make sign incant progress towards developing the Nation's next generation polar orbiting 

saleil ite system. the JPSS. and we understand thai the overall cost of this program needs to be 

contained. The FY 2013 President's Budget proposes to cap the total life cycle cost of JPSS at 

]-6 Centree Consulting Group, LLC. An investigation ofthe Economic and Social I'alue o/Se!ected NOAA Data and 

Productsfbr Ge()sta{ionat~l' Operational EnvironmCnfal Satellites (GOES). Report to \lOAA 's National Climatic 

Data Center. Savoy, IL. (February 27. 2007; 

http://\\,ww.centrec.comiresourccs/reporrsIGOES%J20Ec:onom ic~,o20Value%:::ORepO!1.pdf) 

5 
24 

$11.9 billion and target a launch date for the second quarter of 10 17 to minimize the duration of 

any gap between the recently launched Suomi NPP satellite and JPSS. Ilowever. we are still at 

significant risk. We arc almost certain that a gap in polar observational satellite data will occur 

from the projected end of life of the current polar mission to the beginning of the operational 

JPSS mission. The loss of NOAA 's polar-orbiting satellite data would result in an immediate 

degradation to weather forecast models. impacting NOAA's ability to provide advance warnings 

of severe weather that help to protect I ives and property. 

NOAA is conducting a comprehensive reevaluation or its space-based observation requirements 

with a goal to maintain and acquire critical services that meet the Nation's national 

environmental data needs. NESDIS will continue to pursue collaborative oppOliunities with other 

national and international agencies and organizations and partner with industry. academia. and 

other research and development agencies. These partnerships will bring robust information and 

service delivery to our customers and invest in effective relationships with stakeholders. In 

particular. NESDIS will continue participating in global partnerships. such as with the European 

Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites. to help the United States and 

Europe provide increased capability to monitor global weather and climate. 

The third core mission area I wish to highlight grows out of NOAA 's services. stewardship. and 

scientific work to restore vitality to the Nation's coastal popUlation and economy. 

Vibrant Coastal Communities 

The Nation's coastal population is expected to increase by more than 13.6 million by 10107 In 

addition. over half of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is generated in coastal counties S To meet 

the demands of a burgeoning coastal population and a productive economy. NMFS and NOS play 

critical roles in supporting sustainable resources that in tum support sustainable industries and jobs 

and also provide services that make businesses more efficient and sate. NMFS serves the Nation 

through a science-based stewardship of living marine resources. while NOS activities support 

sound decision-making for human. ecological. and economic health. 

The FY 1013 President's Budget reflects some difficult choices. The budget proposes reductions 

to or closures of programs in order to support core coastal and ocean stewardship programs. Our 

coastal economics provide the Nation with goods through our ports. food from the sea, and vacation 

destinations for our families and international travelers. Our coastal communities help make our 

economy strong. Despite the cuts in this area, NOAA's commitment to providing services that 

support. protect. and serve our coasts is strong. 

The commercial and recreational fishing industries depend on healthy and abundant fish stocks. 

habitats. and marine ecosystems to provide lasting jobs, food and recreational opportunities. In total. 

our Nation' s risheries supported 1.5 million full and part-time jobs and contributed $79 billion to 

GOP. $183 billion in sales in 2010.9 Further. the jobs supported by the commercial fishing industry 

NOAA's Stille of the Coast. http://stateoHhecoast.noaa.gov 

~ State of"the U.S. Ocean and Coastal Economies. NOEP 20{)9 

6 
25 

increased fi'om 2009 [0 2010 by 16 percent. from 1 million to 1.2 millionHl Fully rebuilt. U.S. 

fisheries are anticipated to contribute $92 billion to GOP and support 2 million jobs. I I Recreational 

fishing is also an important industry as trip related expenditures contributed $23 billion to GOP. $50 

billion in national sales impacts. and suppOlied more than 326.000 full and part-time jobs across the 

U.S. in 20 I 0. 12 In 2010. an estimated II million recreational saltwater anglers took 73 million 

saltwater fishing trips. spending $4.3 billion on trips and $15 ~illion on durable fishing equipment. 

such as rods and reels. boats. second homes and other goods. L, 

NOS products and services. which are derived from surveys and observations. are perhaps the 

most visible example of NOS support for the American economy and workforce. More than 78 

percent of U.S. overseas trade (by volume) and 43.5 percent (by value). including nine million 

barrels of imported oil daily. transits through our seaports 14 Port activities alone are responsible 

for 8.4 million American jobs and nearly $2 trillion in economic output l5• NOS navigation 

charts. tide data. and other tools serve as the marine transportation "information infrastructure" 

that enables marine transportation users to optimize economic opportunity. 

NOAA serves as the trustee for thirteen national marine sanctuaries. Across all national marine 

sanctuaries. about $4 billion is generated annually in local coastal economies from diverse 

activities which include: commercial and recreational fishing. research, recreation-tourist 

activities such as whale watching. snorkeling and diving on coral reefs and recreational boating. 

The National Marine Sanctuaries support about 50.000 jobs in diverse activities ranging from 

fishing and diving to research and hospitality. II> A study completed in 2000 estimated that 

Massachusetts alone accounted for nearly 80 percent of New England whale watching tour totals. 

generating $31.3 million; virtually all of .Massachusetts whale watching occurs in Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 17 

With the FY 2013 budget request of $880.3 million for NMFS. NOAA remains committed to 

putting America's iishing industry on a sustainable and profitable path through targeted 

investments in fisheries science. observer. and enforcement programs. Additional targeted 

funding for NMFS includes increases of $4.3 million to expand stock assessments and $2.3 

million for Survey and Monitoring projects. Funds will be targeted at high priority commercially 

and recreationally valuable stocks. those that limit the catch of these valuable stocks due to high 

scientific or management uncertainty. and those that were previously experiencing overfishing to 

verify that overfishing has ended. Funds will be used to improve fishery-independent surveys 

using advanced sampling technologies such as optical and acoustical methods. The FY 2013 

President's Budget includes an increase of $4.2 million for the NMFS National Observer 

Program. The requested increase will support observing and monitoring for fisheries currently 

under catch share management and those expected to transition to catch shares in FY20 13. This 

., 10,12 Fisheries Economics of'thc United States_ 2010 (forthcoming. flO! yet puhlished) 

: I NOAA Fisheries internal analysis based upon NMfS Commercial Fishing and Seafood Industry Input-OmpUl Model 

(sec: https:/iwww.st.nmfs.lloaa.goviapexlf?p-160:J:9! 679637080 1116::N()) 

11 Fisheries Fconornics ortlle ljnitcd States. 2010 (jhrlhcoming. 1100yer /mhlishcd) 

1·1 2003 Pockel Guide to TranspOl1ation Table 5-5, U.S. Department on ransporlation 

I:; http;//W\V\\.CCOllomics.noaa.gov/ 

ii, http://sanctuaries,noaa.gov/science/sociocconomic 

j7 ! Ioag!all(L Por1cr and Amire" E. Meeks. The Demand for Whale watching al Slcllwugcn Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

Marine Policy Center, \Voods Iiole Occano~nlphic Institution. 2000 

7 
26 

funding will allow NOAA to provide coverage in approximately 47 fisheries nationwide. 

Investment in enforcement activities will sustain the hard work to implement reforms following 

the 20 I 0 Inspector General Report while also maintaining focus on the important work of 

enforcement. To make these targeted investments. the FY 2013 budget proposes to consolidate 

and streamline certain activities to reduce costs and decrease or terminate funding for lower 

priority programs. For example, NOAA's request includes a $5.0M reduction across numerous 

programs to consolidate and reconfigure NMFS' West Coast regional management offices. 

Under this proposal, the Southwest and Northwest Regional Offices will be reconfigured into a 

single West Coast Regional OfIlce. NOAA also proposes to close the James J. Howard Lab at 

Sandy Hook and the Pacific Environmental Research Lab at Pacific Grove, relocating staff to 

other facilities. Activities that are supported at these facilities arc necessary for the NMFS 

mission. however it can be conducted more cost-effectively at other NOAA facilities. 

In the FY 2013 l3udget. NOAA requests $478.1 million for NOS to support the economic 

sustainability of coastal communities. NOAA has made a few targeted investments in the FY 2013 

budget submission for NOS including a $1 0 million increase to develop and improve marine sensors 

that will monitor changing conditions in the oceans. coasts. and Great Lakes. This. along with our 

existing observational capabilities. will enhance our stewardship capabilities across a wide range of 

objectives outlined in the National Ocean Policy. A $2.0 million increase to expedite the restoration of 

polluted sites su~ject to natural resource damage assessments. Some of these cases represent hundreds 

of millions of dollars in potential settlements. Finally, a $2.0 million investment in extramural research 

is requested to strcnfcrthcn our continued locus on harmful algal bloom. hypoxia. and ecosystem 

research. 

NOAA's fleet is crucial to providing scientific platforms in support ofNMFS and NOS. An increase 

of$10.7 million will allow NOAA to perform a Major Repair Period on the Thomas Jefferson. 

NOAA's primary hydrographic survey vessel. Major Repair Periods are critical to ensuring the 

ongoing health and well-being of NOAA 's fleet; without these periodic refurbishments. ships would 

be taken out of service. Finally. an additional $1.5 million is requested to complete the postconstruction evaluation of FSV 6. our newest fisheries survey vessel. 

Conclusion 

Overall. NOAA's FY 2013 l3udget Request rellects the commitment that Secretary of Commerce 

Bryson and I have made to the President to contribute to growing a strong economy that is built to last 

while being fiscally responsible and helping to reduce the Nation's deficit. As we make tough choices. 

we remain committed to our core mission because we know that Americans rely upon us each and 

every day. The resources that arc requested in this budget are critical to the ongoing success in 

creating a Weather-Ready l"ation. ensuring access to reliable scientific data. and achieving vibrant 

coastal cOlllmunities. I look forward to working with the Members of this Committee and our partners 

and constituents to achieve the goals I articulated through the implementation of the FY 2013 budget. 

Thank you j()r the opportunity to present NOAA' s FY 2013 Budget Request. I am happy to respond to 

any questions from the Committee. 

8 
27 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you, and I want to thank you for your 

testimony. The round of questionings will begin, and I will recognize myself for five minutes to begin that. 

Doctor, your testimony stated that despite the substantial increase in funding for satellites in the budget request that we are 

almost certain that a gap in polar observational satellite data will 

occur. I understand that the GAO and the National Academies 

have actually have even been a little more pessimistic about the 

length of that gap. 

Setting aside any questions about, you know, who is to blame for 

it, what is NOAA doing to explore alternative means of getting that 

information? Is there another plan to get that information in the 

gap? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, we don’t believe there are any 

viable alternative options at this point, which is why we are very 

aggressively pursuing staying on track and on the budget that is 

projected. As you know, when I came into this position, there had 

been a considerable history of budget cost overruns and delays. We 

made a commitment to turn that around, have restructured this 

new program, JPSS, and I believe we are on track as long as we 

obtain the funding that we need this year and next year. And I believe that the success of the programs to date are bearing that out. 

Chairman HARRIS. Has NOAA considered conducting an observing system simulation experiment in order to inform the development of future operating systems? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure exactly what you 

are asking. 

Chairman HARRIS. OSSE? We will submit it in writing, and you 

can talk to staff about it then. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Okay. 

Chairman HARRIS. One of the few reductions in your request is 

to discontinue the National Air Quality Forecasting Capability, 

which, of course, forecasts ozone and particulate matter levels, and 

of course, that capability allows EPA and local agencies to issue 

their air quality health alerts for the public. 

Now, the National Weather Service states that this discontinuation was to ‘‘fund higher priority items.’’ But the decision seems 

at odds with what the EPA Administrator has said. Administrator 

Jackson last year said, ‘‘We are actually at a point in many areas 

of this country where, on a hot summer day, the best advice we can 

give you is don’t go outside. Don’t breathe the air. It might kill 

you.’’ In September, Ms. Jackson stated that, ‘‘If we could reduce 

particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact 

as finding a cure for cancer.’’ Obviously it seems like EPA thinks 

this might be important information. How can you explain the disparity between NOAA and EPA and the priority of developing the 

ozone and particular matter level warnings? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there is any disparity in terms of the importance of measuring particulates and 

ozone. As we looked at our budget and made decisions, we really 

focused on areas that were core to our particular mission and areas 

where we had the greatest immediate responsibility to the citizens 

of this nation. The ozone and particulate programs have been rel-
28 

atively small and are less core to our immediate mission than are 

many of our other programs. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, let me move onto that because, you 

know, a lot of Americans, I think, would say, you know, forecasting 

the weather, the National Weather Service is important, but the 

budget actually, a budget that increases by 3.1 percent, actually 

has a decrease in National Weather Service. 

How do you explain and where do you prioritize? I mean, obviously, climate change got a large increase, climate research, Weather Service gets a decrease. Why? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, the ability for us to deliver quality weather forecasts and warnings depends on a variety of activities within NOAA. First and foremost are weather satellites. You 

see a significant increase in our satellite programs this year, and 

that is due directly to the importance that those weather satellites 

play. Over 90 percent of the data that go into our numerical weather models come from satellites. 

The decreases that you see in the Weather Service program are 

ones that we believe represent mostly administrative efficiencies 

where we can provide the same or better level of service at a lower 

price, if you will. So overall, we have put saving lives and property 

at the very, very top level of our budget, and I think that is reflected in the combined satellite and Weather Service line items. 

Chairman HARRIS. Just to follow up, why not take it from climate research instead of the Weather Service? I mean, Weather 

Service gets a hit in funding to fund satellites, but climate research 

doesn’t. I mean, is that the priority of the Administration, that climate research—again, you have testified before. This is looking at 

decades in the future is more important than looking at a week 

into the future? I would say some people in the Midwest might disagree with that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The investment in understanding how the climate system works influences directly our ability to provide outlooks, for example, with drought, severe weather such as heavy 

precipitation events, heat waves, those kinds of things. So there is 

a direct connection between our better understanding of how the 

climate system works and our ability to deliver information to help 

communities and people and businesses prepare, even in the 

months to years ahead, not just decades from now. 

Chairman HARRIS. Just a very brief, clarifying point. Wasn’t your 

testimony before the Committee that climate research is looking 

years ahead? It is not months, not weeks, not days? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Climate research is designed to help us understand how the climate system works. That helps us understand 

what will happen months ahead, years ahead and decades ahead, 

all of those. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I recognize Mr. 

Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I also 

have a question about the polar orbiting satellites, the geostationary satellites, the next generation, because the NPOESS 

system was one of the most snake-bit projects the Federal Government has ever been involved with. This Committee has had many 

hearings on polar orbiting satellites, and GAO has taken a great 
29 

interest. And they earlier estimated what it would take to complete 

the JPSS system at a couple billion dollars more than the $12.9 billion that your budget suggests will be sufficient. Lowballed estimates are a problem because it may help get programs through initially, and then it may be that Congress is reluctant to pull the 

plug on a program once begun, but it leads to undermining confidence by Congress and the Agency, it undermines confidence of 

the American people if there are cost overruns, and it would be 

very useful to begin with a pretty realistic estimate. 

Why do you believe that the program would cost less than GAO 

estimated, and will the requested funding level be enough to develop the instruments and to meet the scheduled launch dates? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, when I first took this position, I 

was told in no uncertain terms by Members of Congress that the 

NPOESS program was a national embarrassment, had been problematic for far too long and absolutely needed to be fixed. And I 

took that very seriously. 

Mr. MILLER. As you should have. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Which is what led to the significant restructuring of that program. And the creation of the Joint Polar Satellite 

System is a result of that. It has benefitted from intense internal 

and external scrutiny. We had the benefit of many outside experts 

advising us on this, learning from the lessons of NPOESS, and 

committing to not repeating them. 

In constructing our budgets, we have committed to capping the 

costs of JPSS at this $12.9 billion level. That will indeed entail the 

loss of some of the sensors that we had originally envisioned to fly 

on those satellites, but we are in fact committed to staying with 

that cap. I think that the success that we are having now with the 

Suomni NPP satellite, the instruments that are on it, our good 

partnership with NASA in that regard, and all of the activities we 

have engaged in with the JPSS program to date suggests that, in 

fact, we have turned this around, we are on track. We will be 

watching it very closely as I am sure you will be and should be. 

But I think these satellites are too important to not be on the path 

to success, and we are committed to that end. 

Mr. MILLER. Climate research. I understand that NOAA is involved, should be involved in all aspects of climate research, observations, data management, modeling and those various activities 

advance what you call the NOAA climate goal. There are other 

agencies that are also involved in climate research. What is the climate goal and how does that goal benefit the mission of the Agency 

and the needs of Americans and is that research duplicative of 

what is going on in other agencies? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, sir. Good questions. Within NOAA, 

there are activities across many different parts of NOAA, what we 

call line offices, that touch on our climate goal. And so it is appropriate for us to have a mechanism of integrating across the different units within the Agency. That is what the climate goal does. 

It pulls from the different units and has a more overarching integrated nature. By the same token, there is a mechanism to integrate research across the different federal agencies that are engaged in climate research through the program called the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. That is the mechanism by which 
30 

we ensure that there is not duplication, that there is coordination, 

collaboration across the different agencies. So each different agency 

that does have some element of climate research coordinates 

through the Global Change Research Program. For example, there 

are different types of modeling efforts under way that are complementary, and this is a mechanism of keeping each other in 

formed and making sure that we don’t have duplication. 

Mr. MILLER. My time has expired. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is kind of an 

interesting distinction here that you are making with the climate 

versus weather. I am sure that there is that delineation that is 

made in academe as well as in government offices. 

The recent Government Accountability Office report found that 

40 percent of the weather stations used for the U.S. Historical Climatology Network do no not meet NOAA’s own sitting standards 

which require, for example, that weather monitor stations not be 

located too close to paid services or in areas that, of course, would 

interfere with the correct assessment of the temperature, et cetera. 

The report also found that NOAA does not centrally track whether 

or not these stations adhere to the actual standards, nor does it 

have an agency-wide policy regarding these stations. So I guess it 

is saying that you have 40 percent of the weather stations used for 

this U.S. Historical Climatology Network don’t meet NOAA’s own 

standards, is that correct? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I don’t know the actual figure. I 

can tell you that through time, many stations that were originally 

put in one place, the circumstances around them have changed, 

and that when we collate all that information, we take that into 

account and often make adjustments accordingly. We are in the 

process of sort of looking across all of those weather stations to 

make sure that they give us the best kind of information and we 

are—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it is pretty hard to adjust something if 

you don’t know what the real recording is. I mean, it is one thing 

to say where you justify some average of what has happened in the 

past. That doesn’t count if you think there is changes going on. 

Now, I understand that there is a request for $28 million to increase climate research. Does any of that money that the $28 million requested would go to perfecting these stations so you will 

know how to judge the climate by accurate weather assessments? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, there are multiple different ways 

that we take data about temperatures, for example, and those 

ground stations are one of them. They are complemented by a number of other mechanisms that overlap. So we have satellite information, we have ground-based information, we have tall towers, we 

have buoys. 

And so our information about changes does not rely on any one 

type of network. It relies on the sum total of those. 

The climate research program that is in our budget is focused on 

not the monitoring per se but understanding the mechanisms, you 

know, how the Earth system works, what is the role of aerosols, 
31 

what is the carbon cycle like, what is the role of black carbon, for 

example. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, if you have a lot of, I mean, 40 percent 

of the stations not meeting the standard certainly seems to me that 

before you want to go into all these other calculations, you are 

going to want to fix that problem. And I guess what I am hearing 

is no, you are not going to go after those stations, and that money 

that has been requested to increase climate research will have to 

just work around those figures that may or may not be accurate. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, let me get back to you with respect to that figure and what we are doing to address that need 

because I would like to give you accurate information on this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is the Government Accounting Office’s—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I understand. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note, in Orange County, where 

I come from, I grew up there as a boy and my dad was a marine, 

and we were at El Toro, and all around us were orange groves as 

far as you could see. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And there were some weather stations there, 

and I will tell you right now, to think that those weather stations, 

it is a totally different world now where those weather stations are 

located. They are located in a bunch of concrete and buildings, and 

it is a totally different environment. So I think that when we are 

trying to find out what is accurate in terms of what those instruments are recording, we do have to take into consideration those 

type changes, and it doesn’t look like we have paid enough attention to that. But thank you very much. I will be hopefully getting 

maybe a couple of paragraphs back from you on how we are handling that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I can tell you that we are, in fact, aware of the 

changes in many of these places, and in some areas, we are creating new stations and having, you know, in areas that are not 

likely to change through time such as you mentioned. But what the 

number is and exactly the rate at which we are fixing them, I am 

happy to get back to you on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, for five minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, and I am pleased to be 

here. Some of my questions have already been asked, but I did 

share with our witness a copy of an editorial that appeared in the 

San Jose Mercury News a couple of weeks ago relating to the tsunami alerts and the proposed $4.6 million that affects the early 

warning system. 

I would like to note that San Jose, which is within my congressional district, is not on the coast, and we would not be impacted 

by a tsunami in any way. We have even done the modeling. Even 

on the bay, there is no way that a tsunami could impact us according to the computer modeling. So this is not from a parochial point 

of view. 

But I do have a concern. I have read the analysis that a degradation of this system—which I think inevitably will result, I mean, 

if we are not able to repair these buoys. Some will go dark and we 
32 

will not be able to reach them without the funding. This could have 

a public safety impact, and obviously you have constraints that 

were placed upon you. We recognize that. But I am concerned as 

we think about this tsunami, the devastating tsunami that hit 

Japan, certainly the possibility of a devastating impact somewhere 

along the West Coast, whether it is, you know, Washington or L.A., 

needs to be considered. And I am wondering if this is really something that we want to stick with in terms of reduction. Could you 

address this subject at all? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Certainly, and thanks for the questions, Congresswoman. Tsunamis are very, very serious, obviously, and we 

take our responsibility to warn our citizens very, very seriously. 

We saw with both the Chile, and then the Japanese, tsunami 

how devastating they can be. Our tsunami warning system was active in both of those instances and in fact prevented considerable 

damage that might otherwise have occurred. For example, both 

places along the West Coast, Crescent City for example, but also 

in the Hawaiian Islands and other Pacific places, territories—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Santa Cruz? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And Santa Cruz, absolutely. Santa Cruz was seriously affected. Our warning program before this year had benefit 

of both appropriated funds as well as funds from the 2005 Deficit 

Reduction Act. And this year, that act expires. We will no longer 

have funds from the Warren Act to help supplement our tsunami 

programs, which is why you see a reduction in this year’s program 

compared to last year. 

Nonetheless, we will be able to continue to have two very active 

tsunami warning centers in Alaska and in Hawaii. The dart buoy 

systems that give us very important information as the tsunami is 

moving across the Pacific will remain in place. The decreased funds 

mean that we will be unable to go out and fix those dart buoys 

when they become disabled as frequently as we would like to or as 

frequently as we have to date. So the system will be up there. We 

just are not able to maintain it at the pace that would be necessary. 

Ms. LOFGREN. May I ask you a question, because oftentimes we 

think about, you know, the West Coast of the United States as 

being the recipient of a tsunami from the earthquake in Asia. But 

certainly there is the potential of a very large earthquake, certainly 

along the State of Washington given historic events. And so actually, the Hawaiian Islands could be at risk as well as the coast 

along the United States. 

Have we thought about the impact of letting these buoys go dark 

from that kind of an event? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. The dart buoy system was designed 

to function regardless of where in the Pacific Rim the earthquake 

was happening. And you are right to focus on Washington but Oregon as well as places where there in fact may be an event. The 

dart buoys do not enable those warnings to happen. When there is 

a seismic event, that information is received immediately by our 

tsunami warning centers, and they send out a model. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I may, I think I misspoke. I am talking about 

the buoys that aren’t working and can’t be repaired in a timely 

fashion. 
33 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Warnings don’t depend on those buoys. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Warnings happen first, and we are still able to 

do those. And then the buoy picks up the tsunami as it is moving 

across the ocean, and that enables us to fine tune the warnings. So 

if there is a buoy that is out, we will still have a general warning. 

It won’t be as specific as might be useful, but it is not as if we 

won’t have any warning system at all. I agree it would be nice to 

have all those buoys up and running. We just don’t have the 

money. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent to put the editorial in the record and just note that I understand your constraint, 

but it seems to me not maybe the best place to economize. And if 

you over-warn, then people don’t take it as seriously. And we have 

seen that in California where people show up to look. And if it were 

a big event, that would not be a smart thing. If it is targeted, people take it more seriously. I know my time is up. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HARRIS. We will include that in the record. 

[The information may be found in Appendix 2.] 

Chairman HARRIS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. McNerney, for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I 

want to thank you for your testimony, and also for recognizing the 

disaster that occurred last week in the Midwest. I know a lot of 

families are going to be grieving a long time about that. Could you 

elaborate on the importance of the Weather-Ready Nation initiative? Be a little specific here. How is the money going to be used 

to help warn people of these events? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we have invested a significant 

amount of research over the years in doing better and better at 

making more and more accurate forecasts with longer lead times, 

for example. And we have made some very significant strides in 

that direction. We will continue to do that as well as have the satellites give us the basic information that allow much of that to happen. 

However, many of our warnings often happen, and people don’t 

necessarily know what to do, or they don’t know how to interpret 

the information. And so the Weather-Ready Nation is an initiative 

to work with local communities, with emergency managers, with 

social scientists, with others, to help better understand what people 

hear when they hear a warning, and if they are hearing what we 

think we are trying to tell them and if they know what to do, to 

take cover, to be safe. So it is acknowledging the very real human 

dimension in responding to a weather disaster warning. So we will 

again on parallel tracks make sure that our satellites are on track 

to give us the basic information, have our weather forecast disaster 

warnings as accurate and as good as they can be but also pay attention to increasing the ability of individuals, community leaders, 

emergency managers in responding appropriately when there is 

something bad coming. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. As a mathematician, I strongly understand the importance of STEM education, and I see there is a 
34 

reduction in funding for the Office of Education. How do you feel 

that is going to affect the training of a generation of scientists or 

potential scientists? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, that is one of the most painful 

parts of this budget for me this year. STEM education is vitally important, and the role that NOAA’s education programs have played 

I think has been outstanding. We simply did not have enough 

funds to do everything and made saving lives and property and 

managing fisheries, other really important things, the highest priorities. And what that meant is that there are some very important 

things we are not able to do, and it is very, very painful for me. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I understand. Another subject that I have personal interest in from my past life is wind energy. I spent a career 

there, and I see you have $855,000 in the budget for wind boundary research, and that is going to help the industry maybe some 

day. Could you tell me a little bit about that program and what exactly are they planning to do with that money? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I can give you a high-level description of it, and 

if you want more detail, I am happy to provide that as well as a 

follow up. 

Much of the challenge is in understanding what is happening at 

the level where the turbines are and understanding better the 

boundary layer conditions and what is happening at different altitudes above the ground and how that changes when you are on a 

ridge top or a valley is part of the research that is anticipated in 

this area. So it is understanding better what are the conditions 

that result in different patterns of wind and to what extent we can 

predict under certain circumstances what the patterns will be 

under different circumstances. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you would be looking at the shear effects? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And there are a couple of ways to do that. One 

is to try and map it out by location. Another is to try to understand 

the sort of atmospheric effects that are happening due to climate 

situations. Are you focusing on one of those two or both? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It is a combination of those, but I can’t tell you 

precisely what. You know, we know that any particular place is not 

static through time. You know, there are very different conditions, 

if it is an El Nin∼o versus a La Nin∼a year, it depends on where 

the jet stream is, it depends on all sorts of other kinds of things, 

and having a better understanding of what are the circumstances 

that result in a particular pattern of winds is where we are trying 

to be. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you for 

joining us today and for your testimony. The proposed budget for 

the National Weather Service has several reductions that are of 

real concern. This Committee has opposed past attempts to eliminate the Wind Profiler Network. I understand the data from this 

network are utilized for forecasting tornados. We are experiencing 

an increase in tornado outbreaks. In fact we witnessed just recently 

what happened in Tornado Alley as it is often referenced, and I 
35 

saw unusual weather elements this past last summer in my own 

district, in the 21st in New York, which included a tornado in my 

hometown area. 

Why is the Administration proposing to eliminate this network? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, it is my understanding that we 

believe that we can get similar information through other mechanisms and that eliminating these profilers will not impair our ability to forecast the tornados. 

Mr. TONKO. It may not limit the ability but are we likely to experience degraded forecast accuracy? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t believe so. Part of what we are doing is 

focusing on converting our Doppler radar systems into what is 

called dual polarization radar, and that is giving us very good ability to have more precise information about conditions conducive to 

tornado formation. 

Mr. TONKO. I am also concerned about the proposal to eliminate 

the information technology officers at each weather forecast office. 

My understanding is that these professionals serve as both meteorologists and IT specialists and that many forecast offices develop 

specialized programs tailored to local conditions to improve their 

forecasting. 

How is a central system going to do this effectively? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We believe that we have had significant improvements in IT technology that will enable us to reduce the number of these IT positions and to fulfill the activities that they supply more regionally as opposed to individual stations, and we believe we can do that without any significant degradation of the 

services provided. 

Mr. TONKO. So has this concept been tested? Are we simply doing 

the experiment and the implementation simultaneously? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It is my understanding that it is comparable to 

an analogous situation that happened earlier on with the Weather 

Service that was the result again of technology enabling more effective provision of service but at a lower cost. So we are actually 

learning from that experience and folding that into this design. 

Mr. TONKO. You know, this is a public safety issue in my opinion, 

and your own agency’s press release indicated we had another 

record year for weather-based natural disasters. You made mention 

of it today in your testimony. 

Beyond the IT abilities, are there other bits of rationale for this 

cut? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We take the public safety issues extremely seriously. That is really the highest priority that we have for the 

Weather Service, and we believe that we can achieve administrative efficiencies with this proposal with no threat to public safety, 

no degradation of the services that are provided. Otherwise, we 

wouldn’t be doing this. 

Mr. TONKO. And also, Dr. Lubchenco, does the request for fiscal 

year 2013 include funding for the Integrated Water Resources 

Science and Services initiative that NOAA is working on with the 

Army Corps and USGS? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I don’t have that number on the 

top of my head. I am happy to get it and get back to you on that. 

You are right, that IRIS program that is a joint one is very impor-
36 

tant to us. It is at a small scale. We think there are a lot of efficiencies in combining with the other agencies, as you and I have 

discussed, but I don’t remember exactly what is in the budget for 

that. But I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And as I stated, you know, my district 

has experienced a lot of impacts from Mother Nature this past 

summer and fall, including terrible flooding problems last year. 

And I believe that this program would be very helpful in addressing water resource issues which have got to be a primary focus, I 

believe, from a federal perspective. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I agree. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you so much. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. Dr. Lubchenco, I thank 

you very much for your testimony, the Members and their questions, I want to again thank you for your patience while we came 

back from voting. The Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you, and we ask you to respond to those in 

writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments from Members. We are looking for those budget justifications, so don’t forget us on that. The witness is excused, and we 

will move to our second panel with Mr. Lek Kadeli. 

Thank you very much for your patience again. We apologize for 

the delay while we were voting. I want to welcome Mr. Kadeli, who 

is the Acting Assistant Administrator from the Office of Research 

and Development at the EPA. He has over 29 years of management 

experience in both government and the private sector. He joined 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development in 1993 to serve as 

Chief of Resource Planning and Program Coordination, and in 1998 

served as the Acting Deputy Director of ORD’s National Exposure 

Research Laboratory in North Carolina. He previously served as 

the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and 

Development from January through December of 2009. As our witness should note, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes after 

which the members of the committee will have five minutes each 

to ask questions, and I now recognize you for your testimony, Mr. 

Kadeli. 

STATEMENT OF MR. LEK KADELI, 

ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. KADELI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and other Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Lek Kadeli, and I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, 

and it is my pleasure to be before the Committee to present the 

President’s 2013 request for our budget. 

The 2013 research budget demonstrates EPA’s commitment to 

providing the best science and technology for its core mission of 

protecting human health and the environment for American families while recognizing the challenging realities of this current climate. The fiscal year 2013 budget is the result of EPA’s ongoing 
37 

efforts to carefully consider potential efficiencies in a responsible 

manner while supporting innovative approaches that are essential 

to understanding and addressing environmental challenges and 

protecting human health. 

It has taken a lot of hard work and difficult choices to reach this 

balanced approach, and while we had to make sacrifices, we have 

maintained our commitment to the priorities of this Agency and ensuring the protections the American people expect and deserve. 

ORD conducts intramural and extramural research across the 

broad spectrum of disciplines necessary to support the mission of 

EPA. In addition to the science that we have traditionally pursued, 

we are investing in research on innovative approaches and technologies along with promoting synergies between environment and 

public health protection in a context that reflects broader community interests and needs. 

I would like to highlight a few examples of the innovative solutions that we are pursuing and that I believe would be of interest 

to the Committee. 

First, EPA is collaborating with the National Institutes of Health 

and the Food and Drug Administration to bring complementary expertise together to develop faster predictions of how chemicals 

could impact human health and the environment. The intergovernmental partnership called TOX 21 is using robotically enabled 

high-speed screening to test the potential toxicity of 10,000 different chemicals. This will help us more efficiently prioritize chemicals for in-depth testing, over time will reduce animal usage in 

testing and reduce the cost, and most importantly will provide data 

that will enable us to better predict whether a chemical exposure 

triggers changes that increase the potential for human health or 

environmental impacts. 

Secondly, we are collaborating with five large U.S. cities, Cincinnati, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, to investigate solutions to security issues at water utilities. These cities 

are evaluating software developed by the Office of Research and 

Development which is a key component of a contamination warning 

system that rapidly detects hazardous contaminants in drinking 

water systems and is a critical technology for the detection of terrorist attacks on drinking water systems. 

EPA is also in collaborative efforts with municipalities to improve and achieve more resilient storm water management approaches by sustainably addressing storm water and septic runoff 

overflows. At a time where we face critical challenges in maintaining and upgrading our existing water and wastewater infrastructure, we need resilient and affordable solutions that meet many objectives at once. For example, we are supporting research and implementation of green infrastructure approaches which provide diverse economic, water quality and community benefits. 

EPA’s 2013 budget request proposes $807 million for the science 

and technology account. This request includes $576 million for research, including $81 million in research grants and fellowships 

that will be awarded to scientists and universities throughout the 

country to conduct targeted research as part of the Science to 

Achieve Results program. Building upon ongoing research and collaborating with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological 
38 

Survey, a total of $14 million is being requested to increase our understanding of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air 

quality, water quality, and ecosystems. Six million dollars of the 

$14 million requested is necessary to complete the commitment to 

deliver on the fiscal year 2014 report on the potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The report will 

be peer reviewed by the experts and a range of stakeholders. 

In conclusion, we have a strong tradition of scientific excellence 

at EPA which this budget builds upon. I look forward to working 

with the Committee to address current and emerging environmental problems and seek innovative solutions that will help our 

Agency protect the environment and human health. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kadeli follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEK KADELI, 

ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
39 

commitment to the priorities of this agency and ensured the protections the 

American people expect and deserve. 

ORO conducts intramural and extramural research across the broad spectrum 

of disciplines necessary to support the mission ofEP A. 

In addition to the cutting edge science that we have traditionally pursued, we 

are investing in research on innovative approaches and technologies along 

with promoting synergies between environment and public health protection 

in a context that reflects broader community interests and needs. In 2011, to 

improve effectiveness and efficiency, the Office embarked on a major effort 

to strategically align its diverse research portfolio around the central and 

unifying concept of sustainability. Through direction laid out in ORD's six 

highly integrated Strategic Research Action Plans, we will deliver the 

science and engineering solutions the Agency--and the nation-need, while 

advancing the research needed to realize an environment that is not only less 

polluted, but also healthy, productive, and sustainable. 

EPA's six integrated and trans-disciplinary research programs provide an 

innovative and systematic approach to solving some of the nation's highestpriority environmental challenges. Our six program areas are: 

Air, Climate, and Energy Research 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Research 

Chemical Safety and Sustainability Research 

Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research 

Human Health Risk Assessment 

2 
40 

Homeland Security Research 

I would like to highlight a few examples of the innovative solutions that we 

are pursuing and that I believe would be of interest to the Committee. 

First, EPA is collaborating with the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

(NIEHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring 

complementary expertise together to develop faster predictions of how 

chemicals could impact human health and the environment. EPA's 

contribution to this intergovernmental partnership, TOX 21, is using 

robotically enabled high-speed screening to test the potential toxicity 

of 10,000 different chemicals. This will help us morc-efficiently 

prioritize chemicals for in-depth testing, over time will reduce animal 

usage in testing and reduce the costs, and most importantly will 

provide data that will enable us to better predict whether a chemical 

exposure triggers changes that increase the potential for human health 

or environmental impacts. 

• We are partnering with five large U.S. cities (Cincinnati, OH; Dallas, 

TX; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; and San Francisco, CA) to 

investigate solutions to water security issues at water utilities. These 

cities are evaluating software developed by ORD which is a key 

component of a contamination warning system that rapidly detects 

hazardous contaminants in drinking water systems and is a critical 

technology for the detection of terrorist attacks on drinking water 

systems. 

3 
41 

• EPA is also engaged in collaborative efforts with municipalities to 

improve and achieve more resilient storm water management 

approaches by sustain ably addressing storm water and septic runoff 

overflows. At a time where we face critical challenges in maintaining 

and upgrading our existing water and wastewater infrastructure, we 

need resilient and affordable solutions that meet many objectives at 

once. For example, we are supporting research and implementation of 

"green" infrastructure approaches, which provide diverse economic, 

water quality, and community benefits for communities. 

Lastly, EPA's is helping to develop a multi-agency National Atlas of 

ecosystems services. This national Atlas will be a resource to states, 

communities, industry, and the public when assessing site-specific 

environmental conditions. 

Investing in Cutting Edge Research 

EPA's 2013 budget request makes major investments in its science and 

technology account of $807 million, or almost 10 percent of EPA's total 

request. This request includes $576 million for research, including $81 

million in research grants and fellowships that will be awarded to scientists 

and universities throughout the country to conduct targeted research as part 

of the Science to Achieve Results (STAR), a competitive, independently 

peer reviewed program. This important research includes children's health, 

endocrine disruption, innovative water infrastructure approaches, and air 

monitoring research. Building upon ongoing research and collaborating with 

the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, a total of$14 

million is requested to increase our understanding of the potential impacts of 

4 
42 

hydraulic fracturing on air quality, water quality, and ecosystems. The EPA 

also will release an Interim Report on the Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing 

on Drinking Water Resources in 2012. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we have a strong tradition of scienti lie excellence in science 

at EPA, which this budget builds upon. I look forward to working with the 

Committee to address current and emerging environmental problems and 

seek innovative solutions that will help our Agency protect the environment 

and human health. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

5 
43 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I thank you for your 

testimony, reminding Members of the Committee rules, limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open the round 

of questions. I recognize myself for the first five minutes. 

Mr. Kadeli, two weeks ago the President gave a speech on gas 

prices, certainly foremost on a lot of Americans’ minds in which he 

stated, ‘‘I have directed my Administration to look for every single 

area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the 

months ahead.’’ 

My first question to you is do you, as one of the leaders in an 

area of the Administration, do you know when you are expected to 

report back to the President? Was there a report date that the 

President suggested or is passed down through the Administration? 

I mean, he said he wants to look in every single area in the months 

ahead. Is there a report date for this where you can help lower gas 

prices or make suggestions? 

Mr. KADELI. Congressman, Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to 

respond for the record on that. I don’t have the information on 

that. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. Thank you very much. In that mind, do 

you know if the EPA has considered abandoning the Tier 3 rulemaking or greenhouse gas regulations for refining, both of which 

are entirely optional policies that are guaranteed to raise gasoline 

prices even higher than they are? I mean, is there any move afoot 

at the EPA to actually do what the President said in the speech? 

Mr. KADELI. Again, I think I will need to provide that response 

for the record. I will go back to my colleague, the AA for the Office 

of Air and Radiation, and get a response. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you. I would appreciate that and 

would love to know what that deadline is. Now, last week Administrator Jackson claimed that the $45 million multi-agency study, 

which I think you alluded to in your testimony of air, ecosystem 

and water quality effects of hydraulic fracturing ‘‘really isn’t an expansion of the congressionally mandated study.’’ I mean, that is 

what your administrator said, it really isn’t an expansion. But the 

language in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations report was pretty 

clear. It urged the Agency to carry out a study of the relationship 

between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. So what is the 

origin of the $45 million effort which, by your own testimony, includes things like air quality? That wasn’t part of—and I won’t use 

the word mandate because of course, you know, the budget language of 2010 was no mandate. Instead of asking for that two percent increase and I will just, you know, make a comment, you 

know, you used the word make sacrifices. Most American families 

think making sacrifices means you do more with less, not more 

with more. A budget increase is a budget increase. American families don’t think of sacrifices as the government coming back and 

saying give us more money. That is our sacrifice. 

So the Agency doesn’t have to do this study. There is no mandate. It not only took the original study. Now it has expanded the 

study and coming back for even more money. So can you walk us 

through the origin of why this is now a $45 million effort that has 

expanded well beyond what even the non-mandatory language of 

the fiscal year 2010 has called for? 
44 

Mr. KADELI. Mr. Chairman, I think we all recognize the importance of this resource for this country, whether from a national security standpoint, whether from an environmental standpoint, 

whether from an economic standpoint. I myself have traveled to 

parts of this country, whether Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, New York, and other parts of the country that have been hit 

very hard with regard to the economic challenges. 

So clearly this offers a lot of opportunity for people in these parts 

of the country but also offers opportunity for us to address a real 

need on the energy side of the equation. 

When we started down the path of looking at what are some of 

the questions and uncertainties around hydro fracturing, it was 

done with the encouragement of Congress, and I recognize report 

language is perceived in various ways, depending on where you sit. 

But clearly there are a lot of questions and have been a lot of questions, and as part of our commitment to—and the President himself 

has said, members of the industry have said, Members of Congress 

and others have said that it is important to do this right, and I 

think there are a lot of questions out there that it would be good 

to bring a lesser degree of uncertainty to addressing those questions. 

So that is our intent with the study. That is our intent as we 

look at a number of questions around, not just the drinking water 

issues but the water quality issues and potentially air issues. I 

would also add that there have been concerns raised, and I think 

at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to the public, to the 

American people, to address those concerns with the facts as opposed to what sometimes is a lot of energy and passion and emotion around some of these issues. 

Chairman HARRIS. You know, I couldn’t agree more. Again, I 

take it that you have agreed I guess with my two main points. One 

is it is not originally a mandated study because perception aside, 

we know the budget language is not law. We know it is not binding. We know it doesn’t require an appropriation, much less an expenditure and second of all that this really is an expansion and 

that the expansion is taken not at Congress’ determination but internally in the EPA. Someone at the EPA just decided that we are 

just going to expand the scope of this, and we are just going to increase our budget. We are going to make the sacrifices again, the 

American people watching, the American people hearing. This is 

what Washington thinks of as a sacrifice, not what you think of as 

a sacrifice in your home. They think of a sacrifice as increasing in 

your budget, and that is not what most Americans think. 

Anyway, I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Kadeli. This Committee has been 

interested, and I have been interested personally, in the IRIS program for some time. It is perhaps not the embarrassment the 

NPOESS satellite system, but it has not been one of our government’s more successful programs and it appears in part to be because of an intentional effort to keep it from doing its job, to hobble 

it in its mission. We obviously need a list, a reliable assessment, 

of the public health effects of exposure to various chemicals and the 

IRIS system was producing two assessments a year when 600 new 
45 

chemicals are coming on the market every year? And I have been 

skeptical about some of the calls for more analysis, more reviews 

as an intentional effort to impose paralysis by analysis, and the 

program has been entirely too easily influenced in the past. I know 

that this Administration is trying to improve upon that by the industries that manufacture chemicals and by the industries that use 

chemicals and by the agencies of the government that use chemicals. 

But GAO and the National Academies have also criticized the 

IRIS program for not having rigorous peer reviews. Many have suggested reforms. Your budget proposal does shift resources to the 

EPA Science Advisory Board for additional IRIS assessment reviews. How will that money be used? How will you use that money? 

Will there be rigorous peer reviews as GAO and National Academies have suggested? 

Mr. KADELI. Congressman, as a science organization, one of the 

important ways that we ensure the work we do is of the highest 

quality and meets the standards that is expected by the President 

and by the administrator is we invite independent peer review of 

the work that we are doing. And this is not just unique to our 

agency but is typical of the scientific culture. It is not only how we 

get our work done but how we ensure that the American public are 

getting the best possible work done. 

I must say there are times where we have enjoyed the feedback 

that we have gotten from these independent scientists, and some 

of the feedback has been challenging. The National Academy, in 

their review of our formaldehyde assessment, had a number of observations that related to that particular assessment, but we have 

recognized that the importance of taking that feedback and enhancing the assessments that we do as a result. 

I will say the focus of their comments with regard to that particular assessment, particularly as we try to address them in the 

short term, had to do with the transparency of the data as far as 

how we captured them in charts, how we captured them in graphs 

as opposed to being lost in the text, bringing clarity to the important studies that were driving some of the conclusions that were 

made. 

So let me end by saying peer review is important. I actually 

think that what we do with peer review is of the highest standards, 

but I also continue to welcome the type of feedback that we get, 

which is a normal part of our process, to ensure that we are providing quality products. 

Mr. MILLER. Earlier in your prepared testimony you spoke of the 

TOX21 system that you are working with NIH and FDA on to develop a high-speed toxicity testing screening project for 10,000 different chemicals. Can that TOX21 high-speed testing capability 

help the assessment of chemicals? I am worried about the lack of 

productivity by the IRIS program with completing so few assessments. I mean, it would be great to produce a perfect assessment, 

but if there are 600 chemicals coming on the market and getting 

into widespread use and people are being exposed to those chemicals and we are only producing two assessments a year, even if 

they are perfect assessments, there is a problem there. 
46 

Can the TOX21 system be used within the IRIS program and are 

some of the chemicals being assessed both by IRIS and by TOX21? 

Mr. KADELI. This is one of the exciting areas of work going on 

in ORD and as we collaborate with other federal agencies, Congressman. Obviously, we have a challenge. If we are doing assessments on a chemical-by-chemical basis, which we are doing, the 

National Academies did a study a few years ago that was titled 

Toxicology for the 21st Century where it pointed to a number of advancements that have come about in a number of other industries 

including the pharmaceutical industries, that provide opportunities 

for us to apply the lessons learned, the technologies, the incredible 

increases in computational powers to some of these questions. We 

have made significant strides, and I would offer a briefing to the 

committee because of the opportunities that this offers in addressing some of the challenges that we have had historically with the 

IRIS program and the incredible number of chemicals that the industry continues to develop as part of commerce. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 

it behooves all of us when we discuss the EPA and other endeavors 

of government that combine both government and science that 

President Eisenhower warned us, very dramatically warned us, of 

a military-industrial complex which most of us have forgotten the 

first warning that he gave us right before he warned us of the military-industrial complex. With equal seriousness, President Eisenhower warned us against an unholy alliance between science and 

government in which science would be mobilized to achieve political 

ends and thus actually compromise the standards of scientists and 

compromise the well-being of the American people. We might go 

back and look at that good farewell address. 

And I think that nowhere is that more apparent than perhaps 

in some of the things that we have been worrying about with the 

EPA lately and this whole hydro fracturing issue is very much of 

a concern because we realize that the initiative the EPA is now operating on was not something that actually came internally from 

the EPA but, correct me if I am wrong, instead Congress—I think 

it was a time when another party may have dominated the 

House—tasked the EPA to move forward on this, and perhaps this 

is the unholy relationship that Eisenhower was warning us against 

because what we have now is clearly an initiative that you are 

moving forward with that seems to be totally politicized. And when 

someone comes before us and basically, when we have analyzed 

what you and others from the EPA have come here to tell us, Mr. 

Chairman, it always seems that they are basically saying we are 

looking for something that we can grab onto with hydraulic fracturing. We are looking for that. We are seeking it out. And just the 

answer to the Chairman’s questions again verified that for me that 

what we have here is there is no specific evidence that has led to 

the type of expenditure of limited tax dollars for this project, but 

instead, the EPA is going out because it has been tasked, I think 

politically, to achieve this rather than scientifically. And your answer to the Chairman’s question did not undo that fear that I had 

of what was really going on here. 
47 

To put it bluntly, I think for political purposes, the EPA is targeting and has been directed to target hydraulic fracturing to put 

a stop to it because there is a radical element in the environmental 

community that does not want us to have any more gas or oil energy in this country because they believe that oil and gas creates 

a carbon footprint which is changing the climate. And so they are 

going to save the world by preventing America from having any 

more oil and gas, and the EPA is going to be the vehicle in which 

they are going to prevent that scenario. 

So I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Now, I 

would like to ask you specifically this question. Your Scientific Integrity Policy applies to all grantees, the EPA’s Scientific Integrity 

Policy. Peter Glick of the Pacific Institute in California recently admitted that he had falsely impersonated a border member of the 

Heartland Institute in order to steal budget documents from that 

institute. Now, I understand that while this individual served as 

President of the Pacific Institute, that organization received nearly 

$500,000 in grants from the EPA. How does the new Scientific Integrity Policy address the circumstances associated with Dr. Glick? 

Does any policy limit any future grants to Glick or to any institute 

that he is involved in providing leadership? 

Mr. KADELI. Congressman, I am not as familiar with the circumstances of the grants, the type of grants, et cetera. I think this 

is one where I will need to provide your response for the record so 

I have all the facts correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I 

would hope that this breach of professionalism of Peter Glick and 

the Pacific Institute is not just swept under the rug like so many 

of these other violations that we have seen. And quite frankly, and 

I am sorry this is a political thing, my observation is any time a 

Republican does anything like this, you know, all of a sudden there 

is an uproar. But you can have all kinds of emails between people 

talking about hiding the real facts and trying to prevent other people from actually publishing their findings scientifically which of 

course violates every scientific principle, and they just get away 

with it. But I think it is time for us to quit ignoring these violations by radical environmentalists. 

Mr. KADELI. Congressman, if you have the specific details, that 

would be helpful as I go back, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thanks so much. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

testimony there for my colleague from California. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring your attention to the fact 

that whether the majority party likes it or not, there is a growing 

public apprehension and alarm with potential negative impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing. I hear about it all the time. But regardless of 

whether the alarm is justified or not, the best way to proceed in 

this situation is to improve transparency, which is what my opinion 

about this budget is trying to achieve. Let the scientists do their 

job, and we will most likely benefit both in terms of helping to reduce the public fear and developing additional technologies that 
48 

will improve the hydraulic fracturing itself, which everybody wants 

to see move forward. 

But onto the witness, Mr. Kadeli, I see that there is an estuarine 

ecosystems comp under the budget. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. KADELI. Our communities program has a significant ecosystems research component, and a portion of that addresses various types of waterways, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. This is important to me because I have the deltas in my district. Is there any amount that is dedicated to that 

particular ecosystem? 

Mr. KADELI. Sir, I probably would want to get back to you for the 

record, just so I get that information correctly. I am not aware of 

that, but I can’t say for certain. So let me respond to your question 

for the record. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I would like to know that because a lot 

rides on what understanding there is of water shipments from that 

particular estuary. So I would appreciate your detailed response on 

that. 

Mr. KADELI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You clearly outlined your efforts to improve efficiency in this country, which—efficiency is the low-hanging fruit in 

terms of energy usage. For every dollar that we spend in increasing 

efficiency, we get a much better rate of return. Could you elaborate 

a little bit on what the Department is going to be doing in that regard? 

Mr. KADELI. Well, the efficiency that I was speaking to with regard to our request had to do with how we do some of our work. 

So for example, I shared what we were doing with the program 

called TOX21, allowing us to take advantage of computational 

power of robotics that has significantly enhanced the through-put 

of a number of chemicals that we can run through these many tests 

and has significantly reduced the costs associated with them. 

This is one of those programs, sir, that as you look for places— 

and I must say, when I visit where we have laboratories and I talk 

to people, I sometimes introduce myself as being from Washington 

and being there to help. I suspect you all can understand that 

sometimes that always doesn’t get a welcomed response. But it allows me to talk about the many good things that are going on that 

their tax dollars are paying for. And this TOX21 program is one 

of those places where as a result of our—with other federal agencies and industry, there were some significant enhancements that 

are being made that are going to benefit our ability to understand 

potential impacts and effects of chemicals. 

So significant reductions in costs, significant gains in numbers of 

chemicals that we can run through a large suite of tests quickly. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Have you been successful so far? 

Mr. KADELI. Actually, very successful, and there have been a 

number of journal articles that have been in the peer review press, 

and there is more to come, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n, for five minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Kadeli, 

thank you for being here. Last I remembered, basic biology, chem-
49 

istry and science said that my body depends on oxygen to survive 

as well as being able to get that even through the composition of 

H2O. It is nicer when there are no other chemicals or elements that 

are associated with H2O when you start talking about being able 

to—the body, and I think this notion of when it became cool not 

to have clean air or clean water, I just don’t understand where that 

came from or quite honestly why we fight about that here. Those 

are basic staples that we should be looking at protecting, and at 

the same time, we could still have a strong economy. So I very 

much appreciate the R&D aspects of what your responsibilities entail with making sure that we still have access to that important 

quality when I talk about H2O. 

With that being said, Mr. Kadeli, you mentioned in your written 

testimony that the Office of Research and Development has organized a trans-disciplinary program around safe and sustainable 

water research. As you know, ensuring the availability of water in 

the Southwest is challenging, especially in states like New Mexico 

that experience drought. Water resources become scarce and we 

have impending problems inherently related to that. In my district, 

tribal communities continue to struggle for access to clean drinking 

water, and rural communities face challenges in developing waste 

water treatment infrastructure. 

Can you elaborate a bit on drinking water technologies that you 

are establishing at ORD and how they might provide safe drinking 

water to our most rural communities? 

Mr. KADELI. Yes, sir. One of the areas of cooperation that is 

springing out of discussions that we have had with the academic 

community, with the business community and with state and local 

government officials and also the federal sector, there is a cluster 

of activity that is happening around our laboratory in Cincinnati, 

and it involves Cincinnati, Kentucky, Northern Kentucky and 

Southern Indiana. 

Some of the work that they are doing, for example, is looking at 

some of the drinking water technologies that can be used for small 

water systems, and the particular aspect that they are trying to address is energy consumption. Our drinking water and in cleaning 

drinking water, there is a significant investment of energy that is 

necessary to do that process. So they are looking at the application 

of various approaches in technology that can be applied with significant reductions in technology in energy use, with a particular 

focus on applications toward small systems. Clearly, large cities 

and jurisdictions have a larger tax base to pay for these enhancements, and one of the areas that we clearly have heard from a 

number of places is the importance of providing innovative approaches to help address the needs of smaller communities, of rural 

communities, et cetera. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that, Mr. Kadeli. There was a project in 

my district where they asked students where water came from, and 

most of the students drew pictures of water faucets and hoses and 

where that water would come out with the wells and whatnot. 

There was a group of Navajo students that drew pictures of pickup trucks with water tanks in the back, pictures of their grandparents or their parents carrying water in buckets to their homes. 

And with the deteriorating system that we have around the coun-
50 

try, it is important that we have places like that right here in 

America, right here in our backyard, that we need to make sure 

that we can never forget about. 

Related to that, as we talk about areas where there maybe is 

some infrastructure as well, with the drought that we are experiencing in parts of the country, crumbling infrastructure, I am worried that the intersection of these two problems is a pending catastrophe. What kind of research does EPA conduct to deal with critical issues if we talk about crumbling infrastructure as well as 

drought? 

Mr. KADELI. This is an area where we have seen some significant 

strides made in leveraging the ecosystems to do one of the jobs that 

they were created to do. I can remember visiting a Member of Congress in their district, and they proceeded to take about 10 minutes 

to educate me on the challenges of cities, particularly in dealing 

with wet water flows and combined sewer overflows and the need 

to make significant great infrastructure investments. 

So after about 10 minutes of greatly impassioned comments directed toward me as a representative of the Federal Government 

at the time, it actually provided me a great opportunity to talk 

about some of the green infrastructure work that we were doing 

that provides lower cost approaches to achieve some of the same effects. And there are also additional ecosystems benefits that occur 

as a result of taking these types of approaches. But this is one of 

those places where science and research is playing a significant 

role so that decision-makers have the information necessary to 

make decisions on the types of approaches and the more economic 

and beneficial approaches. That can be taken, complementing the 

gray infrastructure types of investments that need to be made, too. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I just have a couple very brief questions, and then I will yield an equal amount of 

time to the Ranking Member’s designee. 

Mr. Kadeli, Dr. Anastas, when he testified here, said that when 

you are going forward with the hydro fracturing study that in fact 

interested parties would be allowed to accompany the testing of the 

sites and to actually take samples, shadow sampling. But my understanding is since then the EPA may have reversed that position. 

You know, obviously, reproducibility and transparency is very important. Do you have an objection to that being done while you are 

undertaking that study? 

Mr. KADELI. Congressman, to the best of my knowledge, nothing 

has changed as far as our collaboration with the companies who 

are a part of this study. So I am not aware of any changes, but 

I will go back and ask that question and provide a further response 

for the record. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. And as kind of a comment, maybe a question to you, you had suggested that while there 

are concerns about hydro fracturing and gee, what could the Agency do except study it, why couldn’t you have gone out and said, you 

know, there are 1.2 million applications of hydro fracturing. The 

only thing it seemed to have done is to have the price of natural 

gas—while of course the price of gas has doubled under this Administration, the price of natural gas now 1/2 of what it is, and it 

seems to be safe. Wouldn’t that be reason to say, you know, to reas-
51 

sure the American public, actually it has been done 1.2 million 

times, and it seems like it is pretty safe, instead of kind of setting 

up what could be characterized as fear mongering to some extent? 

Wouldn’t that have been a reasonable alternative for a scientific 

agency in retrospect to say, you know, 1.2 million, kind of safe? 

Mr. KADELI. Well, sir, we are careful to make definitive statements until we have the information that allows us to make those 

statements. Again, I will say what I said earlier which is the President, those in industry, those here in Congress, I think there is a 

place of agreement. This is an important resource. We just want to 

make sure that it is done right, and at the end of the day, I think 

that is in everybody’s interests, sir. 

Chairman HARRIS. And 1.2 million, it seems like it is being done 

right. 

Anyway, I yield two minutes to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a suggestion for almost a decade now that EPA’s research could be more 

integrated, more coordinated within the EPA if there was a top 

science official. The National Academy said that the lack of a top 

science official is a formula for weak scientific performance of the 

agency, and they and others have suggested that Congress create 

a new position of Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology 

with the responsibility of coordinating and overseeing agency-wide 

scientific policy, peer review, quality assurance. Probably the last 

thing we need is another position not to be confirmed by the Senate. But does ORD have an opinion on that? Would the head of 

ORD become an obsolete position if Congress created a deputy at 

the administrator level, assuming that somebody could actually fill 

that position as a temporary or as a recess appointment? 

Mr. KADELI. Well, sir, I think this is something that has come 

up. It seems to be a cyclical issue that is raised. It has merit. I believe that the best I can do on a response is offer you something 

for the record, sir, and that is definitely in more the political realm. 

So let me some back to you with response for the record, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. I will yield back 31 seconds. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. I want to thank Mr. 

Kadeli for his valuable testimony and Members for their questions. 

The Members of the Committee, of course, may have additional 

questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. I will just say that answers from the agency are obviously important to the work, but we still haven’t received our QFRs back 

from the hearing the Subcommittee held on November 17 of last 

year. So I am going to ask you to kind of commit to us that within 

the next two weeks you can get those back. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. The witness is excused, thank you all for 

coming and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
52 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
53 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Admistrator, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Questions Submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and Other Committee Members 
54 

changes in severe weather frequency and intensity, drought, changes in watenesources,-and 

biological impacts such as fisheries productivity. 

NOAA and the EPA have different missions, and therefore, different requirements for and 

needs from climate models. NOAA is recognized as a federal leader in climate modeling. 

NOAA coordinates closely with its Federal agency partners to understand their mission needs 

and where feasible and appropriate to build those requirements into its climate models. 

NOAA modeling efforts cannot meet all these demands because of the need to focus on its 

mission, resource limitations, and the diverse array of other agencies mission-specific 

requirements. To avoid duplication of efforts, other Federal agencies like the EPA choose to 

build from the climate modeling efforts of NOAA, or the National Science Foundation, 

NASA, or the Department of Energy instead of building a complete new set of models. EPA 

is leveraging existing models developed by NOAA, tailoring them to meet its specific needs, 

and linking them to EPA models specifically designed to understand impacts on air and water 

quality. 

NOAA, EPA, and other Federal agency partners coordinate with one another on climate 

science and modeling to avoid duplication of efforts and inefficiencies. One such mechanism 

is through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates and integrates 

federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society. 

EE3: The FY13 budget contains a life-cycle request for JPSS of$12. 9 billion. This 

represents the costs for two satellites in one orbit, each with five sensors, and a launch date of 

no earlier than 2017. The original NPOESS program was estimated to cost $6.5 billion for 

six satellites in three orbits with 13 instruments and launch before 2013. 

a. Has NOAA completed a program baseline, as required by Sec. PL. 110-161, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008? If not, why not, and when will the baseline be 

completed? 

Response: 

The Life Cycle Cost of $12.9 billion! is a revision from the previously submitted Life Cycle 

Cost of $11.9 billion2 through FY 2024, and reflects an additional four years of operations. 

As part of its efforts to ensure that satellite investments generate the best possible value for 

taxpayers, the Administration is assessing potential cost savings that may reduce the lifecycle costs of its satellite systems, including JPSS. 

The FY 2013 President's Budget Request represents the costs through FY 2028 fOT the 

JPSS Program which will fly in the afternoon orbit and will include: 4 satellites (2 JPSS 

satellites and 2 free-flyer satellites), launch services, a fully operational ground system, 

and operations and sustainment for the 4 satellites as well as the operations for the Suomi 

NPP satellite. It also provides funding for the JPSS Program to develop and/or provide 

launch of the Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS); Cross-track Infrared 

1 Of the $12.9 billion, $4.3 billion was spent through the end of FY 2012. 

2 Of the $11.9 billion, $3.4 billion was spent through the end of FY 2011. 
55 

Instrument Sounder (CrrS); Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (pMPS)-Nadir;- Adyanceci 

Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS); Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System 

(CERES); Total Spectral and Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS); Advanced Data Collection 

System (ADCS); and Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT). 

NOAA has not completed the program baseline report and anticipates delivering to the 

Congress the program baseline report to the pursuant to P.L. 112-55 after the program 

successfully completes the Key Decision Point-I (KDP-I) milestone. The KDP-I milestone, 

which is roughly equivalent to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), as defined in the 

legislation, is scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter ofFY 2013. At KDP-I, JPSS is 

expected to demonstrate that the preliminary design meets all system requirements with 

acceptable risk and within the cost and schedule constraints and establishes the basis for 

proceeding with detailed design. It will also show that the correct design options have been 

selected, interfaces have been identified, and verification methods have been described. 

JPSS has not yet reached the stage in development where a program baseline would be 

developed or required for any satellite program, neither under the Critical Design Review 

threshold as required in the FY 2008 law (section 112 ofPL 110-161), nor under the 

amended contract award and Preliminary Design Review threshold in the FY 2012 

appropriations act (section 105 ofPL 112-55). 

Section 112 ofP.L. 110-161, as amended by section 105 ofP.L. 112-55, requires NOAA 

to submit a Baseline report for "the program as set following preliminary design review 

of the space and ground systems." This is pursuant to NASA's Interim Directive 7120-97. 

NASA Interim Directive 7120-97 is being used in place of NASA Procedural 

Requirements 7120.5d, dated March 6, 2007, while updates are underway, and represents 

the standard procedure used by the Government for acquiring a system as complex as 

JPSS. 

Reaching PDR by the fourth quarter ofFY 2013 is dependent on receiving timely and full 

funding as requested in the FY 2013 Budget request ($916.4 million) and future years. 

b. How much of the life-cycle cost contained in the $12.89 billion estimate is for 

development as defined by P.L. 11O-161? 

Response: 

P.L. 110-161 was amended by the FY 2012 appropriations act (section 105 ofPL 112-55). Of 

the $12.9 billion life-cycle cost, JPSS development costs are approximately $6.7 billion. 

This is based on the definition of the term "development cost" in section 105 ofPL 112-55, 

which includes the total of all costs, including construction of facilities and civil servant 

costs, from the period beginning vvith the approval to proceed to implementation through the 

achievement of operational readiness, without regard to funding source or management 

control, for the life of the program. 
56 

The scope of the activities included in these development costs includes deve1opmentcosts 

from approval to operational readiness for five satellites: Suomi NPP (NOAA's portion of 

the Suomi NPP costs only), JPSS-l, JPSS-2, two Free-Flyers for the SARSAI and A-DCS 

and ISIS, and the multi-mission Ground System. 

c. Sec 112(c)(1) requires NOAA to submit a Major Program Annual Report for NOAA's 

satellite development program with its budget submission. The law states that this shall 

include a Baseline Report that includes the purpose and key technical characteristics; a 

life-cycle cost with breakouts for development and reserves; a schedule with key 

milestones; and plan for mitigating technical, cost, and schedule risks; and the name of 

the person responsible for making notifications and overseeing the program. Has this 

report been delivered? If it has not, when will it be delivered? 

Response: 

NOAA is implementing the directives pursuant to section 105 ofPL 112-55 which 

superseded section 112, PL 110-161. As such, JPSS and Jason-3 have not yet reached the 

threshold (e.g., Preliminary Design Review phase) where a Baseline Report would be 

developed. For JPSS, PL 110-161, section 112 excluded NPOESS from the requirement to 

submit an annual report because separate reporting occurred under DoD acquisition 

authorities and NOAA is including an update of JPSS activities in its reporting requirements 

pursuant to the FY 2012 appropriations act (PL 112-55, section 105) which superseded PL 

110-161). NOAA will develop the JPSS Baseline Report when the program completes PDR 

in the fourth quarter ofFY 2013. GOES-R completed its PDR in May 2012 and a Baseline 

Report is being prepared for submission to the Congressional Committees. 

Additionally, NOAA is developing a report for FY 2014 that provides a status of 

development of NOAA's satellite acquisition programs in reflecting the FY 2014 Budget 

request. The report will provide the purpose and key technical characteristics of the 

particular satellite acquisition program, the plan for mitigating technical, cost, and schedule 

risks, and the name of the system program director responsible for overseeing the program 

and making notifications. 

EE4: The Department of Defense recently cancelled its polar orbiting weather satellite 

program. What impact will that have on the JPSS program? How can NOAA develop a 

program without knowing what instruments will fly in the early morning orbit? 

Response: 

Because there were few dependencies between JPSS and the proposed Department of 

Defense (DoD) Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS) and JPSS has adjusted its plans in 

reaction to the cancellation, the lack ofDWSS data will have no impact to JPSS. NOAA has 

been able to make progress and develop JPSS without waiting for DOD to fmalize plans for 

instruments that will fly in the early morning orbit. However, the National Weather Service 

(NWS) had been interested in using data from the DoD morning orbits as an input in its 

numerical weather prediction models, with the expectation of improved forecast capability. 

Specifically, the NWS Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) had planned to leverage 

data from the Space Environmental Monitor-N (SEM-N) instrumen~ that was planned on 
57 

DWSS to support NWS operational requirements for space-based obseryations; In addition, 

the N""WS National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) planned to use data from 

the DWSS for its numerical weather prediction models, which was expected to provide 

improvements in mid- to long-range weather forecasts in addition to those gained with ]PSS 

data. 

NOAA will continue to engage with the Department of Defense as they formulate their 

follow-on polar-orbiting satellite system. 

EE5: Recent testimony from the Inspector General of NASA to our Investigations and 

Oversight Subcommittee demonstrated serious concerns about cyber security, including more 

than 5,000 computer security incidents. Similarly, another report highlighted that NASA's 

Terra satellite experienced instances of interference apparently consistent with cyber 

activities against their command and control systems. Considering the similarities between 

NASA and NOAA satellite missions, and the fact that NASA is developing the ]PSS and 

GOES systems for NOAA, are you concerned with the state of satellite information security? 

If so, what is NOAA doing differently? 

Response: 

NOAA is vigilant regarding threats posed by both external and internal threats to the security 

of its satellite systems. We coordinate closely with NASA in sharing threat and security 

countenneasure information and in ensuring that proper attention is paid to information 

security throughout the life cycle of the information systems supporting the satellite mission. 

In this regard, NOAA has focused on the following types of countermeasures for the satellite 

ground systems: 

• Commands are encrypted between the NOAA Ground Systems that support 

Department of Commerce Primary Mission Essential Functions and the NASA Suomi 

National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite to prevent an external 

entity from intercepting and exploiting the uplink to take over the satellite. 

• Commands are authenticated on board the Suomi NPP satellite and only authenticated 

commands are executed. 

• Equipment used to command and control the Suomi NPP satellite is managed by the 

Joint Polar Satellite System (]PSS) Ground Project; the equipment is inventorycontrolled, configuration-controlled and managed on behalf of the Government by the 

Raytheon contractor. 

• This equipment, including the equipment being used at the Suomi NPP data 

download station, the Svalbard Satellite Station in Svalbard, Norway, is being 

operated by vetted U.S. Government staff and vetted contractor staff. 

• All security controls for the ]PSS Ground System, including the equipment located at 

Svalbard, are being implemented, continuously monitored and assessed as part of the 

NOAA ]PSS authorization boundary. 

• Efforts are under way to ensure the ]PSS Ground System continues to move toward 

compliance to Federal IT Security requirements consistent with the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NlST) risk management framework; the ]PSS Ground 
58 

Project is working to fully achieve this compliance goal by JPSS-l launch minus 6 

months. 

• To further protect the integrity and availability of satellite information and NOAA 

Ground Systems from external human threat sources, NOAA implements the 

recommendations of the NIST Special Publication 800-82, Guide to Industrial 

Control Systems (ICS) Security. In this regard, multiple layers of defense exist within 

the NOAA satellite mission networks. Satellite Control systems are logically and/or 

physically isolated and protected by a diverse series offrrewalls and proxies that are 

monitored, logged, and configured for least-privileged role-based access. 

NOAA, NASA and Raytheon have teamed to arrange for the U.S. Air Force to conduct a 

review of the JPSS Ground System to obtain recommendations regarding security practices 

and specialized tools for further improvements of the satellite mission security architecture. 

With these steps, NOAA is confident that it will be able to protect its satellite systems from 

cyber security attacks. 

EE 6: NOAA recently moved its email to the cloud-based Google's Apps for Government 

At the time, NOAA was the largest Agency to move to the cloud. In his testimony before 

our Committee's Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, the NASA IG indicated that 

"The need to effectively secure Agency data stored in the cloud has emerged as the 

major challenge to Federal agencies reaping the substantial benefits of cloud computing 

offers. In addition, as Federal agencies move more toward cloud computing, it is imperative 

that Inspectors General across the Government retain access to Agency information 

maintained by cloud-computing providers." 

a. What steps is NOAA taking to ensure that agency information remains protected? 

Response: 

NOAA is protecting agency information. NOAA follows the standard risk management 

processes required by the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), as 

well as those required by DOC and NOAA policy. As allowed by FISMA, NOAA 

leveraged the certification and accreditation work done by GSA to make our own risk 

assessment and authorize the use of Google Apps for Government (GAFG) in NOAA 

NOAA's assessment included a separate independent review of the security controls put 

in place by Google and NOAA's prime contractor. 

NOAA Email information is protected utilizing all DOC, NOAA, NIST, and FISMA 

requirements and practices. Besides being Lmder contract using Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (FAR) clause 52.239-1, Google Apps for Government (GAFG) is required to 

use the following Technical Requirements: 

• Account Administration: 

o Authorization is administered by NOAA staff. NOAA Email administrators 

have the ability to Lock accounts quickly, and/or permanently remove an email or document from all internal accounts and from the service provider's 

systems. 
59 

o Authentication services are provided by NOAA via a single sign-on process. 

The solution integrates with NOAA's Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 

(LDAP)-based directory services to securely authenticate and authorize users. 

• Encryption: 

o Web and client based access is provided over Secure Sockets Layer 

(SSL)/Transport Layer Security (TLS) sessions meeting FIPS 140-2 

standards. 

• Filtering: 

o Utilizing spam filtering, anti-virus/anti-malware protection, anti-phishing, and 

screening of inbound and outbound messages. 

o United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) reportable 

security events directly to the NOAA Computer Incident Response Team (NCIRT) within 15 minutes of detection. 

• Blocking: 

o Specific file types, for example [exe, zip, etc.] as well as other variables, such 

as by subject title, or content. 

• Governance: 

o NOAA Email Administrators have means for change control, configuration 

management, notification and governance processes with regard to proactive 

and/or requested changes. 

h. Are all types of information created and transmitted by "Google's Apps for Government" 

retained as required by Federal law? For instance, are "gchats" retained as records? 

Response: 

Yes, NOAA is following applicable records retention requirements in its implementation 

of Google Apps for Government (Gi\FG). With respect to gchat, this form of 

communication is more akin to a telephone call. In the event a gchat communication 

needs to be documented as an official record, e.g. policy decision, users must record and 

retain the information as an official record. GAFG retains all inbound and outbound 

email messages in a centrally-administered repository to make them available for ediscovery and Freedom of Information Act requests. 

c. \X/hat access does the Department of Commerce Inspector General have to cloud 

based data? Has their access changed? 

Response: 

The Department of Commerce Inspector General can access all the data within Google using 

similar processes and procedures to those used fOT on-premise data today. 

EE7: As part ofthe recently-extended payroll tax cut, the Federal Communications 

Commission will auction off portions of the spectrum. Will this auction have any impacts on 

NO.A.A's polar-orbiting and geostationary satellite systems? Are additional costs expected? 

If so, how much? Will this impact program schedules? 

Response: 
60 

The 1675-1710 MHz band is allocated internationally for weather satellites. This band is 

desirable because transmissions in that range are not as affected by bad weather as other 

bands traditionally used for satellite communications. 

NOAA currently operates a number of polar-orbiting and geostationary operational 

environmental satellites in the 1675-171 0 MHz range. NOAA and its European mission 

partner, the European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 

(EUMETSAT), operate polar satellites using identical direct broadcast imagery systems 

in the 1695-1710 MHz band. Assets that are currently in orbit cannot be retrofitted to 

change the transmission frequency. NOAA expects replacement satellites to be launched 

by 2017 for the Joint Polar satellite System and 2015 for the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite-R Series. 

In November 2010, the Department of Commerce, through its National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and working with other 

impacted federal agencies, including NOAA, concluded a months-long analysis in 

response to the President's June 2010 Broadband Initiative. In the report, Assessment of 

the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband Systems in the 1675-

1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400 MHz 

Bands (Fast-Track Report), the Department recommended - and has formally proposed 

to the Federal Communications Commission -that a 15-megahertz portion of the band, 

1695-1710 MHz, be made available for commercial use within five years, in a marmer 

that protects critical government sites via exclusion zones. The exclusion zones would 

protect key earth station sites, including NOAA's operational facilities, to minimize the 

likelihood of interference. 

NOAA is also participating in an NTIA-Ied engagement process ''lith industry to develop 

options for repurposing this spectrum that maximizes its commercial use, while 

protecting essential NOAA capabilities. This may include more detailed interference 

modeling, which could allow for smaller exclusion zones, moving dowulinks to less 

populated areas or other options. 

NOAA expects additional costs from redesigning observational systems and technical 

studies related to potential interference issues. NOAA is still evaluating the potential cost 

impacts. Examples of modifications that would entail additional costs include: 

GOES-R: NOAA's next generation geostationary satellite program (GOES-R), which is 

currently under development for launch mid-decade, redesigned its direct broadcast 

communications subsystem to move below 1695 MHz to comply with the spectrum 

sharing regime identified in the Fast-Track Report. Changes to current contracts were 

executed and costs paid using GOES-R Progranl contingency funds. 

Radiosondes: As a result of the GOES-R redesign, NOAA's radiosondes (balloon-borne 

instruments for atmospheric measurements) require redesign to reduce spectrum usage in 

time to support the GOES-R redesign. Redesign of NOAA systems attributable to 
61 

making the frequency available fOT auction is expected to be paid for by auction 

proceeds. 

Additionally, NOAA is eligible for funding for certain pre-auction planning costs, 

consistent with the terms articulated in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. 

Funding from the Spectrum Relocation Fund is contingent upon approval by a technical 

panel created by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, comprised of 

representatives of NTIA, OMB and the Federal Communications Commission, of a 

NOAA transition plan. NTV\ is creating the procedures for the panel now and NOAA is 

working with NTV\ to develop its transition plan. 

EE8. How much money is NOAA requesting to coordinate and carry out Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning activities under the President's National Ocean Policy? 

Response: 

The President's FY 2013 Budget request does not include specified funding for Coastal 

and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) and maintains zero funding for the CMSP budget 

line. Many of NOAA's existing coastal programs support regional planning efforts by 

providing data, information, and services at the request of state and local governments 

pursuant to the authorities in the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

EE9: In your testimony, as well as in numerous other NOAA documents and an article you 

wrote in the March 2012 issue of Physics Today, you have cited the increased number of 

"billion dollar weather events" in arguing for increased funding for climate change-related 

work. NOAA recently had to update its work on this calculation, as the Administration had 

failed to adjust for inflation. In requesting increased investments to achieve a "weather-ready 

nation," why do you use a metric of billion dollar weather events instead of lives saved? 

Response: 

As an agency, we have grappled with the viability of a rigorous metric that could identify the 

number oflives we save from extreme weather. Computing such a metric involves 

measuring many different variables, including how many people heard the warning, how 

many took appropriate action, how many people were in the path of the tornado and moved 

out of the way, etc. It is a prohibitively laborious, expensive, and time-consuming process 

that requires consistent and quality data. One difficulty is the randomness of tornadoes, and 

the need for tens of thousands of reliably reported events to provide statistically significant 

results. In addition, it would be difficult to discern whether related fatalities had effectively 

received NOAA's warnings. However, even if we could do this, it would not be a metric that 

measures the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts. 

The billion dollar event statistic is used to communicate the long-term change in severe 

weather events - both in cost and frequency. This is useful for NOAA's weather forecasting 

and severe storm warnings, as well as the related impact to the economy. 
62 

EE·I0. The FY13 budget request does not mention the President's proposed government 

reorganization that would move NOAA into the Department of Interior. Why? 

Response: The FY13 budget does not reflect the proposed consolidations outlined in the 

President's proposal because the Congress must first act to provide the President with 

consolidation authority. If Congress provides this authority, the Administration would 

consult with Members of Congress, the relevant Congressional Committees, agencies, and 

stakeholders, and prepare a detailed reorganization proposal to submit to Congress. 

EEIOa. Secretary Salazar recently testified that the Interior Department has not studied how 

to implement this reorganization. Has NOAA examined a potential transition to Interior, or 

is this election-year posturing on government reform? 

Response: The President's priority is to first obtain consolidation authority. If Congress 

grants him that authority, we will consult with Congress, other agencies and stakeholders and 

develop a detailed proposal for the merger of NOAA and DOL 

EEU: It was recently made public that NOAA may have reallocated $50 million - or about 

5 percent of the NWS budget - without Congressional approval. T lmderstand an initial 

review was completed last fall, and a senior-level review was expected to be completed in 

January. Please provide a detailed update on the status of this review and explain how such a 

large amount of funding was spent on activities not authorized by Congress without your 

knowledge. When do you expect it to be completed? 

Response: 

The review has been completed. A detailed summary follows: 

The National Weather Service (J','"WS), a line office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), violated 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a) by reprogramming funds in fiscal 

years 20 10 and 20 II without providing advance notification to Congress as required by law, 

thereby incurring obligations in excess of available appropriations. These violations occurred 

in NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) and Procurement, Acquisition, and 

Construction (PAC) accounts, Treasury Account Symbols 13 101111450, 13111121450, 

13101111460, and 13 11112 1460. 

During fiscal years 2010 and 2011, NWS's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) 

engaged in practices designed to alleviate shortihlls in the NWS budget. °The perceived 

shortfalls appear to be tlle result of two causes. First, to pay for the cost of common services 

across NWS, its OCFO applied an algorithm to assess the costs across the various NWS 

programs, projects or activities (PPAs) within the ORF and PAC appropriations. However, in 

formulating this algorithm, OCFO did not assess the full cost of the common services, 

leaving a budget gap of approximately $10 million in each fiscal year. Moreover, OCFO did 

not apply the algorithm to all PP As on a legitimate basis in proportion to the costs reasonably 

attributable to each PPA. Instead, one ORF PPA, Local Waruings and Forecasts, was charged 

a set amount. Two others, PAC's Weather & Climate Supercomputing and ORF's Central 

10 
63 

Forecast Guidan(Je, were not assessed any- costs for common services because1i'le OCFO 

concluded that doing so would cripple mission performance, necessarily meaning that other 

PP As would bear the costs of services related to these two PP As. Second, NWS had in recent 

years needed to accommodate increases in labor costs without concomitant increases in 

budget authority from Congress. 

1\TWS's OCFO handled these perceived shortfalls by using instruments known as "Summary 

Level Transfers" (SLTs). SLTs are a legitimate tool used to correct errors in how expenses 

are charged by allowing financial officers the ability to change the accounting codes of past 

expenses. In this instance, however, OCFO used SLTs to change the accounting codes of 

expenses appropriately charged to a PP A experiencing a shortfall to instead reflect the cost as 

an expense of a PP A that OCFO perceived to have more funds than needed. By doing so, 

additional funds were made available in the original PP A so that it could incur additional 

expenses. Moreover, the justifications for the movement of such expenses were not 

contemporaneously documented in a proper manner. As a result, and because SLTs are used 

to move expenses in batch rather than in relation to individual transactions, we cannot 

retroactively determine the exact extent to which expenses were moved, and, therefore, 

reprogrammed, from one PP A to another. Nevertheless, as much as $9.3 million from the 

Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (A'VIPS) ORF PPA was, in effect, 

rcprogrammed in fiscal year 2010 to cover Local Warnings and Forecasts (LWF) ORF PPA 

expenses. As much as $5.5 million of A WIPS funds were, in effect, reprogrammed to cover 

L WF expenses in fiscal year 2011. Moreover, as much as $4.6 million from the Complete 

and Sustain NOAA Weather Radio PAC PPA was used to cover expenses of the LWF ORF 

PPA in fiscal year 2011, freeing up funds that were then used to cover expenses related to the 

Next Generation Weather Radar ORF PPA in the same year. 

The use of funds from one ORF PPA to cover expenses attributable to another ORF PPA 

constitutes a reprogramming of funds. Further, the use offunds from a PAC PPA to cover the 

expenses of an ORF PP A constitutes a transfer of funds from one appropriation account to 

another. While the Department had limited authority under section 103 of the Commerce 

Justice, Science, and Related Appropriations Act of2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-117, Div. B) to 

transfer funds from one appropriation account to another, that section requires that any such 

transfer also be treated as a reprograinming of funds. Section 505 of that Act prohibits the 

reprogramming of funds of the amount described above absent advance notice being given to 

the appropriations committees of each house of Congress. No such notice was given in thi.s 

case. 

The Antideficiency Act prohibits agencies from incurring obligations in excess of available 

appropriations. Under Section 505 of the 2010 appropriations act, reprogrammed funds are 

not available for any purpose until the requisite notice is provided. Because of this restriction, 

where, as here, an agency incurs obligations against reprogrammed funds where proper 

notice was not provided, it has incurred obligations in excess of available appropriations. 

Moreover, the requirements of Sections 103 and 505 of the 2010 appropriations act were 

carried forward into fiscal year 2011 through operation of that year's Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 112-10, Div. B). Accordingly, by reprogramming funds in 

11 
64 

fiscal years 2010 and2011 without giving proper notice, NWS incurred obligations in excess 

of available appropriations in violation of the Antideficicncy Act. 

Unfortunately, NWS's practices continued, in part, because of a lack of internal NOAA and 

NWS oversight of the NWS OCFO. Specifically, while the ]\,'WS Assistant Administrator 

directly supervised the NWS CFO, the Assistant Administrator had little knowledge of the 

manner in which NWS's budget was handled. The NWS Deputy Assistant Administrator 

played no direct role in the CFO's supervision. Meanwhile, the NOAA CFO had no direct 

supervisory authority over anyone within the NWS, including the NWS CFO. 

The Department and NOAA are taking corrective actions to prevent future violations of this 

nature. Among other things, these corrective actions include conducting a comprehensive 

review of how SLTs are used across the Department to ensure that there are adequate 

administrative controls for their use; ensuring the costs of common services are appropriately 

assessed; changing the supervisory structure ofNWS and other NOAA line offices such that 

line office CFOs are supervised by the NOAA CFO in addition to the line office assistant 

administrators; and, instituting a training program for key personnel across the Department 

that addresses core appropriations law concepts, including reprogramming, the 

Antideficiency Act, and the appropriate use of SLTs. 

EE12: In the FY 13 budget there is an overall reduction of $39 million for the National 

Weather Service, $27 million of which comes from reductions in the "local forecast and 

warnings" line item. Part ofthis savings comes from eliminating the Information 

Technology Officer (ITO) position at each of the 122 Weather Forecast Offices, for a cut of 

$9.74 million. The Weather Service then proposes to replace these local ITOs with 24 

regional ITOs. 

a. Is it inaccurate to say that that these ITOs are vital to maintaining the software that is the 

backbone of forecast capabilities at each Weather Forecast Office-and that this software 

currently resides and functions locally at each office, rather than through a central location or 

interface? Could this feature of the software and forecasting systems cause the "regional" 

approach to be impractical, insufficient and potentially dangerous? 

Response: 

The Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AViIPS) is the backbone of forecast 

capabilities at Weather Forecast Offices (WFO). When A WIPS was first deployed, this 

technology was not robust, nor was there technical expertise within local forecast offices to 

manage the additional information technology (IT) requirements. To meet these challenges, 

the Information Technology Officer (ITO) position was created in 2001 to provide onsite 

configuration and upgrade support for A WIPS. Currently, each WFO has one ITO, typically 

working dayshifts on weekdays. 

Remote IT support has become the common practice in both government and industry. Over 

the past decade, advances in NWS IT have enabled remote support in many cases. For 

example, the A WIPS Network Control Facility (NCF) has provided a level of remote A WIPS 

service for more than 10 years. A WIPS IL the next generation of A WIPS currently being 

12 
65 

deployed at all NWS offices;has been designed for remote support. Using expanded 

enterprise IT tools, the A WIPS NCF will streamline its support, improve effectiveness and 

mitigate the need for onsite configuration. Remote maintenance and support using virtual 

management tools coupled with configuration standardization, will increase support 

efficiencies and reduce overall costs. 

In addition to the increased remote functionality of A WIPS, NWS would establish Regional 

IT Collaboration Units (RITCU). Each RITCU would be capable of supporting multiple 

WFOs from a single location, or multiple locations through remote access capabilities. 

RITCUs would be fully capable of addressing any local software issue. The A WIPS NCF 

would continue as a secondary source of support capable of diagnosing and resolving most 

problems. If the systems go dov.'U during severe weather and cannot be remedied remotely in 

short order, service backup would be implemented. To provide for continuity of operations 

in the field, long-standing and extensively tested service backup capabilities allow an 

adjacent WFO to assume the warning and forecast responsibility of a pre-determined, 

neighboring WFO almost immediately to ensure no service degradation to the public. Testing 

of backup plans is conducted at least annually in accordance with the NWS operations 

policy. 

With these IT advancements and additional mitigation measures, ;.JWS's ability to issue 

timely warnings and forecasts will not be impacted by the reduction of the ITOs. 

b. As of January 2011, NOAA was spending roughly $127 million on 852 contractors for the 

National Weather Service. It has been reported that the Weather Service currently does not 

know its exact number of contractors. Why were savings not sought through cutting 

contractor expenses, instead of cutting positions that are mission critical particularly during 

extreme weather when forecast software is more likely to face technical difficulties due to 

high volume usage? 

Response: In compliance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act, }''WS 

actively tracks its contractor inventory and related costs. 

Preservation of core warnings and forecast mission has been the cornerstone of all NWS 

fiscal decisions. Beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, NWS began reducing its contractor 

workforce as part of budget initiatives such as the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing 

System (A WIPS) and the National Weather Service Telecommunications Gateway 

(NWSTG), both of which are anticipated to provide improved efficiencies. These contractor 

reductions will continue in FY 2012 and 2013. Initial contractor reductions focused 

primarily on administrative support. NWS is currently reducing progranrmatic and logistical 

support contractors. Additional contractor cuts other than those identified in FY 2013 would 

risk core operations such as the National Data Buoy Center repair operations and A WIPS 

Network Control Facility (NCF). Contractors can contribute expertise and flexibility to meet 

the changing work demands of NOAA's mission. 

13 
66 

EE 13: In the Navigation Services line item of the National Ocean Service there is a 

program reduction of $2.3 million through the elimination of all 6 of the Navigation 

Response Teams that are listed as responsible for "mapping and charting". 

a. Please explain exactly what these Navigation Response Teams are designed to do and what 

their original purpose was. 

Response: 

NOAA's Navigation Response Teams (NRT) provide 2417 emergency hydrographic survey 

support to the U.S. Coast Guard, port officials, and other first responders in the wake of 

accidents and natural events that create navigation hazards which impede safe and efficient 

marine transportation and commerce. These events may range from Presidentially declared 

disasters such as major hurricanes to smaller disruptions such as ship groundings. In their 

routine non-emergency role, the NRTs work with sister maritime agencies and maritime 

stakeholders to identifY local survey requirements and to validate NOAA's nautical charting 

products. 

b. What specific capabilities will be lost with the elimination of this position and how will these 

capabilities be replaced? 

Response: 

With elimination of the six vessels and crews that comprise the Navigation Response Teams 

(NRT), NOAA's Office of Coast Survey would revise its process for verifying the quality of 

NOAA nautical charts and other navigation tools. Coast Survey would rely more on user 

feedback and customer reports of chart problems in order to improve the quality of Electronic 

Navigational Charts (ENCs) In addition, NOAA will pursue an agreement with FEMA to 

ensure that technical assistance to assess navigational hazards is available during 

Presidentially declared disasters. 

c. lfthey will not be replaced, how and why does NOAA believe elimination ofNRTs is 

acceptable? 

Response: 

The proposed termination of the NRTs would shift the responsibility for rapid response 

hydrographic surveys from NOAA to first responders, such as the Coast Guard and FEMA, 

or to the ports. NOAA would pursue an agreement with FEMA to provide emergency 

hydrographic support during Presidentially declared disasters. 

EE14: NOAA's FY 13 request proposes to eliminate funding for the NOAA Wind Profiler 

Network in the continental U.S. as well as the National Mesonet Network. Please explain the 

reasons for these funding decisions as well as how these decisions fit with the 2009 National 

Academy of Sciences report, Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up: A 

Nationwide Network of Networks. 

Response: 

14 
67 

The NOAAProfiler Network {l\it'N) and the Mesonet are broadly consistent with the spirit 

and recommendations of From the Ground Up, in that they provide the types of observations 

that augment NWS's ability to detect, forecast, and warn for localized, bigh-impact weather 

events. The NPN is used to monitor wind speed and direction patterns at various heights in 

the atmosphere. Other observing systems, such as the radiosonde data and wind data from 

the NEXRAD radar network, also provide atmospheric wind profiles. Mesonet data are used 

in real time by local office forecasters to detect local-scale phenomena and to verify 

warnings. 

The FY 2013 Budget Request preserves the National Weather Service's core warnings and 

forecast mission. NOAA will continue to use existing observing systems, such as Dual 

Polarized Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), radiosondes, and aircraft 

observations to the fullest extent to mitigate the loss of profiler data. NOAA will continue its 

current approach to developing a National Mesonet by leveraging existing networks 

(operated by state and local governments, the private sector, and other federal agencies), 

when and where available. This leveraging of existing systems is also in the spirit of the 

From the Ground Up report. 

a. The budget proposes to keep three wind profilers in Alaska to assist with volcanic ash 

forecasting. In order to maintain these three, NOAA will have to invest in software 

updates, training of technicians for maintenance purposes, and an active network to 

manage the data. What is the rationale for not upgrading the wind profilers in the 

continental U.S. if NOAA is still planning to invest in all the support systems needed? 

Response: 

The cost for complete technology refreshment and required frequency conversion in the 

continental United States (COl\'US) led to the decision to discontinue conversion and 

refreshment of CONUS wind profilers. Because Alaska is a state with 40 active volcanoes, 

NOAA decided to maintain the Alaskan profilers due to their important contribution to 

aviation warnings for volcanic ash and aviation weather forecasting support. In addition, the 

Alaskan profilers were converted to the acceptable frequency and will undergo technology 

upgrades. Along with the reduction in the number of wind profilers, NOAA will reduce 

system support requirements and training requirements. 

b. What will be the effect of the loss of the profiler data to tornado warning and 

forecasts? Will there be a degradation of services? What is NOAA doing to replace 

the data lost through the retirement of these profilers? 

Response: 

Forecasters primarily rely on the NEXRAD radar network for issning tornado warnings. The 

deployment of dual-polarization capability into the l\TEXRAD network has demonstrated the 

capability to improve tornado detection, which may also improve tornado warnings. 

Combined with other systems that sample the atmosphere, such as radiosondes, aircraft 

observations and satellite data, NOAA will be able to mitigate the loss of data from the wind 

profilers for forecasts oftollliidos and severe weather. NOAA does not anticipate a 

15 
68 

significant impact to its tornado forecast and warning services with the retirement oft.'1e·wind 

profilers in the continental U.S. 

EE15: On page 631 of the NOAA Congressional Justification for the FY 13 budget request, 

there is an explanation ofNCEP Central Operations: NCEP Central Operations (NCO) 

operates the NOAA Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputer, manages the model 

production suite upon which all NCEP services are based, the communications linking the 

several parts ofNCEP and NOAA's Climate Service provides operational quality assurance 

of incoming observation and outgoing products. During your testimony to the full Science, 

Space, and Technology Committee on June 22, 2011, you assured this Committee that 

NOAA had not established a Climate Service, it was a proposal included in the FY 12 budget 

request. Congress ultimately rejected NOAA's proposal for the Climate Service in the FY 12 

appropriations bill. If this is the case, why does the Climate Service appear in the 

Congressional Justifications for the FY 13 budget request? 

Response: 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has not established a 

NOAA Climate Service. The Congressional Justification (CJ) is in error here. This section 

is a base description of an activity, which is not typically rewritten from year to year, and this 

required change from the FY 12 submission was clearly missed by editors. The CJ should 

have read, " ... the communications linkIDg the several parts ofNCEP and NCO provides 

operational quality assurance of incoming observations and outgoing products." 

EE16a: How did you arrive at the $12.9B life-cycle cost of JPSS? Of the $12.9B for JPSS, 

can you detail the number of satellites and sensors included in that number? 

Response EE16a: 

The FY 2011 President's Budget included a LCC of$11.9 billion, of which $3.4 billion had 

already been spent through the end of FY 2011. The cost of four more years of operations, 

from 2024 to 2028, of$l billion brings the new total to $12.9 billion, including NOAA's 

contributions to the Suomi NPP instruments which were developed during the NPOESS 

program .. 

The FY 2013 President's Budget Request represents the costs through FY 2028 for the JPSS 

Program which will fly in the afternoon orbit and will include: 4 satellites (2 JPSS satellites 

and 2 free-flyer satellites), launch vehicles, a fully operational ground system, and operations 

and sustainment for the 4 satellites as well as the operations for the Suomi NPP satellite. 

It also provides funding for the JPSS Program to develop andlor provide launch of the 

VisiblelInfrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS); Cross-track Infrared Instrument 

Sounder (CrIS); Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS)-Nadir; Advanced 

Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS); Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System 

(CERES); Total Spectral and Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS); Advanced Data Collection 

System (ADCS); and Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT). 

16 
69 

Ihe table below provides a comparison of the main irultruments that will fly on-the SuomiNPP, JPSS-l, and JPSS-2 satellites, and the Free Flyer-l and -2 satellites. 

As part of its efforts to ensure that satellite investments generate the best possible value for 

taxpayers, the Administration is assessing potential cost savings that may reduce the lifecycle costs of its weather satellite systems, including JPSS. 

Mission : Spacecraft bus Instrument Suite Launch Schedule 

Suomi NPP Launch Ball bus ATMS, CdS, VIIRS, October 28, 2011 

OMPS-Nadir, OMPSLimb, CERES 

JPSS-l Launch Ball bus (similar ArMS, CrIS, VIIRS, NL I second quarter 

! to Suomi NPI') OMPS-Nadir, CERES ofFY2017 

JPSS-2 Launch TBD AIMS, CrIS, VIIRS, First quarter ofFY 

Readiness OMPS-Nadir, Ol'v1PS- 2022 

Limb, CERES 

Free Flyer-1 Launch TBD SARSAT, A-DCS, S=ruI qwutcr of FY I Readiness TSIS 2017 

Free Flyer-2 Launch TBD SARSAT, A-DCS, First quarter ofFY 

I Readiness ISIS 2022 

The Free Flyer-1 and -2 Launch Readiness dates have changed fro.m FY 2016 Q4 to FY 2017 

Q2 and from FY 2021 Q3 to FY 2022 Q1, respectively. Each was changed by two quarters to 

increase the flexibility for contractors to procure these Free Flyer satellites thereby reducing 

the overall costs to develop them. 

The JPSS Program will also leverage data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning 

Radiometer (AMSR-2) instrument which is flying onboard the Japan Aerospace 

Exploration Agency (JAXA) Global Change Observation Mission-Water (GCOM -WI) 

satellite. Ihese data will partially satisfy National Weather Service data requirements 

precipitation, vapor amounts, wind velocity above the ocean, sea surface temperature, 

soil moisture, and snow depths that are critical for its weather forecasting mission. 

The JPSS Program "ill also support the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Calibration Transfer 

Experiment (TCTE) mission which will partially mitigate a gap until TSIS is on-orbit. 

EE16b: How much of the $12.9B is required for climate sCrulors? Which JPSS sensors are 

climate sensors and what determines that classification? 

Response EE 16b: 

The FY 2013 President's Budget continues development of the Cloud and Earth Radiant 

Energy System (CERES) Flight Model-6 for JPSS-1, and the Ozone Mapping and Profiler 

Suite-Nadir (OMPS-Nadir) for JPSS-1, as well as the Total Spectral and Solar Irradiance 

Sensor (TSIS) Flight Model-I_ 

17 
70 

TSIS, CERES, and OMPS'I'IIlOre designated as climate sensors at the time of the 2006 NunnMcCurdy decision to demani fest instruments that did not directly support the weather 

mission, but supported other NOAA mission areas and programs. In reality, the distinction 

between "climate" sensors and "weather" sensors is not precise, as some of the instruments 

in the JPSS program, for example OMPS-Nadir and VIIRS, have multiple applications that 

span climate, weather, and other environmental monitoring purposes. 

Of the $12.9 billion of the JPSS LCC, approximately $321.4 million contains funds to 

acquire two TSIS instruments which are each designated to fly on a Free Flyer-l and Free 

Flyer-2; one CERES and one OMPS-Nadir which will fly on JPSS-I, and a CERES followon which will fly on JPSS-2; and the OMPS-Limb which will fly on JPSS-2. 

This amount represents the instrument acquisition costs only and does not include estimates 

for operations and sustainment, science or the ground segment. 

In addition, this amount does not include the $162.9 million in costs covered under the 

"NOAA Restoration of Climate Sensors" budget line through FY 2012, and costs prior to 

2006, i.e., the pre-Nunn-McCurdy costs. 

TSIS and CERES will continue a long record of solar irramance and Earth radiation budget, 

respectively, that have been instrumental in gaining a better understanding of the Earth's 

climate. OMPS-Limb data are critical to providing greater understanding of the annual size 

of the Antarctic stratospheric ozone hole, which is directly linked to human health, such as 

increased incidence of ocular cataracts and skin cancers. 

EE16c: Do all ofthe sensors fit on the JPSS spacecraft? 

Response EE16c: 

The JPSS-l spacecraft cannot accommodate all sensors under development, but can 

accommodate the majority of them. The following instruments can be accommodated on the 

JPSS-l spacecraft bus: the Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS), the Advanced Technology 

Microwave Sounder (ATMS), the VisiblelInfrared Imager/Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), the 

Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite-Nadir (OMPS-Nadir) and the Cloud and Earth Radiant 

Energy System (CERES) instruments, which is the same suite of instruments on the current 

Suomi-NPP satellite. 

Due to the size of the JPSS-l spacecraft and making needed engincering adjustments from 

the NPOESS satellite, NOAA cannot accommodate three of the eight JPSS sensors 

including: the Total Solar and Spectral Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), the Advanced Data 

Collection System (ADCS), and the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) 

instruments on the JPSS-I spacecraft bus. In addition, the Department of Defense decision to 

terminate DWSS eliminated any opportunity to accommodate these sensors on DWSS. The 

JPSS program has evaluated multiple options to fly the sensors (e.g., accommodation on 

other planned NASA and NOAA satellites, hosting on commercial spacecraft, launch of 

18 
71 

dedicated small-satellites, etc.) and detennined that a dedicated spacecraft to host all three' 

instruments, launched as a separate free-flyer, called Free Flyer-I, was the best way forward. 

At the time of the FY 13 budget subInission, the driving concern for these three sensors 

was the risk to the continuity of total solar irradiance data due to the March 20l110ss of 

the NASA Glory Mission which carried a Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) instrument 

onboard. To Initigate this significant risk to TSI measurement continuity, the JPSS 

Program is leveraging a gap Initigation strategy with NASA and the Air Force, called the 

Total Solar Irradiance Calibration Transfer Experiment (TCTE). 

TCTE is intended to bridge the TSI data gap from the current NASA Solar Radiation and 

Clil11ate Experiment (SORCE) mission to the TSIS-1 instrument that is being developed. 

TCTE will utilize TSI measurements provided by a NASA-owned TIM instrument that will 

fly on the Air Force Space Test Program (STPSat~3) satellite, scheduled for launch in Iniddle 

of calendar year 2013. As of September 7th, TCTE has successfully completed 

environmental testing and has been shipped to Ball Aerospace, who is building STPSAT-3 

for the Air Force, where is will be integrated onto the STPSat-3 satellite. 

The plan for Free Flyer-1 fits within the JPSS FY 2013 President's Budget Request 

profile and lifecycle cost and does not il11pact JPSS-1 development. 

EE17: Given the tight budgets and the need to minimize risk on space programs, especially 

the Nation's weather program, it seems that building the same spacecraft and sensors for 

JPSS would be the lowest risk approach. Can you describe the differences between NPP and 

JPSS-l; JPSS-l and JPSS-2, since there isn't any planned new development on JPSS-2? 

Response: 

The table below provides a comparison of the main instruments that will fly on the SuoIniNPP, JPSS-1, and JPSS-2 satellites, and the Free Flyer-1 and -2 satellites. 

Mission Spacecraft bus Instrument Suite Launch Schedule 

SuoIni NPP Launch Ball bus ATMS, CdS, VIIRS, October 28, 2011 

OMPS-Nadir, OMPSLil11b,CERES 

JPSS-1 Launch Ball bus (siInilar ATMS, CrIS, VIIRS, NL T second quarter 

to SuoIni NPP) OMPS-Nadir, CERES ofFY 2017 

JPSS-2 Launch TBD ATMS, crrs, VIIRS, First quarter of FY 

Readiness OMPS-Nadir,O:tvfPS- 2022 

Lil11b,CERES 

Free Flyer-1 Launch TBD SARSAT, A-DCS, Fourth quarter ofFY 

Readiness TSIS 2016 

Free Flyer-2 Launch TBD SARSAT, A-DeS, Third quarter ofFY 

Readiness TSIS 2021 

The Free Flyer-1 and -2 Launch Readiness dates have changed from FY 2016 Q4 to FY 2017 

Q2 and from FY 2021 Q3 to FY 2022 Q1, respectively. Each was changed by two quarters to 

19 

I 

I 
72 

increase the flexibility for contractors to procure these Free Flyer satellites thereby reducing 

the overall costs to develop them. 

In general, building duplicate copies of the spacecraft and instruments is a method used that 

provides the lowest risk approach to delivering a satellite. This is based on the engineering 

lessons leamed by launching and completing calibration and validation (cal/val) with the 

instruments on the first satellite. In order to minimize the potential observational gaps in the 

polar orbit, the Administration chose to sole-source the JPSS-l spacecraft to match the 

Suomi NPP spacecraft, leveraged investments and progress made under NPOESS, and 

utilized existing instrument contracts to build the JPSS-l satellite. 

NOAA is committed to delivering the capabilities above within the $12.9 billion Life Cycle 

Cost. Additionally, the Administration is assessing potential cost savings that may reduce 

the life-cycle costs of its weather satellite systems, including JPSS. 

EEI8: Since NOAA has already decided on the JPSS-2 instruments and NASA has 

announced its intention to sale source them, JPSS-2 will essentially be the third build of 

those sensors and spacecraft. \\'hat are the expectations for cost savings on JPSS-2? 

Response: 

While accurate cost savings for sole-sourcing instruments for JPSS-2 are not yet available, 

the Administration expects to realize efficiency improvements realized from building 

previous copies, and avoid costs associated with: 

a)· non-recurring engineering associated with designing new instruments impacting cost and 

schedule (sole-sourcing the instruments allows the Govemment to fully realize the 

investment already made in the instruments for Suomi NPP and JPSS-I); 

b) inefficiencies associated with ramping up a new vendor to build the instruments; 

c) changes to the ground system and algorithm development to calibrate and process data 

from the new instruments; and, 

d) changes to users' ground equipment to fully exploit data from new instruments. 

EE19: Using a block-buy procurement with fixed price contracts would result in greater 

efficiencies, lower costs, and reduced risks. Has NOAA explored this possibility for JPSS as 

was done in the highly successful POES and DMSP Programs? 

Response: 

The Administration supports cost-effective acquisition strategies and is actively exploring 

block-buy procurement which would result in greater efficiencies, lower costs and reduced 

risks. To fully exploit block-buys, the Govemment would need to provide funding up front to 

purchase components together. 

NOAA's historical practice had been to purchase satellites in blocks as a means to achieve 

relatively low per unit cost per satellite and a steady supply of satellites to avoid data gaps. 

With the most expensive unit being the first one, NOAA has realized savings with block buys 

over the life of its geostationary and polar-orbiting satellite programs based on acquisition of 

20 
73 

subsequent units. There me pros and cons· to this approach since, with stable requirements 

and stable funding, block buys allow for acquisition stability. NOAA K-N is an example of a 

block buy offour satellites. A fifth satellite, NOAA N-Prime, was added to the block at 

Congressional direction. These satellites represented 1990s technology with little major 

technological advancement. With this constellation's frrst launch in 1998, up until the time 

NOAA-N Prime was launched in 2009, NOAA always had a subsequent satellite built and 

ready for launch in the event of a launch failure. Since February 2009, NOAA has not been 

able to support this failure risk management strategy for JPSS. 

The potential block buy plans for JPSS are a hybrid of what had been planned. Instead of a 

block buy of instruments and spacecraft buses, as originally envisioned in the NPOESS 

program, the Govermnent is buying similar spacecraft buses for Suomi NPP and JPSS-I and 

could buy multiple copies of some of the critical instruments (VTIRS, CrIS, ATMS). 

EE20: Dr. Lubchenco, I understand and am sympathetic to the economic constraints we are all 

challenged with today. And I understand NOAA had to make some difficult choices and tough 

cuts. However, I do not understand cuts to activities and programs that are essential to the 

protection of life and property. This budget request terminates the National Mesonet Network, 

which is important to many of our local and regional weather offices for its contributions to our 

timely warning system necessary to protect the American public. Please explain how the 

National Weather Service plans to operate without the data of these mesonets? Isn't it the case in 

several recent severe weather events around the country, that the mesonet data has been vital to 

enhancing lead warning times and expanding real-time monitoring? 

Response: While mesonet data are valuable, NEXRAD Doppler radar continues to be the 

most critical asset supporting the severe weather warnings capability. The deployment of 

dual-polarization capability into the NEXRAD network has demonstrated the capability to 

detect different precipitation types, including hail, snow, and rain, which would obviate the 

need for certain types of meso net data. Also, reports from spotters and the burgeoning 

communication via social media are providing other effective avenues for NWS to keep 

apprised of and verifY local conditions, especially during active severe weather. 

In 2010 NOAA submitted to Congress a report entitled "A Planfor the Operation of the 

National Mesonet." This report provided a plan for the operation of the National Mesonet, as 

well as integration of mesonet data into NWS field offices, weather models, and with other 

NWS programs. NWS plans to convene a group to implement the Congressional directive 

included in the 'FY 2012 Appropriations Act that encouraged NOAA to convene a peerreviewed study to create a national mesonet program plan within NOAA with 

recommendations for implementation as appropriate. This activity will permit NWS to 

update tlle Plan that was provided to Congress in 2010, taking into account new partnerships 

and new technologies that could be part of the broader Mesonet mix. 

NOAA will continue its current approach to developing a National Mesonet by leveraging 

existing networks (operated by state and local govermnents, the private sector, and other 

federal agencies), when and where available. 

21 
74 

EE21: This budget proposes to cut the National Weather Service operations budget, 

particularly the local warnings and forecast line item. This will result in reduction in the 

tsunami preparedness program, elimination of air quality forecasts, retirement of wind 

profilers used in tornado warnings, and most significantly elimination of at least 122 

Information Technology Officers located at each of the forecast offices. It is my 

understanding that these positions are emergency/essential employees that maintain the 

forecasting software which resides on each office's computers. In addition, most of these 

employees are trained as meteorologists and assist the office's operations during severe 

weather. Please explain this decision and what the Administration plans to do, not only 

about the reduction in forecasting capabilities, but more importantly about the employees' 

positions? 

Response: Preservation of the core warnings and forecast mission has been the cornerstone 

of all NWS fiscal decisions. Reductions were made where there was minimal impact to 

NOAA's life- and property-saving forecast and warning mission. For example, the lower 

data availability of the DART network would not impact issuing of warnings; however, 

warnings may extend to a larger area than necessary and for a longer time. Also, air quality 

forecasting funding will sustain on-demand dispersion forecasts of volcanic ash that support 

the aviation industry, trausport of smoke, and forecast of emergency releases. 

The Information Technology Officer (ITO) position was created in 2001 to provide onsite 

configuration and upgrade support for A WIPS. Currently, each WFO has one ITO, typically 

working dayshifts on weekdays. 

Remote IT support has become the co=on practice in both government and industry. Over 

the past decade, advances in NWS IT have enabled remote support in many cases. For 

example, the A WIPS Network Control Facility (NCF) has provided a level ofremote A \VIPS 

service for more than 10 years. A WIPS II, the next generation of A \VIPS currently being 

deployed at all NWS offices, has been fully designed for remote .support. Using expanded 

enterprise IT tools, the A WIPS NCF would streamline its support, improve effectiveness and 

mitigate the need for onsite configuration. In addition, remote maintenance and support 

using virtual management tools coupled with configuration standardization, would increase 

support efficiencies and reduce overall costs. 

In addition to the increased remote functionality of A WIPS, NWS would establish Regional 

IT Collaboration Units (RITCU). Each RITCU would be capable of supporting multiple 

\VFOs from a single location, or multiple locations through remote access capabilities. 

RITCUs would be fully capable of addressing any local software issue. The A WIPS NCF 

would continue as a secondary source of support capable of diagnosing and resolving most 

problems. In addition, robust, long-standing service backup capabilities allow an adjacent 

office to assume warning and forecast responsibility almost immediately. If the systems go 

down during severe weather and cannot be remedied remotely in short order, service backup 

would be implemented. To provide for continuity of operations in the field, long-standing 

and extensively tested service backup capabilities allow an adjacent WFO to assume the 

warning and forecast responsibility of a pre-determined, neighboring WFO almost 

22 
75 

immediately to ensure no service dcg:'adatiOl:' to the public, Testing of backup plans is 

conducted at least annually in accordance with the NWS operations policy. 

With these IT advancements and additional mitigation measures, NWS' s ability to issue 

timely warnings and forecasts would not be impacted by the reduction of the ITOs, 

Many current ITOs qualify for other NWS positions, such as Senior Meteorologists or 

Electronics Systems Analysts. In addition, NWS has submitted to NOAA a request for 

authority to offer early out and voluntary separation incentives for interested, qualifying 

employees. NWS recognizes that any reductions in staff affect our employees and their 

families. NWS would make every effort to reduce ITO staffing through attrition, and the 

Agency would work diligently to mitigate any impact to our affected employees. 

EE 22: The NOAA budget request proposes an increase of$29 million within the Office of 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) for climate research. OAR is the research 

enterprise of NOAA's basic and innovative research. 

a. Please explain why climate research is a priority for NOAA's research strategy and mission 

to protect lives and property? Does this funding increase shift OAR resources from its current 

basic and innovative science-driven capacity to climate research? 

Response: 

In FY2013, NOAA requests an increase of$28.2 million, for a total of$212.7 million, for 

Climate Research in OAR. This increase will restore funding for applied climate research and 

improved climate predictability, which improves NOAA's ability to provide research in 

support of the nation's decision makers for topics such as El Niiio prediction, seasonal 

temperature/precipitation forecasts, changes in atmospheric composition, and other climate 

impacts. Additionally, funding will support the development of an operational NOAA 

Climate Porta! as well as funding for Climate Model Data Archives. This will result in an 

increase in public online access to NOAA's climate data, information, and services and 

support an operational archive and access capability for the next generation, high-resolution 

weather and climate reanalysis datasets. 

Climate research is a priority for NOAA's research strategy and mission because the 

American public is increasingly concerned about the growing frequency and intensity of 

drought, floods, and other extreme events. OAR continues to be a global leader in innovative 

and science-driven climate research to improve the understanding of the changing climate 

system and its potential impacts on extreme events, which requires advancing missioncritical climate modeling, national assessments, external and private-sector partnerships, 'as 

well as regional climate information and delivery. Easily accessible and relevant information 

is required to help communities better prepare for these events and make informed decisions. 

In addition, water resource and emergency managers require improved seasonal and subseasonal forecasts for optimum efficiency and preparedness. 

EE23: This budget request proposes to terminate the funding for ~ ational Air Quality 

Forecasting Capability (NAQFC). This program provides air qualily forecasts for ozone and 

23 
76 

particulate matter, and the models are u.;ed by the Environmental·Protection Agency; State, 

and local agencies to provide air quality health alerts to the public. If the EPA utilizes this 

forecasting capability to provide air quality alerts to the public, how will the termination of 

this program affect these alerts? How will we acquire these air quality data? 

Response: NOAA's National Air Quality Forecast Capability provides air quality 

information to state and local agencies which then provide air quality forecasts and alerts to 

the public. NWS currently produces ozone guidance to state and local officials. Termination 

of this program means state and local air quality forecasters will no longer be able to base air 

quality forecasts and alerts on NOAA's air quality ozone predictive guidance. State and 

local forecasters will continue to have access to observations of past and current air quality 

compiled by the EPA on AIR.c'l"ow. The state and local air quality forecasters can use these 

observations, together with statistical techniques based on past conditions, to issue air quality 

forecasts and alerts. 

EE 24: NOAA requests a decrease that will terminate the Navigation Response Team 

program that provides mapping and charting and support to the u.S. Coast Guard and first 

responders during accidents or natural events that potentially impede the safety of marine 

transportation. Without the Navigation Response Teams, who will do this charting and 

mapping and provide this necessary support to first responders? 

Response: With the termination of the NRTs, the responsibility for rapid response 

hydrographic surveys would shift from NOAA to first responders, such as the Coast Guard 

and FEMA, or to the ports. 

EE 25: Funding for marine sanctuary programming is pennies on the dollar compared to the 

massive satellite budget. How can you justify the lack of commitment to our sanctuaries? 

How can NOAA afford new or expanding sanctuaries under this budget? 

Response: NOAA recognizes that the satellite program comprises a high percentage of the 

NOAA budget. However, NOAA's polar satellites are critical to the nation's weather 

forecasting capabilities and contribute to multiple NOAA missions. NOAA remains 

committed to Marine Sanctuaries operations, but has no immediate plans to designate new 

sanctuaries. However, it is possible for NOAA to afford to expand a sanctuary within 

existing resources, because sanctuary expansion does not necessarily require significant 

increases in operations and maintenance expenses and in some instances can have minimal 

costs associated with implementation. Sanctuary boundary expansions do typically require an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) for the expanded area under consideration. As part of 

these EIS analyses, NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries weighs the costs of 

implementing a boundary expansion against (he value of increased resource conservation and 

economic benefits to the regional communities. 

EE 26: I have two sanctuaries in my District. Through the management plan process, it could 

be -- anywhere from five-fifteen years to expand their boundaries. How can we make this 

process move more quickly while still having the necessary review and input? 

24 
77 

Response: A'typical sanctuary expansion involves a timeframe ofbetvveen two to four 

years, depending upon tbe size of tbe area, tbe complexity of tbe issues related to ongoing 

uses, and tbe objectives for managing tbe area, In addition to tbe National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act, tbe National Environmental Policy Act and Administrative Procedures Act drive tbe 

process and requirements for NOAA-initiated boundary expansions, Sanctuary boundary 

expansions typically require an environmental impact statement and a revision oftbe 

sanctuary's designation document. Botb oftbese documents are published in the Federal 

Register and are reviewed through an extensive public process witb associated commenting 

periods, A legislated expansion by an act oftbe Congress, as opposed to one implemented 

through administrative rulemaking, typically does not provide for environmental review or 

public comment. 

EE 27: Witb so much of NOAA funding being directed away from core responsibilities (like 

marine sanctuary construction costs) to satellite programs, how can we fulfill our 

commitment to protecting our oceans from pollution, climate change, and mismanagement? 

President Obama has set out "all oftbe above" energy agenda, How will NOAA keep 

sanctuaries and nearby areas safe from oil drilling? 

Response: NOAA recognizes that tbe satellite program comprises a high percentage oftbe 

NOAA budget. However, NOAA's polar satellites are critical to tbe nation's infrastructure 

and economy. They ensure tbe safety and viability oftbe $700 billion maritime commerce 

sector and tbe aviation transportation sector. They allow coastal managers to safely evacuate 

millions of residents during hurricane seasons and give our farmers tbe long-term weather 

information they need to know when and what to grow. Also, tbey provide our military and 

homeland security leaders witb critical information to ensure homeland security and safely 

deploy troops overseas. 

NOAA is still very much committed to protecting our oceans from pollution and climate 

change. Specifically, NOAA has two roles in the context of spill preparedness, prevention 

and response-tbat of providing scientific and techuical expertise and that of natural resource 

trustee for coastal and marine trust resources including national marine sanctuaries. Botb 

aspects of the agency's expertise are critical in protecting tbe socio-economic and 

environmental healtb oftbe Nation's coastal and marine communities. Marine protected 

areas, such as national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments, are high priorities 

for protection during a spill response and in the management of activities in a region tbat may 

predicate a spill. Active engagement witb tbe energy industry is routine for sites in tbe 

system witb representation on Sanctuary Advisory Councils and in otber for a related to 

sanctuary management and ocean use planning. 

NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration provides NOAA's science-based guidance to 

Federal, State, and local agencies across the country, including national marine sanctuary 

superintendents during oil and chemical spills, vessel groundings, search and rescue efforts, 

national security events, and otber emergencies. NOAA has developed preparedness and 

response tools such as tbe Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA ~ tbat 

are critical in facilitating NOAA's ability to recommend appropriate prevention and cleanup 

teclmologies to minimize tbe environmental and economic impacts to trust resources such as 

25 
78 

-qanctuaries. ERMA" was' designated as hIe federal response "co=on operating picture" by 

the u.s. Coast Guard Federal-On-Scene-Coordinator during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

in 2010, demonstrating its utility to responders. ERMA is developed on a region-by-region 

basis. This application currently exists for the Gulf of Mexico and other regions in various 

stages of development 

Should a spill occur and impact NOAA trust resources in sanctuaries, Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA) activities under both the Oil Pollution Act and the National 

Marine Sanctuary Act will be initiated. NRDAs, undertaken by Federal, State, and Tribal 

trustees, determine the amount of injury to trust natural resources that must be restored and 

are the underpinning for litigation against the responsible party for monetary damages to be 

used for restoration of the injured resources to baseline condition. 

26 
79 

Responses by Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency 

Questions Submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and Other Committee Members 
80 

These standards will save consumers and small businesses money by reducing their gasoline 

usage. Consumers buying MY 2016 vehicles would have average net savings of $3.000 over 

the life of the vehicle - the $4,000 in projected fuel savings over the lifetime ofthc vehicle more 

than offset the projected $950 increase in the initial cost of a new MY 2016 vehicle. After only 

three years of use, U.S. consumers who purchase MY 2012-2016 vehicles outright are projected 

to save enough in lower fuel costs to offset the increase in vehicle costs. U.S. consumers who 

use a 5-year loan to purchase a vehicle will also save. The projected monthly fuel savings 

exceed the projected increased loan payments necessary to cover the increased cost of the 

vehicle, which means that consumers start saving in their very first month of ownership. 3 

Even greater savings are in store for consumers in the future. On November 16,2011, at the 

direction of the President, and with the support of auto manufacturers,4 and the State of 

California, EPA and NHTSA issued their joint proposal to extend this National Program of 

greenhonse gas and fuel economy standards to MY 2017-2025 cars and light trucks. The 

proposal would require vehicle manufacturers to meet an estimated C02 standard of 163 grams 

of C02 per mile on an average fleet-wide basis in 2025, equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if all 

of those improvements are made with fuel economy-improving technologies. Over the lifetime 

of the MY 2017-2025 vehicles, the proposed standards would save 4 billion barrels of oil (above 

the billions of barrels in additional savings from the 2016 standards that carry into these model 

years as well). This is approximately the same amount of oil imported by the United States from 

all foreign sources last year alone. 5 Net lifetime savings for vehicle oV'mers of a MY 2025 

vehicle are estimated to be $3,000 - $4,400. 

Further, starting with MY 2014, new medium and large truck and bus owners will also begin 

saving on fuel costs. In August, 2011, the EPA and NHTSA announced the first ever joint 

greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for trucks and buses. This program has support 

from the trucking industry, including engine and truck manufacturers, the American Trucking 

Associations, the State ofCaiifornia, and leaders from the environmental community. In 

addition to improving energy and national security, this program will benefit consumers and 

, EIA data on U.S. Imports by Country of Origin 3/19/2012 

http://www.eia.govjdnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPPO_imO_mbbl_a.htm 

3 See 75 Fed. Reg. 25519-25520 (May 7, 2010). 

4 The letters of support from these organizations can be found at 

www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm 

5 EIA data on U.S. Imports by Country of Origin 3/19/2012 

hltp:j/www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPPO_imO_mbbl_a.htm 

2 
81 

businesses, reduce harmful air pollution, lower costs for transporting goods, and spur job grovvth 

and innovation in the clean energy technology sector. 

The joint EP i\ and NHTSi\ standards are estimated to save about 530 million barrels of oil over 

the life orMY 2014-2018 vehicles. The reduced fuel use will provide an estimated $50 billion 

in fuel savings to vehicle owners, or $42 billion in net savings when considering technology 

costs6 A long haul trucker is projected to save a net of $73,000 over the life of a MY 2018 

truck. Using technologies commercially available today, the majority of vehicles will see a 

payback period of about one year; others will see payback periods of up to two years. 

The EPA's renewable fuels program, established by Congress, helps keep money spent on fuel 

in the United States. On March 26, 20 I 0, the EPA completed regulations to implement the RFS 

program required under EISA in 2007. We estimate the RFS program, when fully implemented 

in 2022, would displace about 13.6 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel, 

which represents about seven percent of expected annual gasoline and diesel consumption in 

2022. We also estimate that the fully implemented program would decrease oil import 

expenditures by $41.5 billion and result in additional energy security benefits of $2.6 billion. 

Additionally, in July 2011, the EPA proposed that certain requirements for Stage II gasoline 

vapor recovcry at service stations be waived as of June 30, 2013. This proposed rule is 

consistent with the Obama administration's initiative to review outdated rules and update them 

to ensure that they are still achieving the environmental benefits that they were intended to 

achieve. This proposed waiver will allow many areas now requiring Stage II equipment at 

service stations to remove, or decommission their Stage II systems and eliminate certain 

expenses associated with operating those systems. Operating conventional gasoline dispensing 

equipment is estimated to provide an annual financial benefit of about $2,700 per year 

compared to maintaining a Stage II vapor recovery system. The EPA has estimated the national 

cost savings for this proposed rule to be over $88 million annually. 

b. Has the EPA considered abandoning its Tier 1II of refining greenhouse gas regulations in 

order to comply with the President's directive? If not, why not, given that the regulations are 

expected to increase prices? 

6 See 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (September 15, 2011). 

3 
82 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA is developing, but has no! yet proposed, the Tier 3 motor vehicle emission and luel 

standards, which are needed to help improve air quality in areas not in attainment of the ambient 

air quality standards. This draft rule would reduce motor vehicle emissions and help state and 

local areas attain and maintain the existing health-based air quality standards in a cost-effective 

and timely way. Lower sulfur gasoline is necessary to operate the pollution control equipment to 

achieve these Tier 3 vehicle standards. In addition, the EPA has heard from auto manufacturers 

that reducing sulfur in gasoline helps make feasible certain lower cost technologies for 

improving fuel economy. Improvements in fuel economy reduce gasoline consumption and save 

consumers money. 

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the 

American public. That is why the EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the 

cost of further reducing the sulfur content of gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the 

functioning of emission control equipment. We estimate the costs of sulfur requirements in the 

draft Tier 3 rule to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is supported 

by a study by MathPro, a consulting firm that prepared the analysis for the International Council 

on Clean Transportation7 A subsequent analysis performed by Baker & O'Brien for the 

American Petroleum Institute suggests that the costs for Tier 3 sulfur control could be slightly 

higher - as high as two cents per gallon on average. 8 However, that study was also recently 

criticized by a study by Navigant Economics for the Emission Control Technology Association, 

which reviewed both the Mathpro and Baker & O'Brien studies. It concluded that the 

difference in costs between the studies was entirely explained by capital cost assumptions that 

were exaggerated in the Baker & O'Brien study beyond industry norms. The Navigant study 

went on to conclude that the cost to refiners would be about one cent per gallon, that these costs 

are unlikely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas prices based on their review 

of prior gasoline sulfur standards, and that the cost [0 refiners will be outweighed by the health 

benefits of cleaner air9 

7 See http://www.theicct.org/sitesl<;lef~)Jlt/files/publications/ICCT04 Tier3 Report Final v4 All.pdf 

8 See http://www.bakerobrien.com!do~uments/Letter%;2.QAP!%2OReport%20-%20New%20Format%20-

%20Sept%202011.pdf 

9 See 

~ww.naviganteconomics.com/docs/061212%20Economic%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Implications%20of 

%20Tier%203%20Sulfur%20Reduction%20Final embargoed%20copy.pdf 

4 
83 

C. Has EPA taken any steps to prevent interested parties from accompanying the testing of 

sites and taking shadow sampling as part of the Office of Research and Development's 

broader study of hydraulic fracturing? 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA has not taken any steps to prevent states or affected parties from accompanying the 

testing of sites and taking shadow sampling as part of the Office of Research and Development's 

broader study of hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has shared all logistical and technical 

information necessary to enable interested parties, such as specific industry and state 

representatives, to conduct shadow sampling when EPA scientists are in the field. 

d. How does the EPA's new Scientific Integrity Policy address the circumstances associated 

with Peter Gleick or the Pacific Institute, which has received significant funding from the 

EPA? Does the policy limit any future grants to Gleick or any institute that he is involved in 

providing leadership? 

RESI)ONSE: 

As of February 2012, all Agency employees, including scientists, managers, and political 

appointees, are required to follow the new Scientific Integrity Policy when engaging in, 

supervising, managing, or influencing scientific activities; communicating information in an 

official capacity about Agency scientific activities; and utilizing scientific information in 

making Agency policy or management decisions. 

This Policy builds upon existing Agency and government-wide policies and guidance 

documents, enhancing the EPA's overall commitment to scientific integrity. It is intended to 

guide Agency activities in an area that is already subject to a number of rules and policies for 

various purposes. When there is overlap with other applicable rules and guidance, this policy is 

not intended to preempt other authorities, but instead to work in co~unction with and 

supplement them. While the EPA has long been committed to scientific integrity, this policy is 

intended to further improve the internal management and operation of the Agency. 

The Policy focuses on scientific integrity. All contractors, grantees, collaborators and student 

volunteers of the Agency who engage in scientific activities are expected to uphold the 

standards established by this policy and may be required to do so as part of their respective 

agreements with the EPA. 

A number of grants were awarded to the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development from 2001 

to 2005. There are no current grants with that organization. 

5 
84 

several major Agency regulations. Despite the fact that the EPA funded these studies that 

were cited as supporting all health claims made in the $11 billion "Utility MACT" regulation, 

the Agency has not provided this data. Additionally, the President's Science Advisor 

promised a Mcmber of this Committee that he would expedite access to this data. 

a. Please detail EPA actions to make this data available, and provide a timeline as to when 

Members of this Committee wi!! be provided this critical underlying data? 

RESPONSE: 

On November 30,2011, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Ail' and Radiation. 

responded to several questions regarding the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

With regard to the Committee's request regarding the availability of data and analyses from 

five epidemiological studies, Ms. McCarthy's letter stated that we would take action under 2 

eFR 215.36 to request the information produced with EPA funds, to the extent that this 

information remains available. 

Two of these studies were used in the benefits analyses ACS Cancer Prevention Study II 

(Pope et aI., 2002) and Harvard Six Cities Study (Laden et aI., 2006). On January 9, 2012, the 

EPA sent letters to New York University and Harvard University requesting any research data 

relating to these two articles that were produced with EPA grant funds. We have received 

responses from these two universities and are reviewing these data to ensure the proper 

treatment of any personally identifiable information or other sensitive information. We 

anticipate sharing the data with the Committee shortly. 

b. Do you support agencies making all data used to justify regulations publicly available? 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA relies on sound, peer-reviewed science to serve a~ the foundation for credible 

decision-making to support the Agency's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. As the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has repeatedly articulated, the Agency is 

committed to conducting analyses in a transparent and open way to inform and involve the 

scientific community and the public. 

4. As part of the request for an increase of nearly $33 million for climate change activities at 

the EPA, the President requests more than $3 million for the EPA to "support research on the 

7 
85 

relationship between climate change, weather patterns, and the environment," "improve global, 

regionaL and local models," and "use the NASA and the NOAA models as a basis to build 

models that project environmental impacts." 

a. NOAA's budget request includes over $200 million for climate research, including tens. 

of millions for what they call their "world class climate and earth system models for use in 

predicting and projecting climate variability and change." Why are NOAA's modeling efforts 

are insufficient for the EPA's needs and how is EPA's proposed spending in this area distinct 

from NOAA's? 

RESPONSE: 

Because EPA models do not predict or project climate variability and change, NOAA's 

modeling research is critical to EPA's ability to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change 

on air quality and water quality at regional and urban scales. EPA's environmental modeling 

researchers work closely with NOAA to ensure proper use of NOAA results. EPA scientists 

also provide NOAA modelers with important feedbacks from local-scale and regional-scale 

processes, which can impact NOAA's modeling of global-to-regional scale processes involving 

atmospheric composition and chemistry, and climate processes.. This collaboration enables 

each agency to develop modeling systems that address the different missions of the two 

agencies, while maintaining scientific consistency across modeling efforts and, ultimately, 

improving the results of both organizations. 

EPA's atmospheric modeling efforts focus on formation and transport of air pollutants at spatial 

scales from neighborhoods to multi-state regions. The Community Multi-scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model includes substantially morc air emission data than the NOAA models. CMAQ 

includes detail on the location, size, and hourly air emissions. CMAQ also includes more 

detailed information about the chemical processes involved in pollutant formation than the 

NOAA models. Furthermore, the CMAQ model has more detailed treatments for atmospheric 

chemistry and interactions among aerosols, clouds, precipitation, and radiation. EPA's CMAQ 

includes the functions necessary to better assess the impacts of climate change and 

anthropogenic emissions on human health. 

EPA is collaborating with NOAL\. to link our regional-scale CMAQ model to their global-scale 

model. Combining these models will allow us to understand when proposed air pollution 

regulations improve ambient air quality in urban areas, thereby helping protect human health. 

Similarly, EPA's hydrological models focus on much smaller scales and include expanded 

chemical and biological process details. By combining EPA's and NOAA's models, we can 

better understand the impacts to water quality at local and regional scales. 

8 
86 

b. Specifically, NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory uses a variety of climate 

models and claims it has "improved projection capabilities for ecosystems, climate, 

atmospheric composition, air quality, and coastal pollution." This laboratory has traditionally 

been funded at nearly $20 million a year. Why is NOAA's program insufficient for EPA's 

needs and how is EPA's proposed spending in this area distinct. from NOAA's program') 

RESPONSE: 

EP A's models help address the air pollutant formation and atmospheric transport processes and 

responses of watersheds and ecosystems, on regional to local scales which NOAA's models do 

not. The EPA models include the time periods and distances necessary to inform effective air 

quality management strategies by state and local governments. NOAA's climate models 

complement EPA's models and provide crucial inputs (such as characterizing larger-scale 

atmospheric composition and climate features) for the EPA air and water quality models used 

by states and localities. In particular, NOAA's models provide guidance regarding possible 

future climatic conditions (including variations) that can strongly influence air pollutant 

concentrations, water flows, and ecosystem health. By linking EPA's and NOAA's models, 

EPA can better examine weather conditions conducive to pollutant formation and accumulation 

including extreme conditions. Therefore, information from both NOAA's and EPA's modeling 

efforts can collectively ensure that communities and states are able to develop environmental 

managcment approaches that maintain and improve environmental quality today and into the 

future. 

NOAA's models are designed to enhance understanding of atmospheric, oceanic, and climate 

processes, advance the scientific knowledgc of climate variability and change on global-toregional scales, and improve NOAA's prediction capability, not to provide the data needed to 

inform development of air quality strategies. Air quality and management strategies are 

developed at the county level and over time-periods as smat! as one hour. As a contrast to 

NOAA models, EPA models focus on critical air formation and maintenanee processes on the 

regional-to-local scales, which provide data essential for communities to develop air quality 

compliance and management strategies. 

5. I-low much money is the President requesting for the Integrated Risk Information System in 

FY20 13, and how many assessments will the Agency complete if it receives those funds? How 

much funding has EPA designated to fully implement the recommendations outlined by the 

NAS in chapter 7 of the formaldehyde report? 

9 
87 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA's President's Budget Request for IRIS research includes $19.6 million in FY 2013. 

This funding supports scienee for assessments at all stages of draft development, peer review 

and completion. The number of projected completions in FY20 13 is nine. The IRIS programs 

resources have been dedicated to implementing the NAS recommendations to the fullest extent 

possible. 

6. The Consolidated Appropriations Aet of2012 that was signed into law on December 23, 

20 II included a provision that stated: "The Agency shall issue a progress report to House and 

Senate Conunittees on Appropriations and relevant Congressional authorizing committees no 

later than March 1,2012, describing its implementation of the National Research Council's 

Chapter 7 recommendations for ongoing and new assessments." 

Since this Committee is one of the relevant authorizing Conunittees and we have not seen a 

copy of this progress report, I assume it has not been delivered to Congress. Please provide an 

explanation as to why this report is late and when it will be delivered. 

RESPONSE: 

The IRIS Progress Report was delivered to Congress on April 20, 2012, and was made 

publically available on June 5. 

7. Your office recently announced that it would delay its IRIS assessment for hexavalent 

chromium in order to incorporate "recently and soon to be completed peer-reviewed primary 

research on the chemical." Can you assure this Committee that it will not discount any of this 

new research based upon its funding source') 

RESPONSE: 

Based on the advice of the external peer review panel, which met in May 2011 to review the 

draft IRIS assessment for hexavalent chromium (oral exposure only), EPA will consider the 

results of recently and soon to bc completed peer-reviewed original primary research related to 

the health effects of hexavalent chromium that has been published since the release of the draft 

assessment for external peer review. All relevant peer-reviewed original primary research, 

regardless of the funding source, that is completed and published by June 2012 will be 

considered, and its strengths and weaknesses will be unifonnly evaluated, as EPA revises the 

draft assessment. 

10 
88 

8. The President is requesting $1.8 million for biofuels research on the potential impacts (0 

human health and ecosystems for 2nd generation biofuels like cellulosic ethanol to support 

requirements from the Energy Independence and Security Act 01'2007. 

a. EPA is expected to release its so-called "Tier 3" regulations in the near-future; despitethe fact that the Agency has failed to provide Congress with the anti-backsliding study required 

to demonstrate the need for this regulation. This study was due 18 months after the 2007 

energy law was enacted, and the Agency has failed to produce anything. Since EPA has failed 

to complete this statutorily required report on regulatory biofuels research, why should 

Congress increase funding for this additional project? When will EPA release this antibacksliding analysis? Will it be subjected to peer review as a "Highly Influential Scientific 

Assessmcnt"0 

RESPONSE: 

The pending Tier 3 proposal is independent of the anti-backsliding study required by sections 

211 (q) and 211(v) of the Clean Air Act. The rule is focused on vehicle emissions standards in 

response to our obligations and authority under Clean Air Act section 202( a) and the fuel 

necessary to enable them under section 211(c). In contrast, the anti-backsliding study will 

examine the broader issues related to impacts of renewable fuels, and it is required as a 

prerequisite to regulations under section 2 J I (v). That study will not affect any decisions about 

the impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle emissions and the air quality benefits of reduced motor 

vehicle emissions. We are not promulgating standards under section 21 1 (v) in the Tier 3 

rulemaking. 

The anti-backsliding study is Influential Scientific Information (lSI), and we are engaging in 

peer review consistent with the OMB "Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review." 

Specifically, the technical reports on the new vehicle emissions data are being externally peer 

reviewed, and the air quality modeling is being conducted using peer-reviewed emissions and 

air quality models. 

b. Considering the National Aeade my of Sciences' recent conclusions that future cellulosic 

ethanol production requirements cannot be achieved, why is this research necessary? 

RESPONSE: 

EPA's budget request for biofuels research seeks funds for work that will provide a better 

understanding of the environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels. Even though the NAS study 

11 
89 

showed that under the current technology, cellulosic feedstock is not likely to achieve the 16 

billion gallons called for in EISA 2007, cellulosic biofuels will still be an important source of 

biofuels and thus wc need to better understand their environmental impacts. 

9. The Safe Drinking Water Act mandates that the EPA ensure that the "best available 

science" be applied in setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). On February 2, 2011, U.S. 

EPA issued a Final Regulatory Detem1ination on Perchlorate, announcing the agency's intent to 

set an MCL for that contaminant. What specific steps are being taken by the agency to obtain 

the best possible scientific information in this rulemaking? 

RESPONSE; 

The EPA is committed to using the best available peer reviewed science and data collected by 

accepted methods to inform the development of a proposed drinking water standard for 

perchlorate. EPA continues to collect the available scientific studies on perchlorate health 

effects, treatment and occurrence in drinking water by reviewing the published literature. We 

also have coordinated with colleagues in state drinking water agencies and the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

a. What peer-reviewed studies, if any, has the agency received, in the time since the 

regulatory determination, that it considers relevant in establishing the "best available science."? 

RESPONSE; 

The EPA is still collecting and evaluating perchlorate studies to inform decision making for the 

proposed national primary drinking water rule. Since EPA published the preliminary regulatory 

determination in October, 2008 and the supplemental request for comment in August, 2009, the 

Agency has identified a number of studies on perchlorate that may be relevant including: 

• Blount, B.C., K.U. Alwis, R.B. Jain, B.L. Solomon, J.e. Morrow, and W.A. Jackson. 

20]0. Perchlorate, nitrate, and iodide intake through tap water. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 

44(24):9564-9570. 

• Borjan. M., S. Marcella, B. Blount, M. Greenberg, J.J. Zhang, E. Murphy, L. ValentinBlasini, and M. Robinson. 2011. Perchlorate exposure in lactating women in an urban 

community in New Jersey. Sci. Total Environ. 409(3):460-464. 

• Cao, Y., B.C. Blount, L. Valentin-Blasini, J.e. Bernbaum, T.M. Phillips, and W.J. 

Rogan. 2010. Goitrogenic anions, thyroid stimulating hormonc, and thyroid hormone in infants. 

Environ. Health PerspecLI18:1332-1337. 

12 
90 

• English, P., B. Blount, M. Wong, L. Copan, L. Olmedo, S. Patton, R. Haas, R. Atencio, 

1. Xu, and L. Valentin-Blasini. 2011. Direct measurement of perchlorate exposure biomarkers in 

a highly exposed population: a pilot study. PLoS One. 6(3):eI7015. 

• Huber, D.R.. B.C. Blount, D.T. Mage, F.J. Letkiewicz, A. Kumar, and R.H. Allen. 2011. 

Estimating perchlorate exposure from food and tap water based on U.S. biomonitoring and 

occurrence data. 1. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemio!. 21 (4):395-407. 

Impellitteri, e.A., J.P. Saxe, E.e. Schmitt, and K.R. Young. 2011. A Survey on the 

Temporal 

and Spatial Distribution of Perchlorate in the Potomac River. Journal o(Environmen/a! 

Munitoring. 13(2277-2283). 

Kalkhoff, S..T., SJ. Stetson, K.D. Lund, R.B. Wanty, and G.L. Linder. 2010. Perchlorale 

data/or streams and ground water in selected areas o(the United States, 2004. U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 495,43 p. with appendix. Available on the Internet at: 

http://pubs.usgs.i:!ov/ds!495/. 

Mendez, W., E. Dederick, and 1. Cohen. 2010. Drinking water contribution to aggregate 

perchlorate intake of reproductive-age women in the United States estimated by dietary intake 

simulation and analysis of urinary excretion data. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemio!. 20(3):288-

297. 

Pearce, E.N, J.H. Lazarus, P.P.A. Smyth, X. He, D. Dall'Amico, A.B. Parkes, R. Burns, 

D.f. Smith, A. Maina, J.P. Bestwick, M. Jooman, A. M. Leung, and L.E. Braverman. 2010. 

• Perchlorate and thiocyanate exposure and thyroid function in first-trimester pregnant 

women. J. Clin. Endocrino!' Metab. 95(7):3207-3215. 

Stcinmaus, C., M.D. Miller, and A.H. Smith. 2010. Perchlorate in drinking water during 

pregnancy and neonatal thyroid hormone levels in California. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 

52(12): 1217-1524. 

United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). 2010. PERCHLORATE" 

Occurrence Is Widespread but at Varying Levels; Federal Agencies Have Taken Some Actions 

to Respond /0 and Lessen Releases. Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, U.S. Senate. GAO-I 0-769. August 2010. Available on the Internet at: 

http://\\''ww.gao.gov/new.items/d1 0769.pdf. 

Valentin-Blasini, L., B.C. BIount, S. Otero-Santos, Y. Cao, J.e. Bernbaum, and W.J. 

Rogan. 2011. Perchlorate exposure and dose estimates in infants. Environ. Sci. Techno!. 

45(9):4127-4132. 

• WoodmfC T..1., A.R. Zota, and .T.M. Schwartz. 2011. Environmental chemicals in 

pregnant women in the United States: NHANES 2003-2004. Environ. Health Perspect. 

119(6):878-885. 

b. Given the notably large number of peer reviewed studies available on health effects of 

perchlorate and a National Academy of Science panel report, how will the agency involve 

scientists outside the agency to achieve the statutory standard, the "best available science"? 

13 
91 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA has requested input from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in accordance with the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA announced in a Federal Register Notice (76 FR 78256-78257) 

published on December 16,2011 that it was forming the SAB panel to review the agency's 

approaches for deriving a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for perchlorate. To form 

the panel, EPA sought public nominations of nationally recognized and qualified experts in one 

or more of the following areas; drinking water, public health, epidemiology, toxicology, 

endocrinology, physiologically based pharmacokinetic models, health implications of 

perchlorate ingestion, and experience in developing health based goals for contaminants. 

c. The term "best available science" also includes the notion of what is feasible and 

achievable. Would you please furnish the subcommittee with your schedule milestones for 

obtaining outside input on economics and cost, pursuant to the Health Risk Reduction and Cost 

Analysis (HRRCA) provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA will publish and seek public comment on the Health Risk Reduction and Cost 

Analysis when we propose the national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate by 

February 2013. 

10. Please provide the Subcommittee a list of all Office of Research and Development grants 

that have gone to individuals or institutions outside the United States (including names, 

amounts, and program areas). Please also include a similar summary of funding awarded to 

U.S. based entities that is spent outside the United States_ 

RESPONSE: 

EPA's research programs arc supporting very few assistance agreements to institutions outside 

of the United States. The great majority ofresearch grants support work at institutions in the 

United States, some of which use a small portion of these funds for international activities. 

Most of these international activities involve researchers from institutions in the United States 

traveling to meetings and conferences abroad to present the results of research conducted in this 

country. 

The table below identifies the EPA Office of Research and Development's research grant 

funds awarded during FY 2008 -- FY 2011 that recipients were allowed to spend overseas. 

14 
92 

Funds awarded to institutions based outside the United States are listed before fund awarded 

to U.S. based entities for spending outside the United States. 

15 
93 

16 
94 

Awards to Foreign Institutions and International Organizations: 

Marshal Aid Commemoration Commission (U.K.) $205,888 

World Health Organization (Switzerland) $210,000 

World Health Orqanization (Switzerland) $105,000 

World Health Organization (Switzerland) $230,000 

Awards to US Institutions that Include International Activities: 

American Association for the Advancement of X3 83459201 $10,250 

Science 

Emory University RD 83479901 $1.500 

Harvard School of Public Health RD 83479801 $10,394 

President and Fellows of Harvard College RD 83489401 $3,760 

Regents of the University of Michigan RD 83486001 $4,000 

The Regents of the University of CA - Berkeley RD 83451101 $34.869 

University of Connecticut - All Campuses RD 83487201 $1,500 

University of KY Research Foundation RD 83377201 $4,886 

University of Pittsburgh RD 83457601 $3,462 

University of Southern California RD 83469302 $15.000 

University of Washington RD 83479601 $4,476 

;f'r6gf1i 

- EPA Consolidated Research CR, R 

- Science to Achieve Results (STAR) RD 

- National Student DeSign Competition for Sustainability SU 

(P3) 

- Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose X3 

Grants 

17 
95 

11. Does the EPA believe it's important to prioritize chemicals for assessment under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act? What is EPA doing right now to make sure it's focusing its efforts on 

priority chemicals? What are EPA's longertenn plans to prioritize chemicals? Does EPA 

intend to conduct a screening-level prioritization review for all chemicals in U.S. commerce0 

RESPONSE: 

In September 2011, the EPA conducted a stakeholder dialogue to gather stakeholder input on 

proposed criteria and data resources to be used for identifying chemicals for further assessment. 

The EPA refined the criteria to reflect stakeholder input and, on March 1, 2012, identified a 

work plan of 83 chemicals for further assessment under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA). EPA selected seven of those chemicals for risk assessments beginning in FY 2012. 

EPA also recently selected 18 chemicals it plans to assess in FY 2013 and FY 2014. In FY 

2013, the agency will engage stakeholders on issues related to longer-tenn efforts to collect data 

and screen additional chemicals for future review. The EPA posted a Methods Document 

describing the criteria and process the agency used to identify the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals 

to its website on March L 2012 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchernicalsLm.l.bs/wpmethodsJ2clD. 

12. Has EPA budgeted additional dollars for its chemical "Action Plans" in 2013? Please 

explain what is the intention of the agency regarding action plans? Are they continuing, 

abandoned for something different? Please explain. Will EPA issue any new action plans in 

2013? Please explain. 

RESPONSE: 

The EPA intends to use the TSCA Work Plan of March 1, 2012, described above, to help focus 

and direct the activities of its Existing Chemicals Program over the next several years. The 

E1' A has selected seven of the 83 chemicals identified in the Work Plan for risk assessment 

during FY 2012 and 18 of the Work Plan chemicals for assessment in FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

The agency will conduct risk assessments on these chemicals and will pursue risk reduction 

measures if needed, based on the results of those risk assessments. 

We will implement the Action Plans issued in 2009 through 2011, but use the Work Plan to 

infoml our work on additional chemicals going forward. 

The EPA continues to screen and identify chemicals for risk assessment and will pursue data 

collection and risk reduction actions as warranted by the results of those screening and 

assessment activities. 

18 
96 

13. EPA's Office of Research and Development has indicated its intent to hold a workshop on 

including Weight of Evidence (WoE) considerations into IRIS assessments consistent with 

the recommendations of Chapter 7 of the National Academy of Sciences' report on 

formaldehyde. We understand that the NAS has offered to convene this workshop. In this 

regard, would your agency be amenable to working with NAS on convening this workshop? 

RESI)ONSE: 

At this time, EPA has a WOE workshop under development to discuss approaches to WoE 

characterization. The goal of the workshop will be to identify the various approaches that are 

currently in use and compare their strengths and limitations. The workshop will include 

scientists with expertise in the classification of chemicals for various health effects. The 

workshop will be open to the public, with opportunity for written and oral comments. EPA will 

publicly announce details about the workshop to be held in 2012 in a Federal Register Notice 

and on the IRIS website (www.epa.gov/iris). 

In April 2012, EPA contracted to work with the NAS on weight of evidence considerations. 

The project information and scope is available on the NAS website ( 

htlp:l(www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?kev=49458). The project is expected 

to have a duration 01'24 months. 

14. When reviewing the newly developed screening battery of test methods for EPA's 

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), EPA's Science Advisory Board 

recommended that, after the initial round of screening is completed, the Agency should analyze 

the results to determine how well each of the II screening methods has performed, have this 

analysis undergo scientific peer review, and then make any changes needed in the screening 

battery before pushing on to screening additional substances. 

::liven that the EDSP screening costs can be more than half a million dollars per substance, and 

.11al the results of the first round of screening from EPA's issuance of 67 test orders in 2009 

md early 2010 will be completed by August or September, do you plan to follow the SAB 

'ccommendation in early FY 2013 before issuing additional endocrine screening test orders? 

[fnot, why not? 

~ESPONSE: 

n accordance with FFDCA section 408(p), the agency will continue to require the best 

lvailable validated scientific methods when issuing additional Tier 1 screening orders. The 

1gency intends to follow the Science Advisory Board's recommendation to convene a panel of 

ndependent scientists to review all the screening data for 50-100 compounds, with an eye 

owards revising the process and eliminating those methods that don't work."(US. EPA Report. 

19 
97 

Joint Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory Panel, Review of the 

EPAh Proposed Environmental Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, July 1999), To that 

end, the agency plans to conduct a thorough scientific review of the Tier 1 assay results, the 

individual assays and the collective Tier I battery perfonnances, The EPA's comprehensive 

scientific evaluation of the Tier 1 screening assays will occur in the Fall of2012, and will 

include external scientific peer review by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in Fall of2013, 

We will continue to balance the advice of our scientific advisors and peer reviewers with the 

statutory mandate to test compounds for endocrine disruption. It is our intention to fully utilize 

recommendations received from the SAB and FIFRA SAP to guide our implementation of the 

EDSP. 

20 
98 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, 

ANDTECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer 

An Overview ofthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental 

Protection Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013 

March 6, 2012 

Mr. Kadeli 

1. With the EPA's Tier 3 regulations expected to cause gasoline prices to increase by up to 

25 cents, and with the Administration claiming that it is doing everything it can to 

alleviate the stress of high gasoline prices that affect millions of American families, has the 

EPA considered delaying or cancelling those regulations? Is there anything else that the 

EPA is doing that would reduce gas prices. rather than increase them? 

RESPONSE: 

We understand that even minimal increases in the cost of gasoline are of importance to the 

American public. That is why EPA conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the 

cost of further reducing the sulfur content of gasoline. As with lead, sulfur in fuel impairs the 

functioning of emission control equipment. We estimate the cost" of sulfur requirements in the 

draft Tier 3 rule to be approximately one penny per gallon in 2017, an estimate that is 

supported by a study by MathPro, a consulting firm that prepared the analysis for the 

International Council on Clean Transportation. 10 A subsequent analysis performed by Baker & 

O'Brien for the American Petroleum Institute suggests that the costs for Tier 3 sulfur control 

could be slightly higher - as high as two cents per gallon on average. I I However, that study 

was also recently criticized by a study by Navigant Economics for the Emission Control 

Technology Association, which reviewed both the Mathpro and Baker & O'Brien studies. It 

concluded that thedifference in costs between the studies was entirely explained by capital cost 

assumptions that were exaggerated in the Baker & O'Brien study beyond industry norms. The 

10 See http://www.theicct.org/sites/default(files(publications/iCCT04 Tier3 Report Final v4 All.pdf 

11 See http://www.bakerobrien.com(documents/Letter%20API%20R~ort%20-%20New%20Format%20. 

jl,20Sept%202011.pdf 

21 
99 

Navigam study went on to conclude that the cost to refiners would be about one cent per 

gallon, that these costs are unlikely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher gas 

prices based on their review of prior gasoline sulfur standards, and that the cost to refiners will 

be outweighed hy the health benefits of cleaner air.12 

In the last few years, EPA has issued several regulations that will save consumers money at the 

pump and keep more of the money we spend on fuel in the United States. New car and light 

truck owners are already saving money at the pump as a result of EPA's and NHTSA's first 

ever joint standards increase the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks for model years 2012-

2016. Over the lifetime o[MY 2012-2016 vehicles, the combined EPA and NHTSA standards 

are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, 13 more oil than we imported from OPEC 

countries last year. 14 

These standards will save consumers and small businesses money by reducing their gasoline 

usage. Consumers buying MY 2016 vehicles would have average net savings 0[$3,000 over 

the life of the vehicle - the $4,000 in projected fuel savings over the lifetime of the vehicle 

more than offset the projected $950 increase in the initial cost of a new MY 2016 vehicle. 

After only three years of use, U.S. consumers who purchase MY 2012-2016 vehicles outright 

are projected to save enough in lower fuel costs to offset the increase in vehicle costs. U.S. 

consumers who use a 5-year loan to purchase a vehicle will also save. The projected monthly 

fuel savings exceed the projected increased loan payments necessary to cover the increased 

cost of the vehicle, which means that consumers start saving in their very first month of 

ownership. 15 

Even greater savings are in store for consumers in the future. On November 16,2011, at the 

direction of the President, and with the support of auto manufacturers,16 and the State of 

California, EPA and NHTSA issued their joint proposal to extend this National Program of 

12 See 

http://www.naviganteconomics.com/docs/061212%20Economic%2OAnalysis%20of%20the%20IflJ,Rlications%20g 

f%20Tier%203%20Sulfur%20Reduction%20F[nai embargoed%20copy.pdf 

13 See 75 Fed. Reg. 25328 (May 7, 2010). 

14 EIA data on U.S. Imports by Country of Origin 3/19/2012 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPPO_imO_mbbl_a.htm 

15 See 75 Fed. Reg. 25519-25520 (May 7, 2010). 

16The letters of support from these organizations can be found at 

www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm 

22 
100 

greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards to MY 2017-2025 cars and light trucks. The 

proposal would require vehicle manufacturers to meet an estimated C02 standard of 163 grams 

of C02 per mile on an average fleet-wide basis in 2025, equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon if 

all of those improvemerits are made with fuel economy-improving technologies. Over the 

lifetime of the MY 2017-2025 vehicles, the proposed standards would save 4 billion barrels of 

oil (above the billions of barrels in additional savings from the 2016 standards that carry into 

these model years as well). This is approximately the same amount of oil imported by the 

United States from all foreign sources last year al(me17 Net lifetime savings for vehicle 

owners of a MY 2025 vehicle are estimated to be $3,000 - $4,400. 

Further, starting with MY 2014, new medium and large truck and bus owners will also begin 

saving on fuel costs. In August, 2011, EPA and NHTSA announced the first ever joint 

greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for trucks and buses. This program has support 

from the trucking industry, including engine and truck manufacturers, the American Trucking 

Association, the State of California, and leaders from the environmental community. In 

addition to improving energy and national security, this program will benefit consumers and 

businesses, reduce harmful air pollution, lower costs for transporting goods, and spur job 

growth and innovation in the clean energy technology sector. 

The joint EPA and NHTSA standards are estimated to save about 530 million barrels of oil 

over the life of MY 2014-2018 vehicles. The reduced fuel use will provide an estimated $50 

billion in fuel savings to vehicle owners, or $42 billion in net savings when considering 

technology costs. IS A long haul trucker is projected to save a net of $73,000 over the life of a 

MY 2018 truck. Using technologies commercially available today, the majority ofvchicles will 

see a payback period of about one year; others will see payback periods of up to two years. 

EP A's renewable fuels program, established by Congress, helps keep money spent on fuel in 

the United States. On March 26, 2010, EPA completed regulations to implement the RFS 

program required under EISA in 2007. We estimate the RFS program, when fully implcmenkd 

in 2022, would displace about 13.6 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel, 

which represents about 7 percent of expected annual gasoline and diesel consumption in 2022. 

17 EIA data on U.S. Imports by Country of Origin 3/19/2012 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPPO_imO_mbbLa.htm 

18 See 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (September 15, 2011). 

23 
101 

We also estimate that the fully implemented program would decrease oil import expenditures 

by $41.5 billion and result in additional energy security benefits of $2.6 billion. 

2. Could you describe current EPA efforts to ensure that there is no overlap of activities 

between your Office of Research and Development and other agencies? If and when you 

do discover duplicative programs, what procedures do you then follow to eliminate or 

consolidate those activities? 

RESPONSE: 

EP A coordinates its research activities with other agencies in a variety of ways including by 

forming Federal partnerships. As an example, The Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century 

(Tox2J) partnership is pooling federal resources and expertise from EPA, National Institutes of 

Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug 

Administration to use robotics technology to screen thousands of chemicals for potential 

toxicity, use screening data to predict the potential toxicity of chemicals and develop a costeffective approach for prioritizing the thousands of chemicals that need toxicity testing. 

Further, EPA is an active participant in the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 

and its five primary committees. This Cabinet-level Council is the principal means within the 

executive branch to coordinate S&T policy across the federal R&D enterprise. Each of these 

committees oversees subcommittees and working groups focused on different aspects ofS&T. 

NSTC prepares R&D strategies that are coordinated across federal agencies to form investment 

packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. NSTC coordinates federal R&D 

budgets to recognize shared priorities, reduce redundancies, promote joint programs, and create 

efficiencies. 

EPA also participates in interagency workgroups on a wide variety of topics to discuss and 

plan research so as to maximize effective llse of resources and avoid duplication. Many of our 

research projects are complimentary to those of other agencies with each focusing on their 

respective areas of expertise. 

24 
102 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Brad Miller 

An Overview ofthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental 

Protection Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013 

March 6, 2012 

Mr. Kadeli 

1. In the past few months as this Committee has examined the EPA research enterprise, we 

have heard suggestions on how to make the EPA research enterprise more efficient, 

transparent, or even more credible. One suggestion spoken of for nearly a decade could 

potentially create a more integrated science environment within the EPA, which is to create a 

top science officiaL The National Academy of Sciences stated in a report that "the lack of a top 

science official is a formula for weak scientific performance in the agency". 

Therefore, it has been suggested that Congress create a new position of Deputy Administrator 

for Science and Technology with responsibility of coordinating and overseeing agency-wide 

scientific policy, peer review, and quality assurance. 

a. Pleasc explain the Office of Research and Development's view on this proposal and provide 

the pros and cons of creating this position? 

RESPONSE: 

In response to a GAO recommendation, EPA has expanded the authority and responsibility of 

the Science Advisor to coordinate, oversee, and make recommendations to the Administrator 

regarding major scientific activities throughout the Agency, including the work of all program, 

regional. and ORD laboratories. 

b. Please also comment on whether you believe a Deputy at the Administrator level would 

make the Head of ORD an obsolete position? And in your opinion, is it reasonable for this 

position or person to be able to handle the responsibility of overseeing all of the EPA's 

research? 

RESPONSE: 

25 
103 

If Congress created a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology, an Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Research and Development would still be needed. Currently 

ORD provides the research to support EPA's mission to protect human health and the 

environment. However, science and technology development occurs across EPA's Programs 

and Regions. Thus, a Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology would have much 

broader, cross-Agency responsibilities for science and technology activities and direction, 

including research. 

2. The budget proposal includes an increase of $2 million in the Safe and Sustainable Water 

Resources program for the support of a Center for Innovative Estuarine Approaches to protect 

estuarine ecosystems. Is this a new center? How does this work differ from what NOAA is 

already doing? 

RESPONSE: 

The request for $2 million to support the Southeastern New England Program for Innovative 

Estuarine Approaches is building on efforts currently underway as a part of the Safe and 

Sustainable Water Resources research program. EPA's research differs from NOAA's research 

because of its regional sustainability (environment, economy, and society) focus. This EPA 

program will convene a public-private collaboration, with the purpose of developing a 

stakeholder driven systems approach to sustainably restore the coastal watersheds and estuaries 

of the southeastern New England region .. NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Science Collaborative engages private and public entities to conduct collaborative research and 

develop innovative solutions; however, the research is conducted in research reserves and is 

focused on the ecological impacts ofland use change, pollution, and habitat degradation on 

estuarine and coastal communities. This EPA program will serve as a test bed for solving 

similar problems in other areas of the country. EPA will coordinate with NOAA's Restoration 

Center and the National Estuarine Research Reserve Science Collaborative, particularly the 

Prudence Island and Waquit Bay Reserves located in this region on this important research. 

3. The NOAA budget request proposes to terminate the funding for National Air Quality 

Forecasting Capability (NAQFC). This program provides air quality forecasts for ozone and 

particulate matter, and the models are used by the Environmental Protection Agency, State; 

and local agencies to provide air quality health alerts to the public. If the EPA utilizes this 

forecasting capability to provide air quality alerts to the public, how will the termination of 

this program affect these alerts? How will EPA acquire these air quality data? 

RESPONSE: 

OMB consulted EPA during the FYI3 budget development process in an effort to determine 

the impact of NOAA's decision to discontinue the Air Quality Forecasting Capability (AQFC) 

on EPA's public air quality information programs, such as the AirNow.gov website. As tbe 

26 
104 

budget reduction became more likely, EPA was also informed by NOAA staff involved in the 

AQFC project 

While EPA supports the scientific value of a national air quality model, in practice, 

forecasting is carried out by trained meteorologists at the state and local level. Those 

meteorologists consult NOAA's AQFC as part of their forecast development, but most do not 

rely solely upon it. The value of the AQFC is in its ability to provide a national, gridded 

dataset; however, EPA does not rely upon the AQFC to issue air quality forecasts. 

EPA's AirNow program collects and distributes forecasts from across the nation. Those 

forecasts are developed and entered by state and local air quality forecasters. In the absence of 

the AQFC, forecasts will continue in this manner. However, because the AQFC is a national 

gridded product, it was able to provide forecasts for remote and rural areas, and other areas 

without monitors. The elimination of the AQFC would result in no forecasts in these areas. 

If NOAA discontinues the AQFC, EP Ns AirNow program will continue to collect and 

distribute forecasts from state, local, and tribal agencies that choose to issue them. While those 

agencies will no longer have the AQFC to consult as guidance, the AirNow program will work 

with forecasters to ensure they are aware of other tools and products for use in developing air 

quality forecasts. 

27 
105 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Hearing Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Jerry McNerney 

An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental 

Protection Agency Budgets for Fiscal Year 2013 

March 6, 2012 

1. The budget proposal includes an increase of $2 million in the Safe and Sustainable 

Water Resources program for the support of a Center for Innovative Estuarine Approaches 

to protect estuarine ecosystems. Can you describe how support for this Center might relate 

to EPA's work in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area of California? Would the Center 

be active in this region? How so? 

RESPONSE: 

The Southern New England Program fOf Innovative Estuarine Approaches is public-private 

collaboration, enabling a stakeholder driven systems approach to achieving the protection of 

coastal watersheds and the restoration of impaired watersheds. Although the program will not 

be directly related to EPA's work in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the goal of the 

program is to develop approaches and technologies that can be used in other coastal watersheds 

through the nation. 

28 

(107) 

Appendix 2 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
108 

MERCURY NEWS EDITORIAL: ‘‘DON’T REDUCE TSUNAMI ALERTS’’ 

Æ 

MercuryNews Editorial 

Posted: 02/28/201204:56:48 PM PST 

Updated: 02/29/201205:50:52 AM PST 

Related Stories 

• Feb 27: 

• White House proposes to cut tsunami warning system 

When Congress passed the bill authorizing a tsunami warning system in 2005, every senator 

from California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii signed on. It was one of the few times 

Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., agreed on something. 

'This is a $4.6 million cut in a $3.8 trillion federal budget. Eliminating it is like cutting the cost of 

a car by leaving out the speedometer and the warning lights in the dashboard. Someday, 

somebody is going to pay a steep price, probably in lives. 

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, on Wednesday pledged to fight to restore the Obama 

administration's proposed cut. Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein should join him. 

The warning system was created after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed more than 225,000 

people. Only a year ago, surging waves from the Japanese earthquake smashed the California 

coast, causing $58 million in damage in Santa Cruz and Crescent City. Nobody wants to find out 

what an unannounced tsunami might do to America's shores. 

The tsunami warning system is a network of 39 buoys along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, as 

the Mercury News' Paul Rogers reported Tuesday. Each costs about $400,000. The buoys are 

tethered to the ocean floor and can measure, to the centimeter, the size, direction and arrival time 

of tidal waves three minutes after any significant change in water pressure. But 10 of the buoys 

are not working, and the proposed cut means others will not be repaired if they go offline. 

Every year, there are 150 earthquakes magnitude 6.0 or higher. Surely the Obama administration 

can find $4.6 million, pennies in a trillions of dollars budget, to keep Americans safe from the 

next inevitable tsunami.