Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "16988396",
    "label": "Regulatory Reform (12)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988396"
}

{
    "id": "16988396",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988396",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Regulatory Reform (12)",
    "description": "This file contains material relating to the Domestic Council Review Group on Regulatory Reform and President Ford's meetings with regulatory commissioners.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988396",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Aeronautics, Commercial",
        "Antitrust law",
        "Government regulation",
        "Independent regulatory commissions",
        "Intergovernmental relations",
        "Legislation",
        "Regulatory reform",
        "Trucking"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988396.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988396.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988396.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988396",
    "naId": 16988396,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-06-01",
        "month": 6,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988396.pdf",
    "mediaId": "9fd699def91b733c",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 29, folder \"Regulatory Reform (12)\" of the James\nM. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nDigitized from Box 29 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCC: Quern\nOFFICE WTM PRESIDENT UNITED\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MAN.GEMENT AND BUDGET\nSTATES\nWASHINGTON studio 20508\n1\nHonorable James M. Cannon\nExecutive Director\nDomestic Council\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Cannon:\nwe In\nSince the President announced his government-wide effort\nto reduce the number of reports, 37 percent of the\nPresident's goal was met in the first two months (as of\nApril 30, 1976). While this achievement is commendable, we\nhave a particularly tough task ahead. By June 30, 325 more\nreports must be eliminated government wide.\nI would like to share with you, the President's thoughts\nin recent speeches.\n\"When I was in the Congress, when I was Vice President,\nand now as President, I keep hearing that individuals\nand businesses are overwhelmed with forms, government\ninformation requests, so I asked the Office of Manage-\nment and Budget how many Federal Government forms are\nthere that are sent out to individuals or groups\nor businesses. It was 5,200. I issued an order -\nand it darn well better be lived up to - they\n(Federal departments and agencies) had to cut that\n10 percent and they have a couple of months to go.\"\nThe President's remarks at the\nMary F. Sawyer Municipal Auditorium\nin LaCrosse, Wisconsin.\nMarch 27, 1976\nHis message is clear and has been made in Milwaukee,\nDallas, Indianapolis, and other cities around the country\nduring the past few weeks.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n2\nIn order to properly evaluate how we stand in achieving the\ninitial goal of the President's paperwork reduction program,\nI am requesting that each department and agency submit a\nbrief progress report to OMB by May 26 with:\n1. A list of repetitive forms eliminated to date;\n2. Candidates in the agency inventory for elimination\nby June 30;\n3. Total percentage reduction in repetitive forms\nexpected by June 30 and estimated savings in\nreporting burden; and\n4. Problems encountered to date and expected in\nachieving the President's goal.\nIf you have any questions, please direct them to the\nClearance Office, 395-4529.\nSincerely,\n100 Fernando Oaxaca\nAssociate Director for\nManagement and Operations\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMay 18, 1976\nMEETING TO DISCUSS\nADMINISTRATION'S POSITION ON ANTITRUST LEGISLATION\nWednesday, May 19, 1976\n9:00 AM - (30 Minutes)\nThe Oval Office\nFrom: Edward Schmults\nQ\nI. PURPOSE\nTo meet with Senator Hruska and the Attorney General to review the\nstatus of pending antitrust legislation and discuss the Administration's\nposition.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA. Background: On April 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee\ncompleted mark-up on the Hart/Scott Antitrust Improvements\nAct (S. 1284). The bill is scheduled for Floor action this week.\nIn the House, three of the major provisions of S. 1284 are being\nconsidered in separate legislation. The so-called parens patriae\nbill has been passed and the Civil Process Act amendments were\napproved on May 18 by the House Judiciary Committee without\nobjection.\nOn April 2 Senators Hart and Scott met with Justice Department\nand White House Staff to urge Administration support for their\nlegislation and to determine possible areas of compromise. We\nreemphasized the views expressed in your letters to John Rhodes\non parens patriae and Peter Rodino on the Civil Process Act\nAmendments.\nOn May 4, 1976, you met with the Attorney General, Assistant\nAttorney General Kauper and White House Staff to discuss the\nAdministration's position on the pending antitrust legislation.\nAt the meeting you indicated that you wanted to hear Senator\nHruska's views prior to making any decisions concerning\nnegotiations aimed at finding an acceptable bill in the Senate.\n-2-\nOn May 7, you met with Senator Hruska on Air Force One\nand heard his objections to S. 1284.\nAs you know, we are being urged by Senators Hart and Scott\nto enter into negotiations aimed at producing an acceptable bill.\nB. Participants: Senator Hruska, The Attorney General,\nPhilip Buchen, Max Friedersdorf, James Lynn, Jack Marsh,\nJim Cannon, Bill Kendall, Ed Schmults.\nC. Press Plan: None. Meeting not to be announced. White\nHouse photographer only.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\n1. The purpose of this meeting is to review the status of\nantitrust legislation currently before the Congress and\ndecide what approach we should take in working with the\nCongress.\n2. Roman, perhaps you would begin by giving us an overview\nof the Senate's plans for action on S. 1284 and what you\nwould like to see the Administration do.\nIV. ATTACHMENTS\nTab A\n-\nOutline of major features of the pending bills.\nTab B\n- Options Memorandum, with attachments, prepared\nby Ed Schmults\nDERALD\nLIBRARY\nMajor Antitrust Legislation\nBefore the Concress\nFORD\nGERALD\nStated\nSenate\nHouse\nAdministration Positions\n1. Civil Process Act Amendments (S. 1284)\nCivil Process Act Amendments (H.R. 39)\npassed House Judiciary Subcommittee by\nvoice vote on April 28.\nProvides for use of Civil Process Act\nNo provision\nOpposes\npowers in regulatory proceedings.\nProvides for mandatory reimbursement\nReimburscment only of witnesses\nNo stated position\nof third parties for expenses, with-\naccording to current standards.\nout specific authorization for\nappropriations.\nXC exemption of information from\nProvides an explicit exemption\nFavors explicit exemption\ndisclosure under Froedom of Infor-\nmition Act.\nProvides grand jury information to\nNo provision\nNo stated position\nFIC and private antitrust plaintiffs\nafter completion of civil or criminal\nproceedings.\n2. Promorcer Notification and Automatic\nPremerger Notification and Automatic\nSeay (S. 1284)\nStay (H.R. 13131) Judiciary Subcom-\nmittee hearings are scheduled for\nMay 5.\nProvides for 30 day notification with\nSimilar provision\nSupports\n20 day extension, prior to consummation\nis\nc: very large mergers and acquisitions\n(involving transactions between $100\nmillion and $10 million companies)\nProvides for automatic stay, not to\nSimilar provision\nOpposed-retain existing decisional LEW\nexceed 60 days, with burden on defendant\nto show why stay should not be issued.\nAn omnibus antitrust bill (S. 1284), containing five titles, was favorably reported to the full Senate on April 6. The\nSanate Judiciary Committee vote was 10-5. Opposed were Eastland, McClellan, Hruska, Thurmond, W. Scott.\n-2-\nStated\nSenate\nHouse\nAdministration Positions\nLIBRARY\nParens Patrice (S. 1284)\nParens Patriac (H.R. 8539) passed\n2/\nHouse by voice vote on March 18\nFORD is\nScope: Limited to Sherman Act\nPractical effect is limitation to willful\nLimitation to price-fixing\nGERALD\nviolations\nprice-fixing\nDeterms:\n-Provides for mandatory award of\nCourt determined reduction from treble to\nFavors limitation to single ages\ntroble damages\nsingle damages if defendant acted in good\nfaith\nProvides for statistical aggregation\nNo provision\nOpposes\nof damages in private class actions\nAttorney's Fees:\n--Count may award attorney's fees to a\nSimilar provision\nFavor\ndefendent if state attorney general\nacted in bad faith\nCourt may approve contingency fees\nFlat ban against contingency fees\nNo stated position\naccording to standard criteria\nMiscollancous Provisions (S. 1284)\nNo comparable House provisions\nBrondens Clayton Act (including\nSupports provision applying to Clayton\nRebinson-Patman ACE) to include\n7 (mergers); opposes applying to\nviolations \"affeeting\" rather than\nother sections of Clayton Act, in-\n\"in\" interstate commerce.\ncluding Robinson-Patman Act\nDismissal of claims 35 party rolying\nOpposes\nupon foreign statutes =0 justify\nrefusal to comply with discovery order.\nMandatory award of attorney's fees for\nFavors discretionary awards\nin unctive relief under Clayton Act.\nDeclaration of Policy (S. 1284)\nNone\nNo stated position\nSees forth assertions and conclusions\nabout Nation's commitment to a free\nenterprise system, the docline of\ncompenition because b: monopoly and anti-\neligatitive Lehavior and the need for\nvieórous antitrust chiorcement.\nThe President's letter of March 17 to Congressman Rhodes expressed serious reservations about the principle of parens intriac.\nThe President also expressed concern regarding specific provisions.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 14, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nEDWARD C. SCHMULTS\nSg\nSUBJECT:\nAntitrust Legislation Now Before Congress\nIssue\nThis memorandum outlines the status of omnibus antitrust\nlegislation pending before the Congress and requests your\nguidance as to how we should proceed.\nBackground\nThe Administration has in the past been the champion of\nvigorous antitrust enforcement and reducing government\nregulation while Congress has largely been playing \"catch-\nup\" ball. Recently the Administration's positive anti-\ntrust policy has been criticized by Members of Congress\nand others because of our position on antitrust legislation\nbefore the Congress. (See attached letter from Chairman\nRodino at Tab A.)\nNevertheless, Senators Hart and Scott, as a culmination\nof years of work, are anxious to see important antitrust\nlegislation enacted into law this year and are anxious\nto work with the Administration to arrive at an acceptable\nbill.\nStatus of the Legislation\nOn April 2, Senators Hart and Scott met with White House\nsenior staff to urge firm Administration support for the\nlegislation and to determine possible areas of compromise.\nWe outlined to them the Administration's objections to\nthis legislation and recmphasized the views expressed in\nyour letters to John Rhodes on parens patriae and\nPeter Rodino on the CID bill (see Tab B). Shortly there-\nafter, on April 6, the Judiciary Committee completed mark-up\non its legislative proposal, the Hart-Scott Antitrust\n2\nImprovements Act (S.1284). In the course of that mark-\nup, both Senators referred to the White House meeting and\nindicated their belief that suitable negotiations could\nbegin soon after the mark-up. They stressed flexibility\nand a desire to accommodate Administration views.\nIn the House, three of the major provisions of S.1284 are\nbeing considered in separate legislation. Following your\nletter to Minority Leader Rhodes on the parens patriae\nlegislation, the House passed this bill, but modified it\nto reflect some of your reservations concerning specific\nprovisions. The House Judiciary Committee will soon take\nup the Administration's proposed amendments to the Civil\nProcess Act. Your March 31 letter to Chairman Rodino\nurged favorable consideration of this legislation and\nrequested the Department of Justice to work closely with\nthe Committee on this bill.\nFollowing action on the Civil Process Act amendments the\nHouse Judiciary Committee is also expected to consider\npremerger notification and mandatory stay legislation.\nThe Senate bill has a similar provision.\nOn March 31, Justice, Treasury, Commerce and the FTC agreed\non a position on the major provisions of the Senate and\nHouse legislation. We have compared this position with\nthe bill reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee on\nApril 6 and believe that it would be possible to negotiate\nan outcome close to this position. It is probable that if\nlegislation is enacted, it will be an omnibus bill. There-\nfore, we are outlining below the main features of this\nbill.\n1. Parens Patriae. Any such omnibus legislation probably\nwould include a modified parens patriae provision as\nboth Houses are determined to make parens a condition\nfor enactment of the Administration's civil process\nbill. Your March 17 letter to Minority Leader Rhodes\nexpressed serious reservations regarding the basic\nprinciple of parens patriae, which allows state attorneys\ngeneral to seek damages in Federal courts as a result\nof Federal antitrust violations.\nIn addition to your problems with the basic concept\nof parens patriae, there are other major points of\ndifference between the Administration's position\nand the legislation being considered in the Congress.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n3\nThe current Senate version of the parens patriae bill\nis a significantly broader bill than that which recently\npassed the House. The Senate bill as it now stands is\nsubject to the same criticisms we have directed at the\nHouse bill. Nevertheless, it scems quite likely that\nsubstantial amendments in this provision could be\naccepted by the Senate.\nNegotiable areas of importance to the Administration are:\nlimitation of scope to price fixing, elimination of\nstatistical aggregation in private class actions,\nreduction to single damages, prohibition of contingency\nfees and discretionary rather than mandatory award of\nattorney's fees. For a further discussion of these\nissues, see Tab C.\n2. Antitrust Civil Process Act Amendments. The Senate and\nHouse bills are in most respects compatible with the\nAdministration's position.\nThe Administration favors deleting the use of the\nexpanded civil process powers in regulatory agency\nproceedings. It is anticipated that the House will\ndelete this provision.\nThe Administration also seeks exemption of information\nobtained through this process from public disclosure\nunder the Freedom of Information Act. Although it is not\nclear that such an exemption is necessary, many businesses\nfear the possible applicability of the FOIA. The Senate\nmay be reluctant to grant such exemptions, and it may be\neasier to achieve the exemption in conference.\nAlso, the Justice Department opposes a recent amendment\nin the Senate bill which would require them to reimburse\nthird parties for expenses incurred in an antitrust\ninvestigation.\nThere appears to be a good chance that these modifica-\ntions will be accepted. However, there will be some\nbusiness opposition to the Civil Process Act amendments.\nBill Seidman's memorandum to you on this subject is at\nTab D.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n4\n3. Premerger Motification and Diay Amendments. In addition\nto establishing a premerger nozilication procedure, the\nSerate bill creates an automatic injenction against\nmargers which are challenged by Federal enforcement\nagencies. The Adminiotration has stated its opposition\nto any stay provision, while reattirming its support\nfor a properly modified pre-merger notification procedure.\nThe final Senate mark-up provides that if a merger is\nchallenged by the Government, consummation of the merger\nmay be stayed until the court issues a decision on a\nrequest for a preliminary injenction. However, the\nstay can not exceed 60 days.\nThe burden would be on the defendant to demonstrate why\na preliminary injunction should not be issued. Senator\nScott has indicated a willingness to narrow this further\nby shifting the burden of proof from the defendant to\nthe Government and to reducing the stay period.\nThe House will consider a similar provision. Although\nthere is strong support for some such provision, the\nAdministration has been against any automatic stay\nprovision.\n4. Miscellaneous Amendments. The Senate bill also contains\na variety of miscellaneous provisions but the Administra-\ntion only supports a provision which would amend Section 7\nof the Clayton Act (mergers). This change is necessary\nbecause of a recent Supreme Court decision limiting the\nscope of Section 7 of the Clayton Act to reach only\nviolations \"in\" rather than \"affecting\" interstate\ncommerce. The Administration continues to oppose\nexpanding the scope to other sections of the Clayton\nAct and the Robinson-Patman Act.\nThe Administration also opposes a provision which would\nauthorize dismissal of claims or defenses of any party\nwho relies upon foreign statutes to justify a refusal\nto comply with a discovery order. The Justice Department\nwould also like to modify a provision requiring mandatory\naward of attorney's fees for injunctive relief under the\nClayton Act. Justice prefers discretionary awards. No\nsimilar miscellaneous provisions are likely to be\nconsidered in the House:\n&\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n5\n5. Declaration of Policy. Finally, the Senate omnibus bill\ncontains a collection of assertions and conclusions\nabout the commitment of this country to a free enterprise\nsystem, the decline of competition as a result of\noligopoly and monopoly, and the positive impact of\nvigorous antitrust enforcement. It has been criticized\nas not being based on economic consensus nor logically\nconnected to the procedural matters dealt with in the\nbody of .1284. The Administration has previously taken\nno position on this provision.\nAlthough some of the least supportable language has\nbeen eliminated in the Senate mark-up, the Administration\nwould favor the elimination of this policy statement.\nHowever, the Departments do not view further modification\nor elimination as important as the modification of\ncertain substantive portions of the bill which are\nconsidered above. Attached at Tab E is a table summarizing\nthe various provisions of the House and Senate bills.\nOptions:\nAt this stage, we have the following options:\n1. Do not compromise the present Administration position.\n2. Negotiate with the Senate to try to produce an\nacceptable bill prior to a Senate floor vote early\nnext month.\n3. Schedule a meeting to discuss these options.\nThe first option has a number of risks. If the Administration\ntakes no action, then it is likely that the Congress will\npass an unacceptable bill thus generating pressure for a veto\nsometime this summer. On the other hand, there is some chance\nthat Administration silence at this time could slow down\nthe legislation in both Houses so that the legislation would\nnot be enacted. For example, an effort to filibuster the\nbill in the Senate is possible.\nOption 2 could substantially increase the chances of Congress\npassing an acceptable bill. With your support, it is likely\nthat the White House staff and the Justice Department can\nwork with Senators Hart and Scott to agree to desirable\namendments prior to a Senate vote early next month and\navoid undesirable amendments on the Senate floor. This\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY\n6\noption would also help stimulate the House to move on the\nCivil Process Act amendments and an acceptable premerger\nnotification bill.\nOption 3 recommends a policy meeting on this subject, prior\nto your choosing between options 1 and 2. We believe that,\nin light of the complexity of the issues and the highly\nfluid political environment, we should meet with you as\nsoon as possible.\nDecision:\nOption 1: Do not compromise Administration position until\nSenate and House conference a bill\n(Supported by\nOption 2: Work affirmatively with Senators Hart and\nScott to try to produce an acceptable bill\nprior to a Senate floor vote early next\nmonth (Supported by\nOption 3: Schedule a meeting\n(Supported by\nFORD 4 LIBRARY GERALD\nwis.\nDay. ILL\nTAB A\nCALIF\n10M ILL.\nWILLIAM HUNDATA MO.\nCHARLE withing CALIF,\nCongress of the United States\nSTART DIRECTOR\nCONYINS. 19. 9.51.\nCARNER , CLING\nHAMILTON 11'H,\n10%\n10° our FILMS FA.\nM. CALDWILL\nVA.\nVALTER JAKHS, A'M.\nCONGRO\nWILLIAM %. COME - STRE\nJAMES R. MAIS I.C.\ncare 05 CALLF.\nPAUL $. MJ.\nJOHN M. CHIO\nCommittee un the yndiciary\nPRODUCT\nWILLIAM\nJOHN F. SERVING 0.10\nALANA. PARKIN\nMEMBY 1. HYDE. ILL.\nGEORGE DANILSON, CALIF.\nJOINT\nTHOMAS N. KINDNESS, OHIO\nPONGHT P. LIPINAM. NASS.\nHouse of Representatives\nMANAGE\nBARJARA IONDAN. 1'X,\nAMTHUR P.\nRAY THOUNTON, B.H.\nTHOUGH WY\nELIZATE N.Y.\nMashington, D.C. 20515\nDANIEL CURRY\nEDWARD MEDINDRY, ICWA\nFRINKLIN\nMERMAN BACILLO. N.Y.\nTROMAS\nHOMANO L. MAZZOLI. KT.\nTelephone: 202-225-3951\nALDORDER start\nEDWARD w. PAITION, N.Y.\nCONSTITUTIONS\nCHRISTOPHER J. 0000, CONTL\nALAN 7.\nVILLIAM J. HUGHES. H.J.\nREPRETT FLEZ\nMARTIN.A. PUSSO, ILL\nMarch 17, 1976\nBLAYMOND V.\nThe President\nThe White House\nDear Mr. President:\nI was extremely distressed to learn today that you have withdrawn\nyour Administration's carefully articulated and frequently repeated support\nfor H.R. 8532, the Antitrust Enforcement Improvement Act (Parens Patriae).\nIn my judgment, enactment of this bill would constitute unquestion-\nably the most significant contribution to antitrust enforcement and the\ndeterrence of widespread antitrust violations in more than a quarter century.\nThe basic premise of the bill is that many if not most antitrust\nviolations have their principal impact upon the consumer, who pays more for\ngoods and services than he would if there were free and open competition.\nThe need for the bill arises because under our present antitrust enforcement\nscheme, the consumer has no effective mechanism for seeking redress, in\nlight of the small value of individual claims and the enormous cost and\ncomplexity of antitrust litigation. As a result, many violations go unpun-\nished and corporate violators reap - and retain -- billions of dollars in\nillegal profits every year.\nThe bill would fill this enforcement void by empowering state\nattorneys general to bring antitrust suits on behalf of consumers in their\nstates injured by antitrust violations. It would create no new substantive\nantitrust liability. It would merely provide for the first time an effective\nmechanism for the vindication of existing consumer claims and the enforcement\nof long-standing policy.\nThe case for this bill has been made repeatedly and most persua-\nsively by authorized representatives of your own Administration. On March\n18, 1974, Thomas E. Kauper, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the\nAntitrust Division, testified generally in favor of an earlier version of\nFORD\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nThe President\n-2-\nMarch 17, 1976\nH.K. 8532. He suggested a number of amendments, many of which were\nincorporated in the draft approved by the liouse Judiciary Committee on\nJuly 24, 1975. The Administration's views regarding the Committee bill,\nthe present H.R. 8532, were sought again following Committee action.\nOnce again, Mr. Kauper was forthright in his support of the measure.\nIn a letter to me dated September 25, 1975, Mr. Kauper stated:\nThe Administration has taken a position in suppor' of\nthe basic concept of permitting a State to sue on behalf\nof its citizens for damages sustained because of violations\nof the Sherman Act. H.R. 8532 would establish a orkable\nmechanism for assuring that those antitrust viola ions\nwhich have the broadest scope and perhaps the most direct\nimpact on consumers do not escape civil liability.\nMr. Kauper went on to suggest one or two amendments designed to\nstrengthen the enforcement potential of H.R. 8532, concluding:\nWhile we think the further refinements suggested bove\nwould strengthen the bill, we would still urge en ctment\nof this legislation.\nMr. Kauper's letter made it clear that this was the mature and\nconsidered position of the entire Administration:\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised this\nDepartment that it has no objection to the submis ion\nof this report from the standpoint of the Adminis ration's\nprogram.\nWithin the last month, while testifying on another matter, Mr.\nKauper went out of his way to praise H.R. 8532 and the Judiciary Committee's\ncontribution to antitrust enforcement in reporting it to the House.\nThese views were echood recently in a significant speech by Deputy\nAssistant Attorney General Joe Sims, who stated in Dallas, \"exas, on February\n27, 1976 that \"as we put more resouces into the field, we continue to find\nthat price-fixing is a common business practice.\" Pointing to the need for\npending legislation to provide greater antitrust enforcement capability, Mr.\nSims went on:\nStrangely enough, while the business community is taking\na strong public stand for free enterprise as a concept,\nit is also mounting an enormous lobbying effort in an\nattempt to delay, to cut back or to prevent the passage\nof such legislation.\nAnd so again, the call for a return to free enterprise\ntakes on a somewhat hollow ring.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nThe Administration's support for the provisions of H.R. 8532\nhas likewise been repeatedly expressed in the Senate. Mr. Kauper testified\nin favor of Title IV of S. 1284, the counterpart of H.R. 8532, in May of\n1975, and as recently as February 19, 1976, Deputy Attorney General Harold\nTyler expressly reaffirmed the Administration's support for Title IV in a\nletter to the Minority Leader of the Senate, the Honorable Hugh Scott, who\nis a cosponsor of S. 1284.\nEven more is at stake than the credibility of considered statements\nby high ranking and fully authorized officials of your Administration. Your\nwithdrawal of this long-standing support for H.R. 8532 is utterly at odds with\nyour own repeated statements favoring vigorous and effective enforcement of\nthe antitrust laws.\nI could not put the case for the necessity of effective antitrust\nenforcement to the continuation of a free competitive economy better than\nyou have on numerous occasions. On October 8, 1974, you told a Joint Session\nof Congress:\nTo increase productivity and contain prices, we must end\nrestrictive and costly practices, whether instituted by\nGovernment, industry, labor, or others. And I am deter-\nmined to return to the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust\nlaws.\nOn April 18, 1975, you told the White House Conference on Domestic\nand Economic Affairs that \"Vigorous antitrust enforcement must be part of the\neffort to promote competition.\"\nIn your most recent State of the Union message, on January 19, 1976,\nyou told the Congress that \"This Administration\nwill strictly enforce\nthe federal antitrust laws.\"\nYou put the matter perhaps most eloquently in your remarks to the\nAmerican Hardware Manufacturers Association on August 25, 1975:\nIt is sad but true -- too often the Government walks with\nthe industry along the road to monopoly.\nThe end result of such special treatment provides special\nbenefits for a few, but powerful, groups in the economy\nat the expense of the taxpayer and the consumer.\nLet me emphasize this is not -- and never will be -- an\nAdministration of special interests. This is an Adminis-\ntration of public interest, and always will be just that.\nTherefore, we will not permit the continuation of monopoly\nprivilege, which is not in the public interest. It is my\njob and your job to open the American marketplace to all\nFORD GERALD LIBRARY GERALD\ncomers.\nDespite these ringing declarations of commitment to antitrust\npolicy and enforcement, your actions in recent weeks have struck repeated\nThe President\n-4-\nch 17, 1976\nblows at the hopes of the American people that these goals would be\nrealized. On February 19, 1976, despite previous affirmations of Adminis-\ntration support, you withdrew, through Deputy Attorney General Tyler, your\nblessing from important injunctive provisions of Title V of S. 1284.\nOn March 4, 1976, an obviously distressed Assistant Attorney\nGeneral Kauper had to tell' our Committee that the Administration opposed\nS. 1136, already passed by the Senate, which would have committed significant\nadditional funds to the federal antitrust enforcement effort.\nAnd yesterday you withdrew from almost two years of public support\nfor the concept of H.R. 8532.\nI hope that you will reconsider your pronouncement of yesterday\nand reaffirm your earlier support for a bill designed to put sorely needed\nteeth in our antitrust enforcement scheme.\nOtherwise, everyone will have lost significantly. The considered\npronouncements of your Administration on pending legislation will lose all\ncredibility if the rug is to be pulled out repeatedly by last-minute\npresidential action. More important, the consumers and businessmen of this\ncountry who stand to benefit from free and open competition and the attendant\nreduction of inflation will have lost the assistance of a truly significant\npiece of legislation.\nThe antitrust laws are the basic charter of our free enterprise\nsystem, and I urge you to join in the effort to secure their vigorous\nenforcement in the public interest.\nVery truly yours,\nPen Rink\nPETER W. RODINO, JR.\nChairman\nPWR:edg\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nACCRASE\nChrch 17, 1016\nTAB D\nOffice of the White House Press Secretary\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nTEXT OF A LETTER BY THE PRESIDENT\nTO REPRESENTATIVE JOIN J. RHODES\nMarch 17, 1976\nDear John:\nAs I outlined to you on Tuesday, March 16, I support vigorous antitrust enforcement,\nbut I have serious reservations concerning the parens patriae concept set forth in\nthe present version of H.R. 8532.\nI question whether federal legislation is desirable which authorizes a state\nattorney general to sue on behalf of the state's citizens to recover treble damages\nthat result from violations of the federal antitrust laws. The states have the\nability to amend their own antitrust laws to authorize parens patriae suits in\ntheir own courts. If a state legislature, acting for its own citizens, is not\nconvinced the parens patriac concept is sound policy, the Administration questions\nwhether the Congress should bypass the state legislatures and provide state attorneys\ngeneral with access to the federal courts to enforce it.\nIn addition to by reservations about the principle of parens patrice, 1 an concerned\nabout some specific provisions of the legislation developed by the House Judiciary\nCommittee.\nThe present bill is too broad in its reach and should be narrowed to price fixing\nviolations. This would concentrate the enforcement on the most important anti-\ntrust violations.\nIn addition, the Administration is opposed to mandatory treble damage awards in parens\npatriae suits, preferring instead a provision which would limit awards only to the\ndamages that actually result from the violation. The view that federal penalties\nwere inadequate, which has been used to justify mandatory treble damages in the past,\nis no longer justifiable given the substantial increases in these penalties in\nrecent years.\nThe Administration opposes extension of the statistical aggregation of damages,\nbeyond parens patriae legislation, to private class action suits because this is\noutside of the appropriate reach of this legislation.\nFinally, the Administration prefers discretionary rather than mandatory award of\nattorney's fees, leaving such awards to the discretion of the courts.\nDuring the last two years, the Administration has sought to improve federal\nenforcement efforts in the antitrust 3rea and the resources devoted to antitrust\nenforcement have increased substantially. In December 1974, I signed the Antitrust\nPenalties and Procedures Act which increased maximum penalties from $50,000 to $1 million\nfor corporations and $100,000 for individuals. As I indicated above, I support\nvigorous antitrust enforcement, but I do not believe H.R. S532 is a responsible way\nto enforce federal antitrust laws.\nSincerely,\n/s/ Gerald R. Ford\nThe Honorable John J. Rhodes\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nMinority Lender\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D.C. 20515\nTAB B\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 31, 1976\nDear Chairman Rodino:\nDuring the last year and a half, my Administration has supported\neffective, vigorous, and responsible antitrust enforcement. In\nDecember 1974, I signed legislation increasing penalties for\nantitrust violations. In addition, I have submitted several legis- are\nlative proposals for regulatory reform which would expand\ncompetition in regulated industries. Assuring a free and com-\npetitive economy is a keystone of my Administration's economic\nprogram.\nIn October 1974, I announced my support of amendments to the\nAntitrust Civil Process Act which would provide important tools\nto the Justice Department in enforcing our antitrust laws. My\nAdministration reintroduced this legislation at the beginning of\nthis Congress and I strongly urge its favorable consideration.\nI have asked the Department of Justice to work closely with\nyour Committee in considering this antitrust legislation. I\nwould hope that the result of this cooperation will be effective\nand responsible antitrust legislation.\nSincerely,\nR. Fl\nThe Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr.\nChairman\nThe Committee on the Judiciary\nHouse of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nFORD i LIBRARY\nTAB C\nParens Patriae\nThe House-parsed parens pabrice bill (H.R. 8532) and Title IV\nof S. 1234, the Senate counterpart on which the Judiciary\nCommittee completed action on April 6, aj for in a number of\nrespects.\nTitle IV had been a significantly broader bill which was\nnarrowed in the Senate mark-up in two ways:\n1. A provision which would authorize a State to\nrecover damages to the \"general economy\" of that\nState or its political subdivisions was deleted.\n2. The bill was modified to apply in general to future\nviolations, rather than retrospecuively.\nThe House-passed bill, which was narrowed substantially,\ncompares with Title IV as follows:\n1. Scope. The House bill was, in practical effect,\nnarrowed to willful price-fixing violations only,\nby permitting statistical aggregation of damages\nonly in such cases. The Senate version applies\nto violations of the Sherman Act.\n2. Statistical Accrecation in Private Class Actions.\nThe House eliminated a provision to permit\naggregation in consumer class action suit. The\nSenate retained this provision.\n3. Damaces. The House provided for a court determined\nreduction of damages from treble to single damages\nif a defendant could prove he was acting in good\nfaith or without reason to believe he violated the\nantitrust laws. The Senate bill provides for\nmandatory award of trcble damage.\n4. Attorneys Pees. Both the House and Senate provide\nthat a court may award reasonable attorney's fees\nto a prevailing defendant upon finding the state\nattorney general acted in bad faith.\n5. Continuency Pees. The House provided for a flat\nban accinst contineency fee arrangement. The\nSenate bill requires the approval of the court for\nany attorney ice arrangement according to standard\ncritoria (e.c., number of hours of time multiplied\nby reasonable hourly rate, adjusted up or down for\nrisk, complexity, or other factors).\nLIBRARY GERALD A. FORD\n2\nAlthough a fundamental issue as to the principle of parens\npatriae legislation remains, the House bill is much closer\nto the modifications favored by the concerned Dopartments.\nThese are: limitation of scope to price-fixing; climination\nof statistical aggregation in private actions and reduction\nto single damages in certain cases (possibly even a flat\nlimitation to single damages) ; prohibition of contingency\nfees.\nThe Justice Department is also exploring options that would\nrequire prior Federal action or approval, before an action\n/\ncould be taken by a state attorney general under the parens\npatriae provision.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nTAB\nU\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 29, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nL. WILLIAM SEIDMAN\ngos\nSUBJECT:\nAdministration Antitrust Legislation\nIssue\nShould the Administration reaffirm its support for the\namendments to the Antitrust Civil Process Act (the CID\nbill) ? If so, should a Presidential letter stating this\nposition be forwarded to the Judiciary Committees?\nBackground\nCongress is moving toward enactment this spring of canibus\nantitrust legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee is.\nin the process of marking up S. 1284, \"the Hart-Scott\nOmnibus Antitrust Act,\" and a final vote is expected on\nApril 6. A brief summary, prepared by the Justice Depart-\nment, of S. 1284 and the positions taken to date by the\nAdministration on its various provisions is set forth at\nTab A.\nIn the House, the various titles incorporated in S. 1234\nare being considered separately. H.R. 8532, the parens\npatriae bill, recently passed the House with amendments\nthat reflected some of the concerns raised in the March 17\nletter to Congressman Rhodes. A pre-merger notification\nbill similar to Title V of S. 1284 will be introduced\nshortly by Chairman Rodino. Finally, the House Judiciary\nSubcommittee is scheduled to mark up on March 31 the\nAdministration's proposal for amendments to the Antitrust\nCivil Process Act (H.R. 39), which would allow the\nDepartment of Justice to take testimony in pre-complaint\nantitrust investigations.\nThis logislation has come under heavy attack from the\nbusiness community. The modifications of the Administration\nposition on the injunctive relief provisions for mergers\nin S. 1284 and the House parens patriae bill have been\nFORD & GERALD LIBRARY\n%\ninterpreted as resulting from business pressure. Con-\nsequently, Senator Scott has requested that be and\nSenator Hart meet with you to explore the developed of\nan acceptable position on the Senate bill.\nThe timing of legislative action requires that the\nAdministration position on the House and Sensite legislation\nbe communicated quickly.\nThe Civil Process Act Amendments (H.R. 39)\nThese amendments, together with legislation to increase\nantitrust penalties, were endorsed in your Economic\nAddress of October 8, 1974. The increase in penalties was\nenacted and signed into law in December 1974, but the\nCivil Process Act amendments died in the 93rd Congress.\nAttorney General Levi resubmitted this legislation to the\n94th Congress and hearings have been held in both Houses.\nThe present Civil Process Act was enacted in 1962 to\nassist the Department of Justice in investigating possible\nantitrust violations. The Act helps the Department determine.\nin advance of filing a suit, whether a violation has occurred.\nIt was enacted because pre-complaint discovery was preferable\nto having the government file complaints based upon sketchy\nor inaccurate information. It was designed to make possible\nmore informed decisions by Justice prior to creating the\nburden, expense, and adverse publicity of a full government\nlawsuit.\nThe 1962 Act, however, was a limited effort. The Antitrust\nDivision may only serve the Civil Investigative Demand\n(CID) --a pre-complaint subpoena. on suspected violators,\nthe so-called \"targets\". The CID may only be served on\nbusinesses for the purpose of obtaining documents relevant\nto the investigation.\nThe proposed legislation would permit CID's to be issued\nnot only to \"targets\" of the investigation, but also to\nthird partics--customers, suppliers, competitors--who may\nhave information relevant to the investigation even though\nthey themselves are not suspected violators. CID's could\nthus be served not only on a business entity, but also on\nindividuals (e.g., a witness to a meeting). Also, a CID\nrecipient could be compelled not only to produce documents,\nbut also to give oral testimony and answer written questions.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n3\nThe Justice Department views enactment of this legislation\nas a vital step designed to close a gap in their anti-\ntrust enforcement authority. They believe it is necessary\nto assure that the major increase in funds appropriated to\nantitrust enforcement efforts during the last two hudgets\nwill be utilized in the most efficient and effective manner.\nThe bill will accord the Department of Justice esseptially\nthe same investigatory power now possessed by the FTC and\nnumerous other Federal agencies (e.g., Treasury, Agriculture\nLabor, Veterans Administration, and most regulatory agencies)\nIn addition, at least 18 states (including Virginia, Texas.\nArizona; New Hampshire, Florida, and New York) have enacted\nsimilar legislation, most within the last ten years.\nDespite the inclusion in the bill of a variéty of safeguards\nto protect against even the appearance of governmental over-\nreaching, and numerous changes in the legislation accepted\nby the Justice Department and Judiciary Committee staffs,\nopposition to the legislation from the business community\ncontinues. Attached at Tab B is a discussion of the major\nobjections that have been raised.\nOption 1:. Reaffirm Adninistration support for the Civil\nProcess Act amendments and related legislation\nwith a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary\nCommittees.\nIn light of the Administration's recent modifications in its\nposition on premerger notification and parens patrice, the\nJustice Department believes it is essential to reailirm in\nwriting our support for the amendments to the Antitrust Civil\nProcess Act. A proposed Presidential letter to the Chairmen\nof the House and Senate Judiciary Committees reaffirming your\nsupport for the amendments is attached at Tab C. This letter\nalso indicates that you have asked the Justice Department to\nwork with the Committees to achieve passage of this legisla-\ntion.\nOption 2: Reaffirm Administration support for the Civil Pro-\ncess Act amendments by instructing Justice to in-\ndicate such support during the House mark-no session\nThis approach would reaffirm the Administration's support\nwithout highlighting your personal involvement. However,\nJustice indicates that several members of the House Judiciary\nCommittee have said that in light of the change of Administra\ntion position on parens patriae and much media speculation on\nthis issue, they cannot accept an expression by the Depart-\nment of Justice as a reliable expression of your position on\nthis issue.\nROTA. ALD FORD\n4\nOption 3: Instruct Justice to indicate Administration ornesi\ntion to the Civil Process Act amendments ouring th\nHouse mark-up session.\nSuch i' reversal of support almost certainly would result in\nincreased attacks on the credibility ol the Administra tion's\nantitrust program. It would also tend to undermine the into-\ngrity of the Administration's process of clearing legislation.\nDecision\nOption 1\nReaffirm Administration support for the\nCivil Process Act amendments and related\nlegislation with a letter to the House and\nSenate Judiciary Committees.\nSupported by: Treasury, Commerce, Justice,\nCounsel's Office, OMB, CEA\nOption 2\nReaffirm Administration support for the\nCivil Process Act amendments by instructing\nJustice to indicate such support during\nthe House mark-up session.\nSupported by: Marsh, Friedersdorf\nOption 3\nInstruct Justice to indicate Administration\nopposition to the Civil Process Act amend-\nments during the House mark-up session.\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\n(CHART REVISED AND NOW AT TAB A. )\nGERALD ? FORD\nECONOMIC POLICY BOARD\nEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE\nMay 21, 1976\n8:30 a.m.\nRoosevelt Room\nPRINCIPALS ONLY\n1. Task Forces to Reduce Waste in Regulation\nMacAvoy\nR.FAS\nis\nGERALD\nCOUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS\nWASHINGTON\nALAN GREENSPAN, CHAIRMAN\nPAUL W. MACAVOY\nBURTON G. MALKIEL\nMay 18, 1976\nMEMORANDUM TO: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ECONOMIC POLICY BOARD\nFROM:\nPaul W. MacAvoy Prn\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Task Forces to Reduce Waste\nin Regulation: Progress Report #1\nIn his speech before the Small Business Administration\nConference of May 13, the President announced the creation\nof Task Forces to reduce the costs and delays from regulation\nby the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) and the\nOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This\nmemorandum reports on the follow-on efforts to put these\nand other Task Forces in operation.\n1.\nSteps Taken to Date on OSHA and FEA Task Forces\nThe work plans for these two Task Forces have been\nprepared and approved by both CEA-OMB staff involved and\nby those in the agencies concerned with this effort\n(attached Tabs A and B). The plans focus on operations\nof the two agencies that (a) would likely benefit from\nreduced or simplified regulations (b) are now the subject\nof a limited reform effort from within the agencies, and\n(c) can be affected by a reform effort within this\nCalendar Year. The FEA plan expects some results by late\nAugust, while the OSHA plan calls for dissemination of\nsimplified regulations on Parts D and L of the mandatory\nstandards by the autumn, and announcement of proposed\nchanges in Parts P and O before the end of the Calendar Year.\nThere is a substantial probability, however, that the work\nwill not be far enough along to make an announcement of\nresults this Calendar Year.\nREVOLUTION\nBICENTENNIAL\ni\nFORD\nAMERICAN\nGERALD\n1776-1976\n@\n-2-\nThe staffing of the Task Forces has begun. Individuals\nwill be detailed from other agencies to the object agency,\nusually to the Office of the Secretary of the object agency\nfor a period of six months. A number of candidates have\nbeen interviewed both to determine whether they are\nknowledgeable in the current problems of the object agency\nand whether they are interested in taking part in the\nTask Force effort. Requests for detailing individuals\nwill be made next week. Requests have already been made\nfor detailing Philip Harter (Administrative Conference),\nDouglas Harlan (HEW), and Jonathan Rose (Justice) to work\nwith me in setting up and chairing task forces.\n2.\nNext Steps\nAdditional Task Forces should be put together in other\ndependent regulatory commissions or agencies. Work is under-\nway to evaluate the prospects for successful Task Force\noperations in HEW, HUD, and Commerce. Those in HUD and\nCommerce now do not look promising on the three criteria\noutlined above. Further \"opportunities\" are needed.\nAttachments\nERALD\nTab A\nTask Force on Improving FEA Regulation\nI.\nINTRODUCTION:\nFEA is currently systematically phasing out many of the\nprice and allocation regulations which have been in force\nsince the embargo of 1973-74. The Task Force on FEA will\nstudy and make recommendations concerning simplifications\nin FEA's post-decontrol price and allocation regulations,\nand the procedures and regulations associated with FEA's\nMandatory Oil Imports Program. Also, the Task Force will\nmake improvements in the development process by which FEA\nbrings new regulations on-stream or modifies existing\nregulations.\nThe regulations for \"decontrolled\" products are being\nput on standby status for use in the event of another\nsevere supply interruption. The Task Force will consider\nthe regulations for all products, but particularly for\nthose still under control by FEA, to determine how these\nregulations can be simplified in the current mode. Also,\nthe group will consider standby regulations with a view\ntoward recommending simplifications to these standby programs\nshould they ever be reimplemented.\nII. MISSION:\nto recommend simplifications in on-going and standby\nFEA allocation and price regulations, and to\nrecommend similar changes in the regulations and\nprocedures for FEA's Mandatory Oil Imports Program.\nto recommend improvements in FEA procedures for\ndeveloping and promulgating regulations.\nIII. FUNCTIONS:\n1. Regulation Simplification\na. Identify existing regulations to be reviewed,\nspecifying:\nparagraph number and act which apply,\nthe objective of each regulation, that is,\nwhat it is attempting to accomplish.\n-2-\nb.\nIdentify the problems (i.e., subparts having\nsignificant impact) or other characteristics\nassociated with each regulation, such as:\nthe workload necessary to comply (this\nincludes the costs for reporting and\nrecord-keeping),\nthe impact of the regulation on various-size\nfirms,\nbenefits accruing to those regulated, or to\nother sectors (i.e. consumers, other\nbusinesses, etc.) - relate the benefits\nto the underlying objectives of the regulation,\nregulations which overlap, contradict, etc.\n,\nthose sections of the regulation where costs\nare not warranted with respect to benefits,\nregulations where firm compliance is very\ndifficult, and where the costs of enforcing\nthe regulations do not warrant their\ncontinuation.\nC. Propose simplified methods to accomplish the\nbasic objectives, considering:\nthe possibility of proposing that no\nregulation be promulgated,\na method of achieving a higher level of\nself-enforcement,\nmerging related programs.\nd.\nRecommend simplified regulations:\nprepare option paper on alternative proposals,\nselect preferred options.\n-3-\n2. Procedural Improvements\na. Determine the basic requirements in developing\nand promulgating regulations, specifying\nlegal constraints, the need for public comments,\nand outside agency oversight authority.\nb. Delineate the current FEA system of regulations\ndevelopment, specifying:\nresponsibilities of all participants,\ntime-sequence of work flow,\ntasks performed by all participants.\nC. Cite specific historical cases for subsequent\nstudy.\nd. Identify operational problems (e.g., bottlenecks)\nin the current system, specifying underlying\ncauses. Specify difficulties such as:\ninsufficient input from groups both inside and\noutside the agency,\nproblems in the relationship of different\nFEA components involved in the process\n(specifically, the relationship and\nrespective responsibilities of the Offices\nof Regulatory Programs, Policy and Analysis,\nand the General Counsel),\ndelays due to outside agency oversight and\nreview practices,\ndelays due to manpower needs.\ne.\nPropose improvements in procedures, including:\nchanges in management control and responsibilities,\nchanges in review powers of inernal and external\noffices\nimprovements in access to supporting information.\nf. Recommend improvements in regulations development\nprocess. Includes preparation of options papers on\nalternate proposals, and selection of preferred option\nto be implemented by FEA.\n-4-\nIV. ORGANIZATION:\nTask Force\nDirector\n(1)\nRegulations\nProcedural\n(4)\nSimplification\nImprovements\nAllocation\n(4)\nRegulations\nPrice\n(4)\nRegulations\n(16 Professionals plus\n6 Support Staff)\nMandatory Oil\n(3)\nImports Program\nImprovements\nV.\nPERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS:\n1. Regulations Simplification\nAllocation Regulations - Four senior professionals\n(GS-14 or above) familiar with the concepts of allocation of\npetroleum or scarce commodities, but not employed by FEA.\nShould be familiar with petroleum production, refining and\ndistribution systems.\nPossible Source\n1 - Lawyer\nDepartment of Justice\n1 - Enforcement Specialist\nInternal Revenue Service\n1 - Systems Analyst\nOMB\n1 - Petroleum/Industrial\nDepartment of Interior\nEngineer\nPrice Regulations - Four senior professionals (GS-14\nor above) familiar with the petroleum industry and price control\nmechanisms, but not employed by FEA.\n- -5-\nPossible Source\n1 - Laywer\nDepartment of Justice\n1 - Enforcement Specialist\nInternal Revenue Service\n1 - Systems Analyst\nOMB\n1 - Economist\nDepartment of Treasury\nMandatory Oil Imports Program Improvements - Three senior\nprofessionals (GS-14 or above) familiar with the petroleum industry,\nwith particular emphasis on refinery economics.\nPossible Source\n1 - Lawyer\nDepartment of Justice\n1 - Economist\nDepartment of of Commerce\n1 - Refinery Engineer\nDepartment of Interior\n2. Procedural Improvements - Four senior professionals\n(GS-14 or above) familiar with organizational and management\npractices in government, with particular emphasis on the\ndevelopment of regulations.\nPossible Source\n1 - Lawyer\nFPC, ICC\n1 - Operations Analyst\nDepartment of Defense\n1 - Management Analyst\nDepartment of Commerce\nDepartment of Interior\n1 - Program Analyst\nDepartment of Transportation,\netc.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nTab B\nTask Forcè on Improving OSHA Regulation\nThe OSHA Task Force will center its attention on\nrevising the national consensus safety standards that apply\nto general industry. These 50,000 standards have been\nthe subject of much criticism as being confusing, complex,\nunrelated to safety conditions, and difficult to under-\nstand. The Task Force will attempt to clarify and\nsimplify and, where redundant, to eliminate standards.\nIn addition, where there are gaps in coverage, new\nstandards will be added.\nFor some months the Department of Labor has had in\noperation an extensive program to revise two major subparts\nof the general industry safety standards (Subpart D -\nWalking and Working Surfaces, and Subpart L - Fire Protection)\nand a standard for anhydrous ammonia, together representing\nabout one-seventh of the consensus standards. This effort\nwas undertaken in order to update and simplify those in effect\nsince OSHA adopted as mandatory the national voluntary con-\nsensus in 1971. The Department of Labor is carrying out an\nextensive solicitation of written public comments as a first\nstep in revising these standards. In addition to the request\nfor comments, a series of public meetings has been announced\nfor various locations in the United States, to provide direct\ninput from the public. Following the meetings and a full\nconsideration of all comments received, OSHA will propose as\nsoon as possible any necessary revision of these standards.\nThe Presidential Task Force will accelerate and extend\nthis initiative to revise consensus standards. It is\nestimated that without additional staff resources, the\nOSHA effort to revise all of the consensus safety standards\nwould take two or more years to be completed. The Task\nForce effort will add lawyers and technicians to complete\npreparation of standards for comment and assist in analyzing\nthe public responses. The target for the Task Force effort\nis to initiate public review of Subpart O (Machine and\nMachinery Guarding) and Subpart P (Hand and Portable\nPower Tools) by early fall. In addition the Task Force\nwill address general issues concerning OSHA's standards\nsuch as specification of design versus performance\nstandards, and the problems of incorporating rapidly\nchanging external standards by reference.\n-2-\nOrganization of the Task Force\nThe membership in the Task Force will be made up of\nindividuals both from within the Department of Labor and\nfrom other agencies. It is necessary to have DOL personnel\nin order to obtain the expertise to complete the work\naccurately and quickly. It is also necessary to add individuals\nfrom other agencies to enable DOL to carry on this expanded\nwork. Therefore the Task Force will have as co-chairmen\nJoseph Kirk of OSHA, and Philip Harter of The Administrative\nConference of the United States. The operating Director\nof the Task Force will be Anson Keller from OSHA. There\nwill be three additional members from within DOL, two from\nthe OSHA Safety staff and one from the DOL Solicitor's\noffice. The remaining members of the Task Force will be com-\nposed of six attorneys and six engineers familiar with health\nand safety regulation. Mr. Francis Lunnie will handle the\nadministrative details for the Task Force. In addition,\nthe Task Force will require four secretaries.\nThe selected personnel would be detailed from government\nagencies for six months to the Committee on Regulation in the\nOffice of the Secretary of DOL. They would be under the\ndirection of the co-chairmen of the Task Force and would be\ngiven office space in the Department of Labor.\nWork Plan\nWork will begin immediately on preparation of the two\nadditional subparts of the consensus standards. This work\nwould put into place the process of review that is now\nbeing undertaken for Subparts D and L. The subparts would\nbe prepared for publication in the Federal Register, request\nfor comments and information would be made to business and\ntrade organizations, meetings would be scheduled and\nwritten comments processed when received.\nThe preparation for publication in the Federal Register\nis the most important detailed step. Previous comments\nhave to be compiled, whether received from individuals or\nnational standards organizations. The enforcement\nexperience to date has to be reviewed, including relevant\ncommission decisions and cases. At this point, staff\n-3-\nanalysis of basic issues is also critical, including issues\nas to whether more could be done to simplify the standards\nby referring to certified equipment rather than specifying\nthe exact detail of each item as a piece of that equipment.\nThe final product of the review is the preparation of a\nparagraph-by-paragraph presentation of existing standards\nand comments received for the Federal Register.\nMeetings on the additional subparts will be scheduled,\nand comments will be received for sixty days after publication\nin the Federal Register. After the comments have been con-\nsidered, OSHA technical experts will prepare the proposed\nrevised and simplified standards with the members of the\nTask Force.\nGERALD\nCC: Leach\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nw\nMay 21,\nExcellent\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDICK CHENEY\nJIM CANNON\nBOB HARTMANN\nGood Jun\nJACK MARSH\nBILL SEIDMAN\nFROM:\nED SCHMULTS\nAs the attached editorials from the Christian Science Monitor,\nthe New York Times and the Wall Street Journal indicate,\nI believe the President's Agenda for Government Reform Act\nis off to a good start. The local press around the country\nis also reporting it favorably. We are looking for ways to\nmaintain the President's \"out front\" position on government\nreform.\nAttachments\nBERALD\nTHE CHRISTIAN S\nSCIENCE MONITOR 5/21/76\n\"First the blade, then the ear,\nThe Monitor's view\nReforming the regulators\nNYTIMES 5/19/76\nCaging the Elephant\nSelling Regulatory Reform\nREVIEW & OUTLOOK\nc"
}