In 1986 NOAA was given a directive by congress. It stated "pending adoption of an international agreement or implement of international guidelines, no person should conduct any such research or exploration activity which would physically alter, disturb, or salvage the RMS Titanic."

A salvage claim for the RMS Titanic was filed and published. Did NOAA, based upon the directive and the authority of 16 U.S.C. 450rr to 450rr-6 intervene? No! Did NOAA fulfill what NOAA states in it’s proposal was the purpose of the act "(4) express the sense of the United States Congress that, pending such international agreement or guideline, no person should physically alter, disturb or salvage RMS Titanic"? No! They said nothing. This was in direct disobedience to the directive they were given. The governments excuse, "The other countries didn’t express a strong interest in pursuing any agreement or guidelines." The result of their failure and the continuous diligence of RMS Titanic Inc. is that RMS Titanic, Inc. has a valid admiralty claim and property rights.

The importance of these facts comes to light when we examine the mistreatment and misstatements in the proposal vis a vis of Executive Order 12630. Under this order, federal agencies are required to assess the taking implications of proposed policies and actions on private property protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The goal is to better inform the agency decision-makers about the potential agency activities, to the extent permitted by law, consistent with the statutory obligations. Agencies are then better informed on how to minimize the impact of such activities on constitutionally protected property rights. The position stated in the proposed guidelines is: "As these guidelines are non-binding in nature, they should not raise any regulatory taking implications under the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." This statement is in direct conflict with the proposal as stated in the Scope and Definitions section of the proposed guidelines. There it is stated that "As guidelines they are advisory in nature. They are not enforceable by NOAA unless and until there is authorizing legislation enacted by congress." There has not been the required assessment of this proposed action based on the possibility of this legislation. Under the Scope and Definition it further states that congress has the authority to enact legislation regulating activities aimed at RMS Titanic. The U.S. enforcement regime in such legislation could rely on U.S. jurisdiction over it’s nationals, U.S. flagged vessels, Port state jurisdiction and other jurisdiction consistent with international law. (Emphasis supplied) An enforcement regime does not enforce guidelines; it enforces legislation. The scope of this proposal includes legislation. Further, as stated by Mr. O'Conner in the NOAA meeting, the government attorney's are aware of and involved in the litigation. The requirement of Executive Order 12630 includes assessing the taking implications of proposed policies and actions. One of the reasonable inferences from the act is that once the guidelines or the international agreement were finalized jurisdiction would kick in. Ergo the evaluation under the Fifth Amendment taking situation should include the taking from the RMS Titanic Inc. group. If the enforcement regime has to execute a temporary taking by stopping the operation that event that could cost upwards of $400,000,000.00 and a permanent taking could cost well beyond $1,000,000,000.00. The fact that this executive order has been glossed over is similar to the two step shuffle that was practiced by the government in the RMS Titanic Admiralty hearings. There the government's position was that it was not ripe because the actions had not taken place yet. In this case the Executive Order addresses proposed actions. The legislation is one of the proposed actions (one reasonably inferred). For this group to expose the taxpayers to that sort of liability without even acknowledging it exists is unconscionable. That this group would propose to set up an enforcement regime is to show its true colors. Although the proposal discusses jurisdiction consistent with international law that is in place at this time, it ignores that the Admiralty court, not a NOAA enforcement regime is that jurisdiction.

Recently I had a client apply for a research and recovery permit from NOAA. I had some concern because Ole Varmer had told me when he left the department that he would continue to oversee my case and he had told me, because I filed an Admiralty claim, my client would never get a permit. He also threatened to have my client jailed. People who have dealt with Ole told me that my NOAA papers would be lost, the requirements would change, and the everything would become a game of obfuscation. Low and behold, very shortly thereafter my client notified me that both copies of my applications had been lost and that my client was unprofessional for not giving the information that they had lost to them! My client believes that this occurred because of interference or influence from Washington, not because of incompetence at the NOAA office in Florida or the parties whom are supposed to have the authority to authorize the issuance of a recovery permit. There are departmental bureaucrats or advisors who have stated that they want to halt all commercial salvage that appear to be involved.

Reasonable delay in order to do a through job is one thing. The 14 years delay in the Titanic case is unreasonable and beyond the scope of any excusable neglect. This agency wishes the public to believe that it is taking this action now because of the 14 year old directive from Congress to the State Department that told them to take action then! That is not what this is about, it is about trying to interfere with commercial salvage through any and all means and making NOAA the enforcement regime administrative force of the worlds atmosphere and oceans. Lost documents, failing to notify interested parties, failing to deliver documents to interested parties until ordered to by the Federal Courts are odious practices that should be considered unacceptable practices by agents and employees of this agency. Dancing around an executive order and stating that there is no liability when in fact a liability in excess of $1,000,000,000.00 may exist begs for some sort of investigation. The proposal as published in the Federal Register is patently incorrect and must be rejected.

Sincerely yours

Thomas F. Ryan

14041 U.S. 1

Suite E

Juno Beach Fl 33408

(561) 694-6945