Congressional Action to Overturn Agency Rules: Alternatives to the "Legislative Veto"

Congress has available a variety of statutory and non-statutory techniques, other than the "legislative veto," that have been used to overturn Federal agency rules, prevent their enforcement, limit their impact, or hinder their promulgation. This survey of the different statutory instruments of congressional control—direct overturn of rules, modification of agency jurisdiction, limitations in authorizing and appropriating statutes, requiring inter-agency consultation, and advance notification to the Congress—discusses a variety of mechanisms that vary in their use and their specificity, range of impact, and length of effect.

Report No. 79-206 GOV GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS COLLECTION NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNiVERSlTY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO OVERTURN AGENCY RULES: ALTERNATIVES TO THE "LEGISLATIVE VETO" bY Frederick M. Kaiser Analyst in American National Government Government Division September 24, 1979 T h e Congressional Research Service works exclusively forthe Conqress, conducting research. analyzing legislation, and providikg information at the request of com&ittees. \ l e u hers, and their staff's. T h e Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request. CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. Congress has available a variety of statutory and nonstatutory techniques, other than the "legislative veto," that have been used to overturn Federal agency rules, prevent their enforcement, limit their impact, or hinder their promulgation. This survey of the different statutory instruments of congressional control--direct overturn of rules, modification of agency jurisdiction, limitations in authorizing and appropriating statutes, requiring inter-agency consultation, and advance notification to the Congress--discusses a variety of mechanisms that vary in their use and their specificity, range of impact, and length of effect. CONTENTS ............................................. I1 . STATUTORY TECLilJIQUES ..................................... A . DIRECT OVERTURN OR PREEMPTION OF KULES ............. 1 . Discussion ................................... 2 . i5xamples ..................................... I . INTRODUCTION . 1 5 5 5 6 ...... 1212 ................................... . ..................................... 13 C . LIMIrATIONS IN AUTHORIZING AND APPROPRIATING STATUTLS ......................................... 35 1 . Discussion .................................. 35 2 . Examples ..................................... 38 D . REQUIRING FEDERAL AGENCY PRIOR CONSULTATION AND mVIEkJ ........................................... 49 1 . Discussion ................................... 49 2 . Examples ..................................... 50 E . ADVANCE OR PRIOR NOTICE PROVISIONS ................. 58 1 . Discussion .................................. 58 2 . Examples ..................................... 60 I11 . NONSTATUTOKY TECHNIQUES: COMMITTEE REPORTS .............. 65 8 STATUTORY nODIPICATION OF AGENCY JURISDICTION 1 Discussion 2 Examples . The author wishes to credit Robert Amorosi for the secretarial production of this report . THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research Service WASHINGTON, D.C. 20540 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO OVERTURN AGENCY RULES: ALTERNATIVES TO THE "LEGISLATIVE VETO" I. INTRODUCTION Mounting interest in the "legislative veto" as a device for congressional disapproval of Federal agency rules L/ also has prompted a related inquiry: What other mechanisms are available to accomplish the same purpose? The most direct, of course, is a statutory rejection of the offending rule; but other approaches, which vary in scope, directness, and explicitness, exist. This report, surveying recent congressional action, identifies different legislative instruments, with an emphasis on statutory techniques, and provides examples illustrating their use. Harold Bruff and Ernest Gellhorn, in a report prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States, highlight the principal alternatives to the legislative veto from the vantage point of a congressional committee: 11 "Rule" is defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(4) and includes different typesof agency statements of general or particular applicability-establishment of standards and guidelines, rates, and regulations-designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. The focus of this study is on regulations, although other types of related rules, e.g., standards, are considered also. Moreover, the legislative techniques to override or disapprove such rules have been applied to other types of executive and administrative action, not just rule-making . Without the veto, a committee displeased with an agency rule has two major options. It may stage an embarrassing oversight hearing, or it may propose legislation to rectify the problem it perceives. But any legislation it proposes must obtain passage in both houses of Congress and approval by the President or a veto override. Until the proposed legislation is adopted, a controversial agency rule, if issued, remains in effect. If the committee chooses to hold a hearing, the agency may resist, testing the committee's power to obtain legislation. 11 Yet there are other types of statutory and nonstatutory techniques that have the effect of overturning rules, that prevent their enforcement, or that seriously impede or even preempt the promulgation of projected rules. For instance, a statute may alter the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency or extend the exemptions to its authority, thereby affecting existing or anticipated rules. Legislation that affects an agency's funding may be employed to prevent enforcement of particular rules or to revoke funding discretion for rulemaking activity or both. Still other statutory actions, less direct but potentially significant, are mandating agency consultation with other Federal or State authorities and requiring prior congressional review of proposed rules (separate from the legislative veto sanctions). Such provisions may change or 1/ Bruff, Harold H., and Ernest Gellhorn. Congressional Control of ~dzinistrativeRegulations: A Study of Legislative Vetoes. Harvard Law Review, v. 90, May 1977: 1423. An overview of some of the prominent statutory and nonstatutory techniques is included in U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Study on Federal Regulation. Volume 11: Congressional Oversight of Regulatory Agencies. (Committee print) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. Chapter 6. Legislative Committee Oversight: Techniques and Processes. erein in after referred to as Senate Study on Federal Regulation.) even halt proposed rules by interjecting novel procedural ingredients along witn different perspectives and influences into the process. It is also useful to examine nonstatutory controls available to tne Congress. These techniques include legislative, oversight, investigative, and confirmation hearings; specialized committee staff and General Accounting Office examinations; establishment of select commit tees and specialized subcommittees to oversee agency rulemaking and enforcement; provisions in committee reports, especially accompanying authorizations and appropriations, advocating agency reconsideration oi particular rules and their implementation; floor statements critical of specific rules or agency enforcement procedures; and direct contact between a regulatory agency and a congressional office that opposes existing regulations or questions projected rules. Sucn mechanisms are all indirect influences; unlike statutory provisions, they are neitner self-effecting nor legally enforceable. Nonetheless, nonstatutory devices are more readily available and more easily efiectuated than controls imposed by statute. Although an explicit cause-effect relationship between such devices and the overturn or modification of a particular rule is impossible to determine, observers have attributed substantial influence to - nonstatutory controls in regulatory as well as other matters. 1/ 11 Inter alia, see: Harris, Joseph P. Congressional Control of ~dGinistration. Washington, Brookings, 1964; Ogul, Morris. Congress (11 Continued ) - It is impossible, in a limited time, to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive listing of congressional actions that override or have the effect of overturning actual and proposed rules or that prevent the promulgation of projected rules. Consequently, this report concentrates upon the more direct statutory devices, although it also discusses committee reports accompanying bills, the nonstatutory technique that is frequently most authoritatively connected with the final legislative product. The statutory mechanisms surveyed in this report cross a wide spectrum of possible congressional action: --single-purpose provisions to overturn or preempt a specific rule; --alterations in program authority that remove jurisdiction from an agency; --agency authorization and appropriation limitations; --agency prior consultation requirements; and --congressional prior notification provisions. (A/ Continued) Oversees the Bureaucracy: Studies in Legislative Supervision. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1976; Fenno, Richard. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston, Little, Brown, 1966; Freeman, J. Leiper. The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations. New York, Random House, 1965; Kirst, Michael. Government Without Passing Laws: Congress' Nonstatutory Techniques for Appropriations Control. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1969; Melville, Charles. Legislative Control Over Administration Rule Making. University of Cincinnati Law Review, v. 32, Winter, 1963: 33-54; Scher, Seymour. Congressional Committee Members as Independent Agency Overseers: A Case Study. American Political Science Review, v. 54, December, 1960: 911-920; Marx, Fritz Morstein. Congressional Investigations: Significance for the Administrative Process. University of Chicago Law Review, v. 18, Spring, 1951: 503-520; Vinyard, Dale. Legislative committee-Executive Agency Relations. Western Political Quarterly, v. 21, September, 1968: 391-399; and Senate Study on Federal Regulation. 11. A. STATUTORY TECHNlQUfiS UIMC'f OVEKTUkNING OK PREEMPTlON OF RULES BY STAIUTE - The most f u n d a m e n t a l and d i r e c t mechanism f o r C o n g r e s s t o o v e r t u r n a r u l e i s ~ y e n a c t m e n t of a s t a t u t e which e x p l i c i t l y r e v o k e s t h e of f e n d i n g r u l e o r p r e e m p t s t h e a r e a c o v e r e d by t h e r u l e . Although s e v e r a l r e c e n t e x a m p l e s c a n be c i t e d , t h e r e l a t i v e p a u c i t y of s u c h s t a t u t e s may i m p l y t h a t t h i s t e c h n i q u e p r e s e n t s d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r Congress. I t makes heavy demands on c o n g r e s s i o n a l r e s o u r c e s , r e q u i r e s r e v i e w and a p p r o v a l by t h e e n t i r e C o n g r e s s , and m u s t De s i g n e d by t h e P r e s i d e n t ( o r h i s v e t o o v e r r i d d e n ) . A l s o , Members may h a v e t o c l a r i f y "vague s t a t u t e s " i n a r e a s w h e r e t h e r e may be a " l a c k of s t a t u t o r y d i r e c t i o n , " w h e r e Congressmen " a r e f a c e d w i t h t h e c l a s h of p o w e r f u l i n d u s t r y f o r c e s , " 11 and w h e r e l e s s a r d u o u s a p p r o a c h e s may be a v a i l a b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e same e n d . I t s n o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t s t a t u t o r y o v e r r i d e s o f F e d e r a l a g e n c y r u l e s a r e more p o w e r f u l c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s o f c o n t r o l t n a n l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o e s of t h e same: - - s t a t u t o r y o v e r r i d e s may o c c u r e v e n t h o u g h a s p e c i f i c r u l e n a s been " a p p r o v e d 1 ' by a f a i l u r e l e g i s l a t i v e l y t o veto it e a r l i e r ; - - s t a t u t o r y o v e r r i d e s t e r m i n a t e agency r u l e s i m m e d i a t e l y and p r e c l u d e s i m i l a r f u t u r e e n d e a v o r s , w h e r e a s l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o e s , which d i s a p p r o v e o r f a i l t o a p p r o v e r u l e s i n t h e p r e s e n t , do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p r e v e n t l a t e r p r o m u l g a t i o n of t h e same t y p e of r u l e ; 11 S e n a t e S t u d y on F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n , p. 5 0 . - - - s t a t u t o r y o v e r r i d e s may n u l l i f y b o t h proposed and f i n a l r u l e s , including those already administered, w h i l e l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o e s a p p l y o n l y t o proposed r u l e s , a l t h o u g h such v e t o e s may r e q u i r e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g r u l e s ; and - - s t a t u t o r y o v e r r i d e s impose a d i r e c t i v e o f t h e e n t i r e C o n g r e s s , u n l i k e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o which may r e f l e c t t h e v i e w p o i n t o f o n l y a s i n g l e committee o r one Chamber and which may simply b e a f a i l u r e t o approve an agency r u l e w i t h i n a narrowly-bounded time frame. The p o t e n c y o f s t a t u t e s i s such t h a t even t h e t h r e a t o f enactment may be s u f f i c i e n t t o modify a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s and t h e i r enforcement. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e S e n a t e S t u d y on F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t : I t i s a r a r e and s h o r t - t e n u r e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r who w i l l d e f y a c l e a r c o n g r e s s i o n a l d i r e c t i v e c o n t a i n e d i n a p u b l i c law. Recognizing t h i s , committees sometimes go t h r o u g h t h e m o t i o n s o f marking up a b i l l b e f o r e a n agency w i l l r e s p o n d t o c o n g r e s s i o n a l prodding. I n a d i s p u t e o v e r agency p o l i c y one committee r e c e n t l y h e l d h e a r i n g s and a mark-up on a proposed amendment t o t h e a g e n c y ' s e n a b l i n g a c t . The cormnittee t h e n r e p o r t e d t h e b i l l t o t h e f l o o r o f i t s House, A t t h a t p o i n t , t h e agency dropped i t s opposition t o t h e committee's p o s i t i o n f o r f e a r o f a n e m b a r r a s s i n g d e f e a t . 1/ - During t h e 1973-1978 p e r i o d , Congress used s t a t u t e s t o o v e r t u r n o r preempt F e d e r a l agency r u l e s on r e l a t i v e l y few o c c a s i o n s . S i x examples are: (1) L i t t l e C i g a r Act o f 1973 (P.L. 93-209; 87 S t a t . 352). Congress p r o h i b i t e d c i g a r e t t e a d v e r t i s i n g on t e l e v i s i o n w i t h passage o f t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h C i g a r e t t e Smoking Act o f 1969, which amended t h e F e d e r a l C i g a r e t t e L a b e l i n g and A d v e r t i s i n g Act o f 1965 ( 1 5 U.S.C. -1/ Ibid., p. 51. 1331-1340). These actions preempted the field from regulatory agency jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Internal Revenue Service ( I R S ) determined that "little cigars" could not be classified as cigarettes; therefore, it was not illegal to advertise them on television, a technique several tobacco companies adopted in 1973. 11 However, - "the overriding public interest and the immediacy of the problem" 2/ generated by such advertising, according to the report of Senate Commerce Cormnittee, engendered new legislation, P.L. 93-209, which made it "unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications omm mission ." (Emphasis added. ) By this statute, Congress extended its preemption to another commodity that would otherwise have been subject to FCC jurisdiction and neutralized the IRS determination, as it applied to "little cigar" advertising on television and radio. (2) Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act Amendments of 1973 (P.L. 93-151; 87 Stat. 565, 567). P.L. 93-151 amended the statutory definition of the term "lead based paint" and in so doing imposed new statutory regulations regarding the content of lead in interior 1/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Little ~ i ~ a r - ~ of c t 1973; Report to Accompany S. 1165. washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. (93d Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 93-103). p. 3-4. -21 Ibid., p. 5. residential paints. The pre-existing regulations, promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were, in effect, overriden by the Act. FDA had considered lowering the required level but cited the need for further study before issuing a rule that would establish - a more restrictive level. 11 P.L. 93-151, however, mandated a lower maximum lead content level, effective by the end of calendar year 1974, unless the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission - (CPSC), not FDA, determined a higher level was safe. 21 That determination, however, would have to be based on statutorilymandated studies. Although the 1973 amendments permitted some administrative discretion over future determinations and allowed the FDA-designated level to remain in the interim, the statutory language superseded FDA authority and imposed new administrative requirements regarding any deviation from the forthcoming legislatively-established lead content levels. (3) Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-492; 88 Stat. 1470, 1481-1483). These amendments included a provision that, in effect, overturned the regulation governing 11 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public ~e1faTe. Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Amendments ; Report to Accompany S. 607. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. (93d Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 93-130). p. 4-5. 21 The original bill, S. 607, in the 93d Congress had allowed that authority to remain with FDA in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Ibid. safety belt interlock systems. The Department of Transportation (DOT) had issued a regulation requiring that all 1974 model year cars have systems that prevented the automobile's engine from being started unless the safety belt was secured. Section 109 of P.L. 93-492 required that the Secretary of DOT amend the motor vehicle safety standard (49 CFR 571.208) according to new requirements enumerated in the remainder of the section. The section precluded any future regulatory requirement for a safety belt interlock system or for a continuous buzzer system and added a legislative veto provision over any further occupant restraint system standards promulgated by the Secretary. (4) Highway Safety Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280; 90 Stat. 425, 454). Title I1 of P.L. 94-280 authorized funds for certain programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Congress, responding to a volume of compliants from States, modified existing safety standards imposed on the States and overturned a specific standard stipulating that States require motorcyclists - to wear safety helmets. 1/ Section 208 of P.L. 94-280 prohibited the Secretary of Transportation from requiring that a State adopt or 1/ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and ~ransFortation. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1975; Report to Accompany H.R. 8235. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. (94th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 94-716). The Senate bill, S. 2711, as reported by the Senate Public Works Committee, did not contain such a provision, which was added by amendment on the floor of the Chamber following extensive debate. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 121, Dec. 12, 1975: S21935-S21941. e n f o r c e a law, r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n r e q u i r i n g m o t o r c y c l e o p e r a t o r s o r p a s s e n g e r s 18 y e a r s o f age o r o l d e r t o wear a s a f e t y helmet when o p e r a t i n g o r r i d i n g on a motorcycle. (5) (P.L. H e a l t h Research and H e a l t h S e r v i c e s Amendments of 1976 94-278; 90 S t a t . 401, 411). The Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (FDA) of t h e Department o f H e a l t h , Education and Welfare (HEW) had i s s u e d r e g u l a t i o n s designed t o p r o t e c t consumers a g a i n s t v i t a m i n and m i n e r a l p r o d u c t s FDA determined t o be e i t h e r u s e l e s s o r harmful i f i n g e s t e d i n l a r g e d o s e s o r over an extended period of time. A final FDA r e g u l a t i o n , p u b l i s h e d on Aug. 2, 1973, t o become e f f e c t i v e on J a n . 1, 1975, but s t a y e d by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , proposed t h a t most v i t a m i n s and m i n e r a l s with a potency of 150% o r more o f t h e i r recommended d a i l y allowance (RDA) be c l a s s i f i e d a s drugs. Vitamins A and D were t o be c l a s s i f i e d a s d r u g s a t 100% of t h e i r RDA. T h i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l r u l e , which had a n t e c e d a n t s d a t i n g t o t h e mid-1960s, was c o n s i d e r e d an i n f r i n g e m e n t on t h e consumers1 "freedom o f c h o i c e , " a c c o r d i n g t o c o n g r e s s i o n a l opponents. s e c t i o n 501(b) o f P.L. L/ As a r e s u l t , 94-278 countered t h e r e g u l a t i o n s by d i r e c t i n g t h e S e c r e t a r y of HEW t o "amend any r e g u l a t i o n promulgated under t h e F e d e r a l Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with" new r e s t r i c t i o n s on h i s a u t h o r i t y . Those r e s t r i c t i o n s b a r r e d 11 Rogers, Paul C. Conference Report on H.R. 7988, Health Research and ~ T a l t hS e r v i c e s Amendments of 1976. Remarks i n House. Congressional Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 122, A p r i l 12, 1976: H3244-H3245. CRS- 11 regulation of the composition or maximum potency of vitamins, minerals, or combinations thereof, unless they were of a specified type (e.g., toxic, habit-forming, administered by a doctor) or unless they were intended for use by a specified clientele (e.g., by individuals in the treatment of specific diseases or disorders, by children, by pregnant women). (6) Saccharin Study and Labeling Act (P.L. 95-203; 91 Stat. 1452-1453). This Act included several provisions affecting proposed Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) regulations regarding the distribution of saccharin or any product containing it. One provision, discussed in the next section of this report, affected the authority of the Secretary of HEW to issue regulations in the area. A second provision, contained in section 4(a)(l), stipulated express language to be used on labels of saccharin products, thereby preempting a possible FDA/HEW rule that might have required more cautionary language. In addition, Section 4 precluded any such label from being construed as restricting or prohibiting the sale or distribution of saccharin products. The secretary of HEW was granted authority to review and revise or remove this label requirement only on the basis of new information, that is, "if the Secretary determines such action is necessary to reflect the current state of knowledge concerning saccharin." That restriction on the Secretary's discretion prevented sole reliance on then-existing data, which had encouraged the proposed saccharin regulations initially. B. STATUTORY MODIFICATION OF AGENCY JURISDICTION A second major statutory technique for Congress to limit the impact or effect the overturn of existing or proposed rules is to alter the jurisdiction of the issuing Federal agency: --by granting exemptions to the rulemaking authority of the agency head; --by removing express areas from the regulatory authority of the agency head; --by establishing moratoriums on certain rulemaking; --by transferring jurisdiction from one agency to another or from the Federal agency to State authorities; --by providing for waivers for regulated categories; and --by deregulating an area. Such statutory instruments, occasionally used in tandem with direct overrides or congressional preemption of specific rules, usually have a broader impact than the more focused revocation or preemption. It is evident from floor debates and committee reports accompanying statutory changes of jurisdiction that, at least in notable instances, the incentive for modifying agency jurisdiction was to repeal or mitigate the impact of a series of interrelated rules or a specific regulation. By removing jurisdiction from an agency, such a statute has the effect of annulling rules and regulations applicable to that area. A well-known illustration of jurisdictional modification occurred with the 1959 amendment of Section 315(a) of the Communications Act-the requirement that broadcasters provide equal broadcasting opportunities to candidates for public office--administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Because of FCC's literal interpretation of Sec. 315(a), Congress explicitly exempted four kinds of news programs that are under the control of the broadcaster (rather than the candidate) and, thus, precluded FCC "equal time" regulation in those 11 areas. Recent examples include the following statutory provisions: (1) Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act Amendments of 1973 (P.L. 93-151; 87 Stat. 565, 567). As described in the previous section, P.L. 93-151 included a provision establishing new standards regarding the acceptable level of lead in interior residential paint. In addition, section 6 of the 1973 Amendments realigned jurisdiction for promulgating future regulations over lead levels between a congressionally mandated minimum and maximum. The authority was transferred from the Food and Drug Administration/HEW, which had considered but delayed issuing new regulations, to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Along with the transfer of authority, Congress established guidelines, in section 5, for studies to be conducted prior to CPSC issuance of regulations promulgating any new levels that exceeded the lower level. (2) Interstate Commerce Act--Exemption (P.L. 93-201; 8? Stat. 838). This act of Dec. 27, 1973, amended the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 903(b)), exempting "the transportation by a water carrier 11 P.L. 86-274; 73 Stat. 557. For a brief review of the FCC interpretation of Sect ion 315(a) and the subsequent congressional action, see: Schmidt, Benno C., Jr. Freedom of the Press vs. Public Access. New York, Praeger, 1976, p. 143-145. of commodities in bulk . . . which are loaded and carried without wrappers or containers and received and delivered by carrier without transportation mark or count." The effect of such an amendment was "to remove outmoded restrictions upon the application and scope of the qualified exemption from regulation contained in section 303(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act." 11 The Senate Commerce Committee report on the proposed legislation noted that statutory action was required to overturn "an interpretation by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the obsolete and restrictive wording," 21 an interpretation, incidentally, that had not been implemented, awaiting "completion of congressional consideration of the problem." 31 P.L. 93-201, thus, terminated possible implementation of this pending rule and also made permanent certain improvements in the language of the exemption from ICC economic regulation contained in P .L. 91-590, a statute which was scheduled to expire on December 28, 1973. (3) To Authorize and Request the President to Call a White House Conference on Library and Information Services Not Later Than 1978, and for Other Purposes (P.L. 93-568; 88 Stat. 1855, 1862). This statute contained an amendment that exempted particular organizations-- 1/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Water ~arri<r Barge Mixing Kule Legislation of 1973; Report to Accompany S. 2267. Washington, U .S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. (93d Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 93-513). p. 1. 21 - Ibid. 31 - Ibid., p. 3. social fraternities and sororities at universities and Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, among others--from regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under title IX of tne Education Amendments of 1972. That title prohibited discrimination on the'basis of sex in any educational program or activity receiving Federal funds. The P.L. 93-568 exemptions were prompted by title IX regulations that would otherwise have been applicable to "a number of organizations which have no legitimate bearing on the original intent of title Ix," according to Senator Bayh, the amendment's sponsor and principal - author of title Ix. I/ (4) Kailroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-210; 9 0 Stat. 31, 34-35, 42, 124). This statute included several provisions altering Federal rulemaking jurisdiction and represented one of the broadest efforts in deregulation, a primary purpose of which was "to provide for an extensive overhaul of railroad rate regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission" 11 Bayn, Birch. dhite House Conference on Library and ~nforzationServices in 1978. Remarks in Senate. Congressional Record, v. 120, Dec. 16, 1974: 39992. Added as a nongermane amendment to S.J. kes. 40, the exemption provision was described by Senator Bayh as "a rather complicated unanimous-consent agreement," since the Chamber had already considered and approved S.J. Res. 40 three days before. Ibid., p. 39991. . 21 U .S Congress. Committee of Conference. Railroad ~evit-alizationand degulatory Reform Act ; Report to Accompany S. 2718. qasnington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 94-595). p. 134. (ICC). -21 Those deregulation provisions, incorporated in title I1 of P.L. 94-210, were intended to "eliminate needless and harmful regulatory constraints on railroads, and . . . prescribe ratemaking practices which will encourage effective competition and protect - consumers.If 1/ Section 202 established new standards for determining the justness and reasonableness of rates chaged by common carriers by railroad, thereby affecting existing determinations based on formulas established by the ICC. The section also adopted language clarifying the meaning of the term "variable cost" and its determination. In addition, this section stipulated that the ICC could not find a rate unlawful on the ground that it exceeded a just and reasonable maximum unless it found that the carrier had "market dominance" over the service rendered under such a rate. This provision statutorily modified existing standards and rules under which a rate would have been found unlawful. Finally, under section 202, the Commission would inaugurate procedures for the establishment of railroad rates based on seasonal, regional, or peak period demand for rail services and for separate rates for district rail services, again altering existing rules which did not include such considerations. Section 207 amended section 12 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 12(1)) by adding certain possible exemptions. The ICC derived authority to grant exemptions to common carriers by railroad subject to Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, where regulation was not necessary to effectuate the national transportation policy in that Act, and where the Commission found that regulation would serve little or no public purpose. Any such exemption could be evoked only after notice and opportunity for a hearing. Although the language is not mandatory, permitting ICC discretion in granting exemptions in this regard, section 207 asserted a congressional interest in extending exemptions from ICC authority to certain carriers, L/ thereby reducing tne effective impact of regulatory rules under the national transportation policy provision. The Senate Commerce Committee report on the original bill, S. 2718, noted the rationale and intent in conferring this exemption authority: Tne Committee believes that an exemption power in the Commission is very desirable, and the Commission itself has recommended for several years that it be given such power. The requirement of full proceedings before exemption can be granted and before reimposition of regulation, as well as the findings which must be made, assure that the Commission will not act in such a manner as to contravene its Congressional mandate to regulate interstate commerce. At the same time, the power to exempt from regulation in whole or in part will enable the Commission to commit its limited resources in areas where they are most needed, by enabling it to deregulate those areas which have no significant bearing on the overall regulatory scheme. 2/ - - 1/ The exemption provision was limited to common carriers by railroad, vis-a-vis other parties, subject to Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, "because of the jurisdictional objections of tne Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives." Ibid., p. 153. 2/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Coinmerce. ail Services Act o? 1975; Report to Accompany S. 2718. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. (94th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-499). p. 53. Section 705(e) of P.L. 94-210 eliminated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction over intercity passenger trains regarding regulation of dining car service and waste disposal from railroad conveyances operated in rail passenger service. The section, amending section 306 of the Rail Passenger Service Act (45 U.S.C. 546), was intended to curtail operating expenses and additional financial costs that might accrue to the railroad industry in meeting FDA regulations promulgated under the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. - 264). 1/ (5) Health Research and Health Services Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-278; 90 Stat. 401, 410-413). As noted in the previous section, Title V of these 1976 Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 349) required the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to amend any existing vitamin potency regulation promulgated under that Act which was inconsistent with new statutory restrictions on his authority. Section 501(a) listed those restrictions: the Secretary may not establish maximum limits on the potency of any synthetic or natural vitamin or mineral within a food to which this section applies; may not classify any natural or synthetic vitamin or mineral (or combination thereof) as a drug solely because it exceeds the level of potency 1/ This provision was shortly thereafter amended by sec. 105 of P.T. 94-555 (90 Stat. 2615), in effect restoring FDA authority to regulate dining car service but expressly prohibiting similar authority with regard to waste disposal. This statute is discussed below. CRS- 19 which he determines nutritionally rational or useful; and may not limit the combination or number of any synthetic or natural vitamin, mineral or other ingredient of food within a food to which this section applies. Section 501(a) provided exceptions to the restrictions on the Secretary's authority for classes of users (e.g., children, pregnant or lactating women) and for certain types of vitamin and mineral substances (e. g. , toxic, habit-forming, carcinogenic). This amendment curtailing the regulatory jurisdiction of FDA had a lengthy heritage of congressional concern about FDA regulation of dietary supplement labeling and the content of special dietary - food products. 1/ The resulting restrictions were perceived by one Member of Congress as follows: For 20 long years the FDA has been overzealously trying to protect Americans from a threat that really does not exist attempting to treat all vitamins and minerals, when they are of a potency or a combination they do not like, as drugs...What the Congress has done is tell the FDA that they were throwing too wide a net. They were going too far in trying to protect citizens from themselves. They were interfering with legitimate freedom of choice. 2/ ... - (6 ) Consumer Product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-284; 90 Stat. 503, 504). Section 3 of this Act placed limitations on the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety 1/ Rogers, Paul C. Conference Report on H.R. 7988. Remarks in ~ouse. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 122, April 12, 1976: H3245. -2/ Goldwater, Barry M. Jr. Ibid., p. H3246. Commission (CPSC), specifically prescribing CPSC regulatory jurisdiction of pesticide safety labeling; tobacco and tobacco products; and sale and manufacture of firearms and ammunition or its components, such as gun powder, under certain acts. The section prohibited CPSC regulation of tobacco products or.ammunition as a "hazardous substance" under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.), and regulation of pesticides under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471), i.e., pesticide-regulated packaging standards for child protection. The genesis of the restrictions on CPSC regulatory jurisdiction came indirectly from the Commission itself, which had denied petitions from private groups that it had authority to regulate - handgun ammunition or tobacco products as hazardous substances. 1/ The Commissions' denials were appealed in Federal court, which subsequently concurred with the petitioners--that CPSC did in fact have jurisdiction--and ordered the Commission to consider the - petitions on their merits. 2/ Section 3 of P.L. 94-284 was necessary to preclude potential CPSC regulations that might have 1/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Consumer product Safety Commission Improvements Act of 1975; Report to Accompany S. 644. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975 (94th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-251). p. 5-6. -2/ Ibid. conflicted with the intent of Congress in the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, as the petitioners wanted stronger Federal control - of such products than existed. 11 (7) Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94- 370; 90 Stat. 1013, 1032). These amendments included a provision prohibiting certain regulations by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) for a specified time period. Section 16(b) ordered that the Secretary "shall not promulgate final regulations concerning the national shellfish safety program before June 30, 1977" and shall consult with the Secretary of Commerce prior to issuance of any such future regulations. The mandated delay in promulgating such final regulations was designed to ensure adequate time for the Commerce Department to complete a special study of shellfish and a comprehensive review of all aspects of the molluscan shellfish industry, expected to be - completed by April 30, 1977. 2 / The moratorium held in abeyance HEW regulations, developed by its Food and Drug Administration, that were perceived as injurious to the shellfish industry: -11 Ibid. 21 U.S. Congress. Committee on Conference. Coastal Zone ~ a n a g m e n tAct Amendments of 1976; Report to Accompany S. 586. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-1298). p. 39. Proposed Federal regulations which were to be promulgated by the FDA would have driven the many shellfish processors and watermen into bankruptcy. It has been estimated by the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability that had these FDA regulations gone into effect, they would have cost the shellfish industry almost one fourth of their annual product value. This not only portended increased prices for consumers of oysters and clams, but it would have meant that the many families dependent on the shellfish industry as a way of life and a means of support would henceforth be included in our national unemployment figures. 11 (8) Energy Conservation and Production Act (P.L. 94-385; 90 Stat. 1125, 1129). The Energy Conservation and Production Act included a provision that, in effect, curtailed the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) by limiting the enforcement authority of the AdministratorlFEA over certain rules. Sec. 106 of the act amended sec. 7 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 by adding that: The Administrator or his delegate may not exercise discretion to maintain a civil action...or issue a remedial order against any person whose sole petroleum industry operation relates to the marketing of petroleum products, for any violation of any rule or regulation, if (1) such civil action or order is based upon a retroactive application or interpretation of such rule or regulation, and ( 2 ) such person relied in good faith upon rules, regulations, or rules interpreting such rules and regulations, in effect on the date of the violation. 1/ Bauman, Robert E. Statement on Conference Report on S. 586. ~emarxsin House. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 122, June 30, 1976: H7077. In other words, Sec. 106 prevented retroactive enforcement of rules and regulations against the small independent operators in the petroleum industry, with the "intent . . . to provide relief to businesses which have been subjected to seemingly endless changes in rules and regulations by FEA and to penalties arising from those changes made after the original effective date of such rules and regulations." Many small firms, the conference committee determined, had been "confronted by subsequent amendments to those [existing] rules applied retroactively and unjust penalties . . . [causing] an unnecessary burden . . ." -21 Similar prohibitions were not applied to "marketers with the means to challenge all enforcement actions based upon arguably ambiguous rules, regulations or rulings or upon clarifying amendinents thereto." 2/ Nor did this provision prohibit FEA from "perfecting its rules and regulationst'in the future; it only removed enforcement authority over certain amended rules applied retroactively to a particular type of petroleum marketer. (9) Education Amendments of 1976 ( P . L . 2234). 94-482; 90 Stat. 2081, The Education Amendments of 1976 incorporated a provision that exempted specified programs and activities from regulations 11 U.S. Congress. Committee of Conference. Energy Conservation and production Act; Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 12169. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off,, 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-1392). p. 62. -21 -3/ Ibid. Ibid. promulgated under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1971. Section 412 of P.L. 94-482 provided the following exemptions to Health, Education and Welfare rules and regulations regarding sex discrimination in educational programs or activities receiving Federal funds : --Boys State and Nation and Girls State and Nation conference activities; --father-son or mother-daughter activities, with the provision that if such activities are provided for students of one sex, opportunities for reasonably comparable activities are to be provided for the other; and --beauty-talent contestant scholarships. The exemptions were added to the basic bill, H.R. 12851 in the 94th Congress, by floor amendments: that affecting talent- beauty contestant scholarships by the House and those affecting American Legion Boys and Girls State and father-son or motherdaughter events by the Senate. The House amendment, agreed to - by voice vote, 1/ was designed to restore scholarships terminated by HEW regulations developed under title IX, what the amendment's sponsor regarded as an "unintended result . . .[and] most unfortunate that title IX has resulted in a termination of these educational - programs .I1 2/ The Senate provisions regarding American Legion Boys/Girls State programs and mother-daughter or father-son events followed -1/ -2/ Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 122, May 12, 1976: H4320. Edwards, Jack. Statement. Ibid., p. H4329. HEW rulings, based on title IX regulations, that banned such activities. Although the rulings were subsequently suspended, the decision to do so was "administrative and could change again. In fact, HEW officials, in a meeting with the American Legion, stated that legislation would be the only permanent solution to the problem," - according to the amendments' sponsor, Senator Fannin. 1/ The amendments to title IX did so, by removing such areas from HEW jurisdiction. (10) Rail Transportation Improvement Act (P.L. 94-555; 90 Stat. 2613, 2616, 2621, 2628). The Rail Transportation Improvement Act included three sections that restricted Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) jurisdiction: (1) section 108 prohibited the ICC from issuing regulations requiring Amtrak "or any railroad providing intercity rail passenger service to provide food service other than during customary dining hours"; (2) section 206 exempted local commuter service provided by rail but not by bus, if its fares are "subject to approval or disapproval by a Governor of any State in which it provides services"; and (3) section 218 explicitly precluded ICC authority over "(a) abandonment or discontinuance with respect to spur, industrial team, switching, or side tracks if such are located entirely within one State, or (b) any street, suburban, or interurban electric railway which is not operated as part of a general system of rail transportation." I/ Fannin, Paul J. An Amendment Relating to Sex Discrimination. in Senate. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 122, Aug. 26, 1976: S14643. ema arcs Section 108, as part of Title I, was designed "to reduce the cost of providing rail passenger service." 1/ The ICC-related provisions in Title 11, which affected ConRail, were designed to limit unintended ICC regulatory authority and encourage expanded State authority. In the latter case, Section 206 granted an exemption to local bodies providing mass transportation services by rail if their fares were subject to approval by a State governor. This provision, in effect, transferred certain ICC jurisdiction to States which had such gubernatorial authority. Section 218 amended section la(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. la(l)), a section which had been only recently added by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-210). That "new section, however, inadvertently [did] not expressly exempt 'spur lines' from its provisions." 2/ The House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee report on the Rail Transportation Improvement Act offered an explanat ion why ICC rulemaking authority should be excluded in this regard: 1/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Rail ~mendzentsof 1976; Report to Accompany S. 3131. Washington, U.S. 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Govt. Print. Off Report no. 94-851). p. 1. ., - 21 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Rail Amendments of 1976; Report to Accompany H.R. 14932. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-1479). p. 22. The Comission's abandonment procedures have never applied to such track and it is not Congress' intent (nor does the Commission desire) that such track should be subject to its abandonment procedures. These tracks are not operated as a part of a general system of rail transportation and thus are purely local and should be subject to local jurisdiction as has been tne case historically. (11) 1/ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (P.L. 95-95; 91 Stat. 685, 695-697). Section 108 of the Amendments to the Clean Air Act restricted the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require indirect source review programs as part of State implementation plans, which otherwise must be approved by the Administrator. In defending this provision before the House, one of the conferees on the bill, Rep. Broyhill, alluded to EPA's previous experience: One of the more troublesome activities in which EPA had been involved was the attempted regulation of indirect sources-such as shopping centers--which attract mobile sources of pollution. I am pleased to report that the conference report, following the general intention of the House bill, prohibited the Administrator of EPA from requiring indirect source review programs. States are given authority to adopt, suspend, or revoke such programs. 11 21 Broyhill, James T. Conference Report on H.R. 6161, Clean Air Act Gendments of 1977. Remarks in House. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 123, Aug. 4 , 1977: H8668. The exceptions to such prohibition, which are eligible for EPA regulation, are major federally funded public works projects, such as highways and airports, and federally owned and operated indirect sources. Two years earlier, Congress had adopted appropriations limitations preventing EPA from administering or promulgating any program to regulate parking in the FY 1976 appropriations, P .L. 94-116 (discussed below). (12) Saccharin Study and Labeling Act (P.L. 95-204; 91 Stat. 1451, 1452). This Act statutorily preempted saccharin-product labeling, as noted in the previous section dealing with statutory overrides of (prospective) rules. The Act, through section 3, also provided for an 18-month moratorium on the banning of saccharin or saccharin products by requiring that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) not take action "to prohibit or restrict the sale or distribution of saccharin, any food permitted by . . . [an FDA] interim food additive regulation to contain saccharin, or any drug or cosmetic containing saccharin." The exception to this restriction was that the Secretary may ban such products within the period only on the basis of new information made available before the end of the period; that determination could not be made solely on the basis of information made available before enactment. -/ This qualification on the secretary's discretion to ban saccharin products during the 18-month moratorium prevented exclusive reliance on the original studies that had determined carcinogenic effects of saccharin. 11 U.S. Congress. Committee of Conference. Saccharin Study and ~;belin~ Act; Conference Report to Accompany S. 1750. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off 1977. (95th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 95-810). p. 9. ., Prompting the statutory moratorium was a proposed FDA rule, announced April 14, 1977, banning saccharin in diet soft drinks and foods as well as in cosmetics, such as lipstick, toothpaste, and mouthwash, thereby terminating an estimated 90% of the saccharin market. FDA had reviewed saccharin tests by the Canadian government which had discovered an increased incidence of bladder cancer in laboratory test animals. Regarding new testing required by P.L. 95-204, during the moratorium, HEW was first to request that the National Academy of Sciences conduct the necessary studies, the components of which were detailed in section 2. After specified intervals of time, the Secretary was required to report the findings and any recommendations to the appropriate congressional committees. _1/ Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217; 91 Stat. 1566, 1583, (13) 1599-1606). This statute amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) and included a number of different types of alterations of rule-making jurisdiction. These included granting waivers for regulated items, transfering authority from Federal to State jurisdiction, and providing exempt ions for certain activities. One of the changes involved amendments to section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the section which granted Federal regulatory jurisdiction over water pollution from point sources through the issuance of permits by the Army Corps of Engineers. -1/ Ibid., p. 8-9. Sec. 67 o f P.L. 95-217, a f f e c t i n g p e r m i t s f o r dredged o r f i l l m a t e r i a l , r e d u c e d such F e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n by exempting t h e "discharge of dredged o r f i l l m a t e r i a l . . . from normal farming, s i l v i c u l t u r e , and r a n c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s " from t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f s p e c i f i c permits. F u r t h e r m o r e , c e r t a i n " g r a y a r e a s " were removed from F e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i f a S t a t e had an approved program ( i . e . , u n d e r s e c t i o n 208 o f t h e F e d e r a l Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t ) : S i m i l a r l y , no permits a r e r e q u i r e d f o r o t h e r such "gray area" p r a c t i c e s involving those a g r i c u l t u r e , m i n i n g and c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) (F) t h r o u g h (I) t h a t a r e more p r o p e r l y c o n t r o l l e d by S t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c i e s u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) and f o r which t h e r e a r e approved b e s t management p r a c t i c e programs. F o r example, s e c t i o n 2 0 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) r e g u l a t o r y programs are responsible for controlling pollution that may r e s u l t from s h e e t f l o w a c r o s s a s i t e p r e p a r e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o r from t h e placement o f p i l i n g s i n w a t e r t o s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r e s s u c h a s highways, r a i l r o a d t r a c k s , and d o c k i n g f a c i l i t i e s . Under t h e committee amendment, no p e r m i t s a r e r e q u i r e d f o r such a c t i v i t i e s when r e g u l a t e d under s e c t i o n 208. 11 S e c t i o n 67 a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d "a p r o c e s s t o a l l o w t h e Governor o f any S t a t e t o a d m i n i s t e r an i n d i v i d u a l and g e n e r a l p e r m i t program f o r t h e d i s c h a r g e o f dredged o r f i l l m a t e r i a l i n t o phase 2 o r 3 w a t e r s a f t e r t h e a p p r o v a l o f a program by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r " 21 11 U.S. C o n g r e s s . S e n a t e . Committee on Environment and P u b l i c C l e a n Water Act of 1977; Report t o Accompany S. 1953. works. w a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Govt P r i n t . O f f . , 1977. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n . S e n a t e . R e p o r t no. 95-370) p. 76. . 21 U.S. C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Conference Report t o ~ c F o m ~ aH.R. n ~ 3199. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1977. p. 101. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 1st s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 95-830). of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . EPA retained oversight of and could reject State programs; but the amendment allowed "States to assume the primary responsibility for protecting those lakes, rivers, streams, swamps, marshes, and other portions of the navigable waters outside the corps program in the so-called phase 1 waters." 11 Section 67 of P.L. 95-217 added still another exemption to the regulatory jurisdiction regarding permits for dredged or fill material, resulting from Federal construction projects. A new section exempted Federal activities that discharge dredged or fill material from the permit process when the Federal construction project has been specifically authorized by Congress, if information on the effects of such discharge is included in an environmental impact statement and submitted to the Congress before the actual discharge and prior to either the authorization or the appropriation of funds for such construction. This exemption for certain Federal construction projects from the 404-permit requirement was "in recognition of the Constitutional principal of separation of powers. Where a project has been specifically authorized by the Congress that authorization should not thereafter be subject to nullification by an executive agency." 21 --------------works. 11 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Clean Water Act of 1977, p. 75. 21 U.S. Congress. Committee of Conference. 3199, p. 104. ~ c c o m F a nH.R. ~ Conference Report to In addition, P.L. 95-217 amended certain EPA regulatory activity through the issuance of permits, i.e., under authority of section 402 of the Federal Water Control Act Amendments of 1972. Section 33 of P.L. 95-217 prevented the Administrator/EPA from requiring a permit under his authority in section 402 "for discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture." Thereafter, such sources of pollution would be included in areawide waste treatment management under the responsibility of the States. According to the Conference Committee report on the Clean Water Act of 1977, "the purpose of this [new] section is to assure that no permit can be required by - EPA for regulation of irrigation return flows." 1/ P.L. 95-217, through section 43, provided yet another transformat ion of Federal regulatory jurisdiction by establishing procedures for the ~dministrator/E~A to grant a waiver for nonconventional pollutants , a new category vis-a-vis conventional and toxic pollutants, and a "gray area . . . about which there is the most to learn." 21 Described as a "safety valve" by the proposed legislation's Senate floor manager, Senator Muskie, the provision permitted that in the case of such nonconventional pollutants, an industry "has a chance under these amendments to prove no adverse environmental effects relating to a particular -1/ Ibid., p. 69. 21 Muskie, Edmund. Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977--Conference ~ e ~ o r t .Remarks in Senate. Congressional Record (daily ed.) , v. 123, Dec. 15, 1977: S19638. pollutant, and after making a showing, escape regulation." 11 House conferee Rep. Ray Roberts offered the following explanation for including the provision: Another major problem area was the law's [Federal Water Pollution Control Act] strict requirement for industry that would cost millions of dollars and result only in a little more clean-up of our waters. The conferees wrestled with this problem and developed a fair and workable compromise. Strict requirements are still in effect for damaging pollutants, such as toxics. However, for certain other [nonconventional] pollutants, industry may 21 get a waiver. By way of summary, P.L. 95-217 provided three distinct mechanisms-transferring authority from Federal to State authorities, providing exemptions, and granting waivers--for modifying rulemaking authority, changing specific rules and their implementation, and mitigating the effect of others. (14) 1705-1747). Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-504; 92 Stat. Approved on the final day of the 95th Congress, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 contained a number of mechanisms which would, in effect, overturn existing rules and regulations, lessen their impact, prevent the promulgation of more rigid rules, and remove rule-making authority. The complex legislation, developed over a four-year period, included five distinct techniques that 11 Ibid., p. S19637. 21 Roberts, Ray. Report on the Resolution Providing for consixeration of Conference Report on H.R. 3199, Clean Water Act of 1977. Remarks in House. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 123, Dec. 15, 1977: H12919. affected the jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB): --graduated or phased termination of CAB authority over domestic air routes (Dec. 31, 1981) and over domestic air fares, rates, mergers, and acquisitions 1, 1983), along with abolition of the Board itself on Jan. 1, 1985, unless Congress overrides these "sunset" prov sions ; an. --eventual transfer of CAB authority to other Federal agencies, including the determination of small carriage rates to the U.S. Postal Service; the jurisdiction for mergers, interlocking directorates, and antitrust actions re ating to interstate and foreign air transportation to the Just ice Department; the compensation for air transportation to small communities to the Transportation Department; and authority for foreign air transportation to Transportation in consultation with the State Department; --exemptions from CAB authority, including regulation of much comuter aircraft, airline company acquisition by non-airline companies, certain classes of services (as CAB determines), and certain air carrier transportation involving the State of Alaska; -restrictions on CAB rulemaking with respect to charter airlines, requiring the Board to impose rules on such airlines that were no more rigid than those imposed on other classes and precluding the Board from making charter rules and regulations any more restrictive than on October 1, 1978, thus, in effect, "approving all actions the Board has taken with respect to the liberalization " 1/ ; and of charters ... --waiving CAB approval authority for an additional route for each airline during 1979-1981. (15) 92 Stat. Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978 (P.L. 95-632; 3751, 3752-3758). Following a Supreme Court decision preventing Tennessee Valley Authority operation of the Tellico Dam because of endangerment to the snail darter fish, listed as an 1/ Cannon, Howard. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978--Conference ~ e ~ o r t .Remarks in Senate. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 124. Oct. 14, 1978: S18799. See also Edward Kennedy, ibid., p. 518798, on other CAB reform efforts prior to enactment of the deregulation bill. e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s , C o n g r e s s approved amendments i n 1978, e s t a b l i s h i n g new mechanisms f o r d e t e r m i n i n g e x e m p t i o n s t o t h e 1973 Endangered S p e c i e s Act. The Amendments c r e a t e d a seven-member i n t e r a g e n c y Endangered S p e c i e s Committee, composed o f t h e h e a d s o f : t h e C o u n c i l o f Economic A d v i s o r s , E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency, N a t i o n a l Oceanic and Atmospheric A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and t h e D e p a r t m e n t s o f A g r i c u l t u r e , t h e Army, and t h e I n t e r i o r who c h a i r s t h e new Committee. The s e v e n t h member would b e a P r e s i d e n t i a l a p p o i n t e e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e Governor o f t h e a f f e c t e d S t a t e . The Committee makes f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s based upon recommendations from a three-member r e v i e w p a n e l which r e p o r t s on exemption a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a t may b e s u b m i t t e d by t h e a f f e c t e d F e d e r a l agency, by t h e Governor o f t h e S t a t e i n which an agency a c t i o n w i l l o c c u r , o r by a p e r m i t o r l i c e n s e e applicant. C. LIMITATIONS I N AUTHORIZING AND APPROPRIATING STATUTES S t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s and d i r e c t i v e s a f f e c t i n g s p e c i f i c F e d e r a l r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s e x i s t i n b o t h a p p r o p r i a t i n g and a u t h o r i z i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e f o r m e r a r e t h e more common v e h i c l e s f o r such f u n d i n g r e s t r a i n t s . I n most i n s t a n c e s , t h e y p r o h i b i t e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r s p e c i f i e d r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t y o r f o r enforcement o f a p a r t i c u l a r rule. I n t h a t f a s h i o n , t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s p r e v e n t an a g e n c y from p r o m u l g a t i n g o r implementing a r u l e a n d , t h u s , n u l l i f y t h e r u l e f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n p e r i o d . The last phrase, however, suggests the major qualification on such statutory techniques. Their impact is restricted to a specified time period; and unless reenacted in subsequent authorization or appropriation statutes, their effect terminates. As a corollary, these restraints applied to funding amounts lack permanency, with the consequence that the offending rule would be enforced in the future without continued congressional approval of the statutory language. Moreover, appropriation bills, as distinct from authorizations in this case, cannot propose new or general legislation or amendments to existing legislation, for the most part. 11 Therefore, provisions in appropriation statutes can neither permanently override the statutory authority on which a particular rule is based nor overturn a specific rule in an absolute sense. 11 Senate Rule XVI reads in part: "The Committee on Appropriations shall-not report an appropriation bill containing amendments proposing new or general legislation ...No amendment which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill ...I1 House Rule XXI reads similarly: "Nor shall any provision in any such [appropriation] bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order, except such as being germane to the subject matter of the bill shall retrench expenditures...by reduction of the amounts of money covered by the bill.. ." House Rule X X I is elaborated upon in section 483 of the Rules of the House of Representatives: "Although the rule forbids on any general appropriation bill a provision 'changing existing law,' which is construed to mean legislation generally, the ~ouse's practice has established the principle that certain 'limitations' may be admitted. It being established that the House under its rules may decline to appropriate for a purpose authorized by law, so it may by limitation prohibit the use of money for part of the purpose while appropriating for the remainder.. . " However, Louis Fisher has provided an overview of the intricacies and nuances of appropriations bills that "dilute the force of this rule" of Congress. U. S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Authorization-Appropriat ions Process : Formal Rules and Informal Practices (by) Louis Fisher. (washington) Aug. 1, 1979, p. 31 and 29-39. Finally, the potential effectiveness of authorization and appropriation restraints is limited because some kinds of budget expenditures are largely immune from either express appropriation or authorization: borrowing and contract authority or "backdoor spending"; permanent authorizations or appropriations; existence of off-budget agencies; trusts and special funds; certain uncontrollable expenditures, such as those mandated by statutory formulae; and carry-overs of unexpended funds. 11 Also, reprogramming of funds 2 / permits certain administrative spending discretion once programs are in effect. In the case of major regulatory agencies, however, most budget accounts are at least periodically appropriated. The Senate Study on Federal Kegulation found that the fourteen major regulatory agencies "are funded through 43 separate budget accounts, only four of which 31 are not subject to appropriaitons review." - Consequently, the 11 A comprehensive review of these techniques has been prepared by lien Schick. See: U .S. Congress. House Committee on the Budget. Congressional Control of Expenditures. (Committee print) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. -21 See: Fisher, Louis. Presidential Spending Power. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1975. -3/ Senate Study on Federal Regulation, p. 21. potential for appropriations limitations is greater in the regulatory field than in most other areas. Yet, since nearly all Federal agencies, not just major regulators, have authority to promulgate rules, and because of the difficulties and limitations associated with statutory authorization or appropriation spending controls, that ~otent ial may remain unevenly and infrequently ut lized . Nonetheless, the Senate Study on Federal Regulation ar ued the significance of this statutory technique in controlling Federal regulations : Once enacted, these statutory controls are completely straightforward. In fact, it could be argued that appropriations oversight is effective precisely because the statutory controls are so direct, unambiguous, and virtually sel f-enforcing. While agencies are able to bend the more ambiguous language of authorizing legislation to their own purposes, the dollar figures in appropriations bills represent commands which cannot be bent or ignored except at extreme peril to agency officials. 11 Some recent examples of appropriations or authorizations limitations applied to specific rules include: (1) Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare and Related Agencies for FY 1974 (P.L. 93-194; 87 Stat. 7 4 6 , 7 6 3 ) . This Act continued to apply the following limitation to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appropriations: No part of the appropriation could be used in connection with NLRB activities concerning bargaining units composed of agricultural laborers or to organize or assist in organizing agricultural laborers. -11 Ibid., p. 31. The p r o v i s i o n a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s , employees engaged i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e and o p e r a t i o n o f c e r t a i n waterways and r e s e r v o i r s , o p e r a t e d on a m u t u a l , n o n - p r o f i t b a s i s , i n which a t l e a s t 95% o f t h e w a t e r s t o r e d o r s u p p l i e d i s used f o r f a r m i n g p u r p o s e s . This l i m i t a t i o n reaffirmed t h e exclusion of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s from t h e Labor Management R e l a t i o n s Act of 1947 ( 2 9 U.S.C. t h e F a i r Labor S t a n d a r d s Act o f 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203). L/ 1 5 2 ) and I n s o doing, t h e FY 1974 Act used l a n g u a g e t h a t was i n i t i a l l y a t t a c h e d t o NLRB a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r FY 1947 (P.L. 79-549; 60 S t a t . 6 9 8 ) . t h e e x t e n d e d d e f i n i t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s , P.L. By m a i n t a i n i n g 93-194 i n c o r p o r a t e d language f i r s t a p p l i e d i n t h e FY 1954 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c t (P.L. 83-170; 6 7 S t a t . 257-2581, and, t h e r e b y , r e t a i n e d t h e e x p r e s s exempt i o n o f t h i s g r o u p i n g from p o s s i b l e NLRB r u l e m a k i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . (2) A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development and Sundry I n d e p e n d e n t A g e n c i e s f o r FY 1976 (P.L. 89 S t a t . 581, 6 0 0 ) . 94-116, Two p r o v i s i o n s were a t t a c h e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c t t h a t l i m i t e d t h e rulemaking a u t h o r i t y o f two a g e n c i e s , t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) and t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . 1 / I n t h e 92d and 93d C o n g r e s s e s , t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f s t a t u t o r i l y a p p l y i n g t h e s e two a c t s t o a g r i c u l t u r a l w o r k e r s , p o s s i b l y under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f NLRB o r under a proposed A g r i c u l t u r a l Labor Board w i t h s i m i l a r powers. See: U.S. Congress. House. Committee on E d u c a t i o n and Labor. Subcommittee on A g r i c u l t u r a l Labor Management R e l a t i o n s . H e a r i n g s , 93d C o n g r e s s , 1st s e s s i o n , May 21, 1973. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1974. S e c t i o n 407 p r o v i d e d t h a t no such f u n d s c o u l d be used by EPA t o " a d m i n i s t e r o r p r o m u l g a t e , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , any program t o t a x , l i m i t o r otherwise r e g u l a t e parking t h a t i s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y required pursuant t o subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n . " The p r o h i b i t i o n on EPA was based on t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t EPA might d e v e l o p r e g u l a t i o n s o r r e q u i r e c i t i e s t o impose t a x s u r c h a r g e s d e s i g n e d t o r e d u c e a i r p o l l u t i o n g e n e r a t e d where l a r g e numbers o f a u t o m o b i l e s a r e g a t h e r e d , a s a t shopping c e n t e r s o r stadiums. P r e c i s e l y what a c t i o n EPA might have t a k e n was u n c e r t a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o f l o o r s t a t e m e n t s on b e h a l f o f t h e p r o v i s i o n , s i n c e no s p e c i f i c r u l e s had been p r o p o s e d ; and " t h e S e n a t e dropped t h i s p r o v i s i o n w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency d i d n o t i n t e n d t o implement t h e p a r k i n g p r o p o s a l w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a p p r o v a l and c l a r i f i c a t i o n from t h e l e g i s l a t i v e c o m m i t t e e s .. .'I -11 Nonetheless, a t t h e i n s i s t e n c e o f t h e House c o n f e r e e s , t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s s t a t u t e l i m i t a t i o n was e n a c t e d , a s an amended v e r s i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l House provision. 2/ It p r e c l u d e d any EPA rulemaking w i t h r e s p e c t t o parking, b a r r i n g subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t might permit such a u t h o r i t y . 1/ Boland, Edward P. Conference Report on H.R. 8070. Remarks i n ~ o u s e . C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 1 2 1 , Oct. 3 , 1975: H9567. C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Conference Report 2/ U.S. t o ~ c k ~ H.R. a n 8070. ~ Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1975. ( 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 94-502). p. 14. A provision in section 408, also retained as a modification of the House version, limited HUD's authority to establish noise control standards for federally insured or federally assisted housing. However, the effective scope of the limitation was severely constrained through the Senate modification, which made the restraint applicable only "in connection with construction in an area zoned for residential use in Merced County, California." 1/ The final version, & incorporated as section 408, read: Sec. 408. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be used to deny or fail to act upon, on tne basis of noise contours set forth in an Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Map, an otherwise acceptaole application for Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance in connection witn construction in an area zoned for residential use in Merced County, California. (3) 454-455). ~ i g h w a ySafety Act of 1976 ( P . L . 94-280; 90 Stat. 425, As noted above, sec. 20 of the Highway Safety Act overturned a specific standard requiring motorcyclists to wear safety helmets, promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/ Department of Transportation. That section, in this authorization act, also imposed funding restraints on the Secretary of Transportation's discretion to ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of certain safety standards. Sec. 208(b) required the Secretary, in cooperation with the States, to conduct an evaluation of the adequacy and 11 Merced County, California is in the congressional district of ~ e p .B. F. Sisk, who had proposed broader limitations on the House floor. appropriateness of all uniform safety standards devised under this program, and to report his findings and recommendations, including revision or consolidation of existing standards, to Congress on or before July 1, 1977. The authorization limitation then followed : "Until such report is submitted, the Secretary shall not . . . withhold any apportionment or any funds apportioned to any State because such State is failing to implement a highway safety program approved by the Secretary The funding restriction in sec . 208(b) .. I'. prohibited the withholding of funds for approximately one year, from May 5, 1976, when the law was enacted, until July 1, 1977, the final date of submission of the secretary's required report. Based on complaints from States, sec. 2O8(b), in effect, relaxed enforcement of the safety standards, complementing an earlier provision in sec. 208(a) that eased compliance with the uniform safety standards. Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare, and Related Agencies for FY 1977 (P.L. 94-439; 90 Stat. 1418, 1421). Within this Act, the appropriations for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the Labor Department included two limitations on expenditures on behalf of 11 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and rans sport at ion. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1975: Report to ., Accompany H.R. 8235. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off 1975. (94th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 94-716.) OSHA r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . The f i r s t p r o h i b i t e d OSHA from expending o r o b l i g a t i n g any such f u n d s f o r t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f c i v i l p e n a l t i e s i s s u e d f o r f i r s t i n s t a n c e v i o l a t i o n s o f any s t a n d a r d , r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n promulgated u n d e r t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h Act of 1970 ( o t h e r than c e r t a i n s e r i o u s o r repeated v i o l a t i o n s ) , u n l e s s t h e workplace was c i t e d f o r more t h a n 10 v i o l a t i o n s i n t h e f i r s t i n s p e c t i o n . The second l i m i t a t i o n p r e c l u d e d o b l i g a t i n g o r expending such appropriated funds t o p r e s c r i b e , i s s u e , administer, o r enforce any s t a n d a r d , r u l e , r e g u l a t i o n , o r o r d e r under t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h Act of 1970 which i s a p p l i c a b l e t o any p e r s o n who i s engaged i n a farming o p e r a t i o n and employs 10 o r fewer employees. T h i s p r o v i s i o n adopted House l a n g u a g e i n l i m i t i n g OSHA enforcement of i t s r e g u l a t i o n s -11 and a l o n g w i t h t h e former l i m i t a t i o n s on OSHA e n f o r c e m e n t , was e x t e n d e d t o t h e FY 1978 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s through a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e subsequent r e s o l u t i o n (P.L. 95-2051, which s t a t e d : 11 U.S. Congress. Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . C o n f e r e n c e Report t o ~ c c o m ~ aH.R. n ~ 14232. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . Off 1976. ( 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 94-1384). ., No a p p r o p r i a t i o n o r fund made a v a i l a b l e o r a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n s h a l l be used t o i n i t i a t e o r resume any p r o j e c t o r a c t i v i t y f o r which a p p r o p r i a t i o n s , f u n d s , o r o t h e r a u t h o r i t y 11 were n o t a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1977. (5) A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development f o r FY 1978 (P.L. 95-119; 91 S t a t . 1073, 1 0 8 9 ) . Sec. 408 of t h e s e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s included a funding l i m i t a t i o n , providing t h a t no s u c h f u n d s " s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e F e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n d e f i n i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which two o r more p e r s o n s s h a l l b e e l i g i b l e f o r admission t o public housing a s a family . . ." In essehce, t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n n u l l i f i e d a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) r e g u l a t i o n t h a t u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y p e r m i t t e d homosexual c o u p l e s t o be e l i g i b l e f o r public housing. 11 P.L. 95-205; 91 S t a t . 1460, 1461. The c o n t i n u i n g r e s o l u t i o n f o r FF 1978 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s was n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e House and S e n a t e t o r e s o l v e d i f f e r e n c e s o v e r HEW a p p r o p r i a t i o n restrictions. A m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f t h e second l i m i t a t i o n on OSHA had a l s o b e e n approved b y t h e S e n a t e i n t h e 9 5 t h Congress. H.R. 11445, t h e Small B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A u t h o r i z a t i o n Act , had been amended t o p r o v i d e t h a t s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s which employ 10 o r fewer employees s h a l l be exempt from c o v e r a g e under t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and Health Act, u n l e s s a f i r m ' s i n j u r y / i l l n e s s r a t e i s c e r t i f i e d a t a s p e c i f i e d l e v e l t o be too high. T h i s would, t h e r e f o r e , exempt a l l c e r t i f i e d small b u s i n e s s e s , n o t j u s t farms, a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c t l i m i t a t i o n p r o v i d e s . House and S e n a t e o n f e r e e s a g r e e d t o a s u b s t i t u t e v e r s i o n o f t h e s m a l l b u s i n e s s exemption t o OSHA h e a l t h and s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n s , r e t a i n i n g t h e c i v i l p e n a l t y and r e p o r t i n g p r o v i s i o n s . U. S. Congress. House. Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Amending t h e Small B u s i n e s s Act and t h e Small B u s i n e s s I n v e s t m e n t Act o f 1 9 5 8 ; C o n f e r e n c e Report t o Accompany H.R. 11445. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1978. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. R e p o r t no. 95-1671). p. 46. However, t h e b i l l , H.R. 11445, was p o c k e t v e t o e d by P r e s i d e n t C a r t e r . I n f i n a l r e g u l a t i o n s p u b l i s h e d on May 9 , 1977, HUD i n t r o d u c e d t h e c r i t e r i a of a " s t a b l e family relationship'' t o determine e l i g i b i l i t y , a c o n c e p t which gave r i s e t o unexpected i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . According t o t h e House s p o n s o r o f t h e amendment t o HUD a p p r o p r i a t i o n s : T h i s development was n o t c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e Department and p o s e s a n i s s u e which i t i s u n p r e p a r e d t o d e a l w i t h a t t h i s t i m e . It i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e Department would l i k e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e s e r e g u l a t i o n s Department ought t o have an f o r t h a t reason...The opportunity t o reconsider those regulations ... L/ (6) A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s f o r FY 1979 (P.L. 95-335; 92 S t a t . 435, 4 5 0 ) . T h i s a p p r o p r i a t i o n a c t i n c l u d e d a p r o v i s i o n i n s e c . 317 t h a t p r e c l u d e d t h e u s e o f such f u n d s " t o implement o r e n f o r c e any s t a n d a r d o r r e g u l a t i o n which r e q u i r e s any motor v e h i c l e t o b e equipped w i t h a n o c c u p a n t r e s t r a i n t system ( o t h e r t h a n a b e l t system)." This l i m i t a t i o n was added a s a n amendment on t h e House f l o o r , b y a v o t e of 237-143 on June 1 2 , 1978, 2/ and l a t e r r e s t o r e d by t h e c o n f e r e e s , 3/ when t h e S e n a t e had f a i l e d t o approve i t . - 1 / Boland, Edward P. HUD A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r FY 1978. Remarks i n th; House. C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 1 2 3 , J u n e 1 5 , 1977: H593l. -21 C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 124, J u n e 1 2 , 1978: H5321. 3 / U.S. Congress. Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . C o n f e r e n c e Report t o ~ c c o m ~ aH.R. n ~ 12933. Washington, U.S. Govt P r i n t . O f f . , 1978. p. 14. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 95-1329). . The main focus of the provision was a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)/Department of Transportation regulation mandating that all new automobiles be equipped with air bags or other passive restraints by the 1984 model year. The regulation was promulgated in June, 1977, calling for a phased introduction of passive restraints, either automatic belt systems or airbags, beginning with the 1982 model year and extending to all automobiles produced in the 1984 model year. Consequently, the limitation included in the 1979 appropriations statute would not directly affect the standard whose effective implementation dates were two and four years beyond the end of the appropriations period. Nonetheless, according to the amendment's sponsor, Rep. Shuster, "this appropriations bill, while not the best vehicle, is the only vehicle left for Members to express themselves on an issue affecting the lives and pocketbooks of millions of Americans ."11 Previous1y, 160 House Members cosponsored a resolution of disapproval of the NHTSA rule; but the House did not vote on it, since the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee had voted against reporting out the disapproval resolution. 21 . 11 Bud Shuster Remarks on an Amendment to the Transportation ~ ~ ~ r o p r i a t i oFiscal n, Year 1979. Remarks in House. Congressional Record (daily ed.), v. 124, June 12, 1978: H5308. 21 Ibid. Interestingly, the Shuster amendment had been subject to a parliamentary inquiry and point of order. Rep. Eckhardt stated that "since this amendment in no way changes that [NHTSA] requirement with respect to seat belts, passive seat belts, therefore this is not in fact a retrenchment [of appropriated funds] .this is legislation within an appropriations bill calling for specific (21 continued) .. A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e T r e a s u r y Department (7) 95-429; (P.L. 92 S t a t . 1001, 1 0 0 2 ) . ...f o r FY 1 9 7 9 The f i s c a l y e a r 1979 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Bureau o f A l c o h o l , Tobacco, and F i r e a r m s (BATF) i n t h e T r e a s u r y Department c o n t a i n e d a p r o h i b i t i o n on u s i n g such f u n d s f o r proposed gun c o n t r o l r e g u l a t i o n s . No f u n d s were t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e n s e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h proposed BATF r u l e s of March 2 1 , 1978, t h a t would have c o n s o l i d a t e d o r c e n t r a l i z e d t h e r e c o r d s o f r e c e i p t and d i s p o s i t i o n o f f i r e a r m s , m a i n t a i n e d b y t h e T r e a s u r y Department. Moreover, b o t h Chambers a g r e e d t o d e l e t e $4.2 m i l l i o n from t h e BATF a p p r o p r i a t i o n s r e q u e s t , t h e amount e s t i m a t e d f o r implementing t h e proposed r e g u l a t i o n s . The r e s t r i c t i v e l a n g u a g e of t h e f i n a l b i l l , which would a l s o p r e v e n t reprogramming t o implement t h e proposed r e g u l a t i o n s , was d e f e n d e d by t h e S e n a t e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . . . t h e proposed r e g u l a t i o n s g o beyond t h e i n t e n t o f . . . I t would a p p e a r t h a t BATF and t h e Department o f T r e a s u r y Committee: Congress I' (2/ c o n t i n u e d ) a d d i t i o n a l d u t i e s on t h e p a r t o f t h e S e c r e t a r y of Transportation; t h a t i s , i t d i r e c t s the Secretary of Transportation t o r e v i s e h i s p r e s e n t modes o f p u t t i n g i n t o e f f e c t t h e r e s t r a i n t s Rep. S h u s t e r r e b u t t e d , i n s i s t i n g t h a t t h e amendment " i s s i m p l y a p r o p e r l i m i t a t i o n on t h e u s e o f f u n d s . No a d d i t i o n a l d u t i e s a r e imposed upon t h e e x e c u t i v e . I ' The C h a i r c o n c u r r e d w i t h Rep. Shus t e r and o v e r r u l e d t h e p o i n t o f o r d e r , a r g u i n g t h a t " i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a l i m i t a t i o n may n e g a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t f u n d i n g i n an a p p r o p r i a t i o n a c t f o r p a r t o f a d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y a u t h o r i z e d by l a w i f no new a f f i r m a t i v e d u t i e s o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n s a r e t h e r e b y r e q u i r e d ." Ibid J u n e 9 , 1978: H528O-H5281. ..." . a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o exceed t h e i r s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y and a c c o m p l i s h by r 2 y u l a t i o n t h a t which C o n g r e s s h a s d e c l i n e d t o l e g i s l a t e . " (8) -1/ A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Departments o f L a b o r , and H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e , and R e l a t e d Agencies f o r FY 1979 (P.L. 92 S t a t . 1567, 1569-1570). 95-480; Approved on t h e f i n a l d a y o f t h e 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , t h e FY 1979 a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e Department o f Labor :nntained l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h :r i n i s t r a t i o n (OSHA) t h a t e x t e n d e d beyond t h e p r e v i o u s r e s t r i c t i o n s i n f i s c a l y e a r s 1977 and 1978, t h r o u g h P.L. r e s p e c t i v e l y ( d e s c r i b e d above). 94-439 and P.L. 95-205, Those l i m i t a t i o n s on OSHA a u t h o r i t y p r e s c r i b e , i s s u e , a d m i n i s t e r , o r enforce c e r t a i n r u l e s included : - - p r o h i b i t i n g OSHA from imposing c i v i l f i n e s f o r f i r s t - i n s t a n c e h e a l t h o r s a f e t y v i o l a t i o n s of a non-serious n a t u r e , u n l e s s t h e o f f e n d i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t had been c i t e d f o r 10 o r more v i o l a t i o n s on such i n s p e c t i o n ; -prohibiting OSHA from i s s u i n g c i v i l p e n a l i t i e s f o r n o n - s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s by a n employer of 10 o r fewer employees i f t h e e m p l o y e r , p r i o r t o t h e i n s p e c t i o n , had : ( 1 ) v o l u n t a r i l y r e q u e s t e d c o n s u l t a t i o n u n d e r a s p e c i f i c a s s i s t a n c e program, ( 2 ) had t h e c o n s u l t a n t examine t h e c o n d i t i o n c i t e d , and ( 3 ) made o r i s making a " r e a s o n a b l e good f a i t h e f f o r t t o e l i m i n a t e t h e h a z a r d c r e a t e d by t h e c o n d i t i o n c i t e d " ; --exempting from OSHA j u r i s d i c t i o n , "any work a c t i v i t y by r e a s o n of r e c r e a t i o n h u n t i n g , s h o o t i n g , o r f i s h i n g " ; and 1/ U.S. C o n g r e s s . S e n a t e . Committee on A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . , s u r y , P o s t a l S e r v i c e , and G e n e r a l Government A p p r o p r i a t i o n s B i l l , ; Report t o Accompany H.R. 12930. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . 1978. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . S e n a t e . Report no. 95-939). 12. L e y --exempting from OSHA j u r i s d i c t i o n , "any p e r s o n who i s engaged i n a f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n which d o e s n o t m a i n t a i n a t e m p o r a r y l a b o r camp and employs 10 o r fewer employees." This f i n a l r e s t r i c t i o n r e s t o r e d l a n g u a g e from t h e House v e r s i o n t h a t had b e e n d e l e t e d by t h e S e n a t e t o p e r m i t OSHA " t o i n s p e c t any f a r m , r e g a r d l e s s o f s i z e , t h a t m a i n t a i n s a t e m p o r a r y l a b o r camp" 1 / ( i . e . , m i g r a n t worker camp). - There had been an a t t e m p t on t h e f l o o r o f t h e House t o p r e v e n t OSHA i n s p e c t i o n s o f any w o r k p l a c e employing fewer t h a n 100 p e r s o n s w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , i n t h e wake o f a Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n p e r m i t t i n g an employer t o r e q u i r e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t b e f o r e i n s p e c t i o n . A p o i n t o f o r d e r , however, was s u s t a i n e d a g a i n s t t h i s amendment, on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t would h a v e r e q u i r e d " a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n b y a n e x e c u t i v e , I t which c a n n o t accompany a p p r o p r i a t i o n s l i m i t a t i o n s . 2/ D. REQUIRING FEDERAL AGENCY PRIOR CONSULTATION AND REVIEW The s t a t u t o r y t e c h n i q u e s d i s c u s s e d above d i r e c t l y o v e r r i d e , p r e v e n t t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f , o r e f f e c t t h e o v e r t u r n o f s p e c i f i c r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , by r e v o k i n g an e x p r e s s r u l e , a l t e r i n g t h e i s s u i n g a g e n c y ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , o r denying funds f o r enforcement o r implementation. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e m a n i f e s t c o n t r o l mechanisms, two o t h e r s t a t u t o r y techniques--agency p r i o r c o n s u l t a t i o n and r e v i e w r e q u i r e m e n t s and advance n o t i c e ( t o C o n g r e s s ) p r o v i s i o n s - - d e s e r v e mention. Although 1 / U.S. C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Making A p p r o p r i a i o n s f o r t?;e D e p a r t m e n t s o f L a b o r , and H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and W e l f a r e , and R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s ; Report t o Accompany H.R. 12929. Washington, U.S. Govt. p r i n t . O f f . , 1978. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. R e p o r t no. p. 10. 95-1746). 2/ For d e b a t e and d e c i s i o n b y t h e c h a i r , s e e C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 1 2 4 , J u n e 7, 1978: H5117. their influence is indirect and applicable to a category of rules, rather than expressiy tied to a single rule, consultation and review requirements interject new and possibly different perspectives and recommendations in the decision-making process by requiring review or consultation with units (i.e., other Federal agencies or congressional committees) outside the rule-issuing agency. The purpose or effect of such statutory requirements, in certain instances, is to retard the development or change the orientation of prospective rules emanating from a particular agency. The next section focuses on advance notification to the Congress, whereas this section concentrates on statutory consultation requirements among Federal agencies and between the Federal agency and State authorities. There appears to be a substantial and increasing number of both types of prior notification, consultation, and review provisions. Several illustrations of non-congressional review or consultation requirements follow. ( 1) Insecticide , Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( P.L. 94-140; 89 Stat. 751, 752). Sec. 2 of P.L. 94-140 amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Kodenticide Act, as amended, by providing procedural changes for both proposed and final rules promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Sixty days prior to signing proposed regulations and 30 days prior to signing final regulations under that authority, the Administrator/ EPA must provide copies to the Secretary of Agriculture. The S e c r e t a r y may comaent i n w r i t i n g w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d t i m e p e r i o d and t h o s e comments, a l o n g w i t h t h e r e s p o n s e o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r / ~ ~ A , a r e t o be p u b l i s h e d i n t h e F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r . S u p p o r t i n g t h i s c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n , t h e S e n a t e Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e and F o r e s t r y n o t e d t n e c o m p l e x i t y s u r r o u n d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s i n t n e f i e l d of p e s t i c i d e c o n t r o l and EPA's " u n e n v i a b l e p o s i t i o n of c h o o s i n g a c o u r s e t h a t must have t r a d e - o f f s between t h e c o n f l i c t i n g o b j e c t i v e s of e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n , and t h e economic a d v a n t a g e s t h a t pesticide uses afford." -11 I t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t "EPA h a s n o t always given adequate c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o a g r i c u l t u r e i n i t s decisions. . . Tnere i s c l e a r l y a need t o c o n s i d e r t h e i m p a c t o f E P A ' S d e c i s i o n s on a g r i c u l t u r e i f b a l a n c e i s t o b e a c h i e v e d . " (2) (P.L. -21 R a i l r o a d f i e v i t a l i z a t i o n and R e g u l a t o r y Reform Act o f 1976 94-210; 90 S t a t . 3 1 , 3 5 ) . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h i s s t a t u t e r e q u i r e d I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission ( K C ) c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e F e d e r a l T r a d e Commission (FTC) and t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g r u l e s t o d e t e r m i n e "market dominance" o v e r a s e r v i c e rendered a t a p a r t i c u l a r r a t e o r r a t e s . The c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t on t h e b i l l emphasized t h a t t h e new r u l e s were " i n t e n d e d t o i n a u g u r a t e 1/ U.S. Congress. S e n a t e . Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e and ~ o r e s t r ~ I. n s e c t i c i d e , F u n g i c i d e , and R o d e n t i c i d e A c t ; R e p o r t t o Accompany H.R. 8841. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1975. ( 9 4 t h Congress, 1 s t session. S e n a t e . R e p o r t n o . 94-452). p. 5 . -21 I b i d . , p. 9 . a new e r a o f c o m p e t i t i v e p r i c i n g , " 1/ and adopted t h e concept of "market dominance" a s a f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a r a t e i s lawful. Rather than allowing the I C C t o e s t a b l i s h appropriate s t a n d a r d s and procedures e x c l u s i v e 1y, sec . 202 r e q u i r e d t h a t : "The Commission s h a l l s o l i c i t and c o n s i d e r t h e r e c o r n e n d a t i o n s o f t h e A t t o r n e y General and of t h e F e d e r a l Trade Commission i n t h e c o u r s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g such r u l e s . " I n so doing, the provision incorporated F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s a l r e a d y i n t i m a t e l y involved i n t h e i s s u e of e f f e c t i v e competition. (3) 454-455). Highway S a f e t y Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-280; 90 S t a t . 425, T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d s e v e r a l t e c h n i q u e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n t r o l s over F e d e r a l r u l e s , i n c l u d i n g o v e r r i d i n g of a r u l e and funding r e s t r a i n t s . provided f o r F e d e r a l - S t a t e I n a d d i t i o n , s e c . 208(b) of P.L. 94-280 c o o p e r a t ion i n e v a l u a t i n g and recommending changes i n e x i s t i n g uniform s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s : "The S e c r e t a r y of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s h a l l , i n c o o p e r a t i o n with t h e S t a t e s , conduct an e v a l u a t i o n of t h e adequacy and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of a l l uniform s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d under s e c t i o n 402 of t i t l e 23 of t h e United S t a t e s Code which a r e i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e o f enactment shall report . . . [and] h i s f i n d i n g s , t o g e t h e r with h i s recommendations, 1/ U.S. Congress. Committee of Conference. Railroad R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and ~ G ~ u l a t Reform or~ Act; Report t o Accompany S. 2718. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1976. ( 9 4 t h Congress, 2d s e s s i o n . Senate. Report no. 94-595). p. 148. i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , t h e need f o r r e v i s i o n o r c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s t a n d a r d s and t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f new s t a n d a r d s , t o Congress . . ." A s w i t h t h e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s l i m i t i n g t h e Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n t h e A c t , s e c . 208(b) was added i n r e s p o n s e t o c o m p l a i n t s from S t a t e s o f o v e r l y r i g i d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and i n f l e x i b i l i t y r e g a r d i n g t h e s a f e t y - s t a n d a r d s promulgated by t h e N a t i o n a l Highway T r a f f i c S a f e t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 1/ T h i s s e c t i o n sought t o p r o v i d e d i r e c t S t a t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e e n s u i n g evaluation. I t d i d s o , i n c i d e n t a l l y , a t t h e same t i m e t h e S e c r e t a r y was p r o h i b i t e d from w i t h h o l d i n g f u n d s a p p o r t i o n e d t o any S t a t e f o r f a i l i n g t o implement a highway s a f e t y program approved by t h e S e c r e t a r y . (4) C o a s t a l Zone Management Act Amendments o f 1976 (P.L. 90 S t a t . 1013, 1 0 3 3 ) . 94-370; T h i s Act p r e v e n t e d t h e S e c r e t a r y o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and Welfare (HEW) from p r o m u l g a t i n g f i n a l s h e l l f i s h s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n s u n t i l June 3 0 , 1977, n e a r l y a y e a r h e n c e . t h a t m o r a t o r i u m was a c o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t : Accompanying A t l e a s t s i x t y days p r i o r t o t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n o f any such r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e Secretary/HEW, i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Commerce, s h a l l p u b l i s h a n a n a l y s i s o f ( 1 ) t h e economic impact o f s u c h r e g u l a t i o n s on t h e d o m e s t i c s h e l l f i s h i n d u s t r y , and ( 2 ) t h e c o s t o f s u c h n a t i o n a l s h e l l f i s h s a f e t y program r e l a t i v e t o t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t i t i s e x p e c t e d t o achieve. 1/ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on P u b l i c Works and Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1975; R e p o r t t o Accompany H.R. 8235. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . Off 1975. ( 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , 1st s e s s i o n . House. R e p o r t no. 94-716). rans sport at ion. ., This moratorium on HEW rulemaking and the attendant consultation requirement were designed to allow adequate time for the completion of a comprehensive review of all aspects of the molluscan shellfish industry and evaluation of the impact of Federal law concerning water quality on that industry, to be conducted by the Commerce Department. In consequence, projected Food and Drug Administration/HEW regulations, anticipated to affect adversely shellfish processors and watermen, would thereafter necessarily consider new data regarding their potential . impact /-I (5) Energy Conservation and Production Act (P.L. 90 Stat. 1125, 1128-1129). 94-385; This Act limited the enforcement authority of the Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA), as noted above. It also provided a requirement for hearings to be held in geographical areas affected by FEA rules and regulations. Where hearings were to be held and the effects of proposed rulemaking were - "localized," 21 that is, confined to a single state or political subdivision thereof, "the conference intended to assure that the Federal Energy Administration will take into consideration the particularized concerns and needs of the areas, governmental units or residents most substantially affected." 31 1/ For discussion of the moratotium and consultation provisions, see ~zn~ressional Record (daily ed.), v. 122, June 30, 1976: H7077-H7078. 21 U.S. Congress. Committee of Conference. Energy Conservation and yod duct ion Act; Report to Accompany H.R. 12169, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. (94th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-1392). p. 61. -31 Ibid. (6) Rail Transportation Improvement Act (P.L. 2613, 2630-2631). 94-555; 90 Stat. As identified in a previous section, this act of Oct. 19, 1976, contained a number of provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It also included in sec. 301 a required report incorporating prospective regulations and utilizing inter-agency consultation, regarding "the risk of outbreaks of disease or illnesses and any other adverse environmental effects resulting from the discharge of waste from railroad conveyances . . . and the financial and operating hardships on railroads or public authorities which would result from a prohibition of waste disposal." The report, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in consultation with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Secretary of Transportation, was to contain recommendations that any of the authorities consider "appropriate to balance possible dangers of disease or illness and environmental considerations with operating or financial considerations .. .I1 The required report was in recognition of concerns about unregulated waste disposal, then only recently exempted from Food and - Drug Administration (FDA)/HEW regulatory authority. 1/ Nonetheless, the consultation provision, attendant to that report and recommendation, assured that they would not be HEW products exclusively and that --------------- -1/ Sec. 705(e) of P.L. 94-210; 90 Stat. 124. considerations other than the " r i s k of outbreaks of disease o r i l l n e s s e s " would be i n c o r p o r a t e d - - i .e., f i n a n c i a l and o p e r a t i n g h a r d s h i p s , t h e p r i n c i p a l r e a s o n s f o r exempting w a s t e d i s p o s a l from FDA/HEW j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e e a r l i e r R a i l r o a d R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and Reform Act (P.L. (7) 94-210; 90 S t a t . 1 2 4 ) . Clean A i r Act Amendments o f 1977 (P.L. 95-95; 91 S t a t . S e c t i o n 120 o f t h e s e amendments t o t h e Clean A i r Act 685, 720-721). r e q u i r e d t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) t o c o n s u l t w i t h t h e N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r y Commission (NRC) r e g a r d i n g r a d i o a c t i v e p o l l u t a n t s t h a t were p l a c e d u n d e r t h e Act and EPA j u r i s d i c t i o n . was two-fold: That r e q u i r e m e n t ( 1 ) an EPA o b l i g a t i o n t o c o n s u l t w i t h NRC p r i o r t o " l i s t i n g any s o u r c e m a t e r i a l , s p e c i a l n u c l e a r , o r b y p r o d u c t m a t e r i a l .. a s an a i r p o l l u t a n t ; and ( 2 ) e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f "an i n t e r a g e n c y agreement w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h o s e s o u r c e s o r f a c i l i t i e s which a r e u n d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e C o m i s s i o n " r e g a r d i n g development, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and enforcement o f e m i s s i o n l i m i t a t i o n s , s t a n d a r d s , and o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s . S e c t i o n 120 a l s o extended beyond formal c o n s u l t a t i o n by p e r m i t t i n g NRC t o o v e r r i d e o r " d i s a p p r o v e any EPA, S t a t e o r l o c a l s t a n d a r d [ o r e m i s s i o n l i m i t a t i o n ] promulgated under t h e C l e a r A i r Act i f t h e Commission f i n d s . . . that t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f such s t a n d a r d would .'I endanger p u b l i c h e a l t h and s a f e t y . " -11 The p r e s i d e n t , however, may o v e r t u r n t h e NRC d i s a p p r o v a l w i t h i n 90 d a y s . (8) Emergency I n t e r i m Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t y S t a n d a r d s Act o f 1978 (P.L. - 95-319; 92 S t a t . 386, 389). This Act, e s t a b l i s h i n g a s t a t u t o r y i n t e r i m s a f e t y standard f o r the manufacture o f c e l l u l o s e i n s u l a t i o n , preempted Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t y Commission (CPSC) a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s regard. CPSC, which had f a i l e d " t o e x e r c i s e i t s a u t h o r i t y i n a time1 y manner the interim standard. ,I1 -2 / however, was empowered t o amend The Commission, which was t o r e l y upon a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g r e l e v a n t s t a n d a r d s d e v e l o p e d by t h e G e n e r a l S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r t h e amendment, would n o t be r e q u i r e d t o p r o m u l g a t e i t i f , a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Energy, CPSC d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e amendment was u n n e c e s s a r y o r i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n would c r e a t e an undue burden upon t h e i n d u s t r y . The r e p o r t i n g House Committee on I n t e r s t a t e and F o r e i g n Commerce r e q u i r e d s u c h c o n s u l t a t i o n , a g r e e d t o by t h e c o n f e r e n c e , " b e c a u s e t h e S e c r e t a r y may h a v e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e need f o r t h e amendment and t h e amendment's i m p a c t on --------------- the industry." 3/ 1/ U.S. C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Clean A i r Act ~ m e n d z e n t sof 1977; Report t o Accompany H.R. 6161. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n . House. Report n o . 95-564). I n C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record ( d a i l y e d . ) , v . 1 2 3 , Aug. 3 , 1977: H8547. 21 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on I n t e r s t a t e and F o r e i g n commerce. Emergency I n t e r i m Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t y Rule Act o f 1978; Report t o Accompany H.R. 11998. Washington, U.S. Govt P r i n t . O f f . , 1978. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 95-1116). p. 3 . . -31 Ibid., p. 8. E. ADVANCE OR PRIOR NOTICE PROVISIONS A second indirect statutory mechanism that might be used to constrain the promulgation of Federal agency rules is the advance or prior notice provision; i.e., a statutory requirement that an agency directly notify Congress or appropriate committees regarding proposed or final rules, usually within a specified time (e .g., 30 or 60 days) before the rules become effective. Many prior notification requirements are associated with subsequent legislative veto mechanisms, whereby a committee, a single Chamber, or Congress can disapprove the proposed rule. This section, however, considers only exclusive prior notice provisions in an attempt to delineate alternatives to legislative vetoes. Such a requirement, of course, does not permit direct rejection of a rule; but it does enable appropriate committees to be more readily aware of forthcoming regulations than would otherwise be 1/ the case. - In addition, since prior notification inc udes a lead- time, usually of thirty or sixty days commensurate with the public notice and comment provisions for the agency rules, the congressional committee has opportunity to scrutinize the proposal before its effective date, conduct hearings or authorize staff studies, and 1/ The Senate Study on Federal Regulation, p. 66, found that under-the present circumstances, "Very few committees or committee staff members systematically review the regulations issued by agencies under their jurisdiction. Issues of the Federal Register containing proposed agency rules are not regularly scrutinized." comment on the proposed rule. Moreover, such review authority, even though lacking the sanction of a legislative veto, may provide the necessary incentive for the informal negotiations between the regulatory agency and congressional committee that Harold Bruff and Ernest Gellhorn have described as "a highly efficient review technique:" The congressional procedures required to bring a legislative veto resolution to the floor of either house are cumbersome and time-consuming. It is therefore in the interest of both the agency and its congressional oversight committees to avoid resorting to these procedures by resolving policy issues informally. As the case studies show, informal negotiations with compromise on both sides is characteristic of the review process under a legislative veto provision. These negotiations are a highly efficient review technique in the sense that they resolve policy differences between the agency and the committees relatively quickly, and without destroying the coherence of the resulting rule as an item veto might. Indeed, it is when negotiations fail and the formal machinery is invoked that policy impasse threatens. I-/ Prior notice requirements, exclusive of those associated with legislative veto provisions, have been incorporated in at least fifteen pieces of legislation affecting Federal agency rulemaking from 1973 through 1978. 2/ 1/ Bruff and Gellhorn, Congressional Control of Administrative ~ e ~ u l ion, T t p. 1433. 2/ This listing is extracted from three Congressional Research serviTe inventories of legislative veto and advance notice provisions included in statutes during the past forty-five years: U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. (2-1' Continued ) (1) Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-203; 87 Stat. 839, 877). Sec. 602(a) of this Act required that rules, regulations, and guidelines proposed by the Secretary of Labor under this statute must be submitted to the appropriate committees of the Congress and also be published in the Federal Register at least thirty days before their effective date. (2) Air Transportation Security Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-366; 88 Stat. 409, 415). This Act, approved on August 5, 1974, in the aftermath of numerous incidents of air piracy, required that rules, regulations, and amendments thereto prescribed under Title I1 by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration--for the screening of passengers and property intended to be carried in air transportation--must be submitted to Congress at least thirty days in advance of their effective date, unless the Administrator determines that an emergency exists. If so, such regulations may take effect in less than thirty days and the Administrator must notify Congress of this determination. (3) Education Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-380; 88 Stat. 484, 567-568). This Act incorporated a number of complex legislative veto mechanisms and Sec. 509 included two exclusive prior notification obligations. The first prior notice provision required that whenever a concurrent resolution of disapproval is enacted by the Congress under the provisions of section 509, the agency which issued the disapproved standard, rule, regulation or requirement may thereafter issue a modified standard, rule, regulation, or requirement to govern the same or substantially identical circumstances, but shall, in publishing such modification in the Federal Register, submit it to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, indicating how the modification differs from the forerunner earlier disapproved, and how the agency believes the modification disposes of the findings by the Congress in the concurrent resolution of disapproval. (2/ Continued) Congressional Review, Deferral and Disapproval of ~GecutiveActions: A Summary and an Inventory of Statutory 1976-1977 Authority (by) Clark Norton. (washington) 1976; ----Congressional Acts Authorizing Prior Review, Approval or Disapproval of Proposed Executive Action (by) Clark Norton. (Washington) 1978; ----- 1978 Congressional Acts Authorizing Congressional Approval or Disapproval of Proposed Executive Actions (by) Clark Norton. (Washington) 1979. . . A second obligation of section 509 provided that not later than sixty days after the enactment of any part of an Act affecting the administrat ion of any applicable program, the Commissioner of Education shall submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (now the Committee on Human Resources) of the Senate a schedule with which the Commissioner has planned to promulgate rules, regulations, and guidelines implementing such Act or parts thereof. However, if the Commissioner finds that, due to circumstances unforeseen at the time of the submission of such schedule, he cannot comply with it, he shall notify those committees of that finding and submit a new schedule. The initial schedule submitted by the Commissioner would not require committee approval, although the modified new schedule would. (4) Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-135; 89 Stat. 713, 728-731). The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title I11 of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1975, provided a two-tiered approach for congressional review of proposed regulations. Sec. 304 required the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to publish proposed general regulations to implement a statutory provision prohibiting the exclusion of persons on the basis of age from participating in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, within one year after receipt of a report on the subject from the Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission report, including suggested general regulations, was to be transmitted to the Congress and to the President and copies provided to the head of each Federal department and agency with respect to which the Commission makes findings or recommendations. Sec. 307(e) provided that each such Federal department or agency, within 45 working days after receiving a copy of the report, submit its comments and recommendations regarding the report to the President and to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the House Committee on Education and Labor. During a subsequent 45-day period, any committee with jurisdiction over this subject matter may conduct hearings with respect to the Commission report and with respect to the department and agency comments and recommendations resulting therefrom. Following the 90-day period, the Secretary of HEW was to publish final general regulations, taking into considerat on any comments received with respect to the proposed regulations ( 5 ) Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (P.L. 94-140; 89 Stat. 751, 753). Under the general authority o f this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is required to submit copies of proposed regulations at least sixty days prior to signing and copies of final regulations at least thirty days prior to signing to the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, along with copies of both forms to the Secretary of Agriculture. ( 6 ) F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s A u t h o r i z a t i o n A c t , F i s c a l Year 1976 (P.L. 94-141; 89 S t a t . 756, 770-7711. The Act p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 406 t h a t : r e g u l a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e g o v e r n i n g t h e c a r r y i n g o f f i r e a r m s by d e s i g n a t e d s e c u r i t y o f f i c e r s f o r t h e purpose o f s p e c i f i e d p r o t e c t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , s h a l l be t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e S p e a k e r o f t h e House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and t h e S e n a t e Committee on F o r e i g n R e l a t i o n s n o t more t h a n t w e n t y d a y s b e f o r e t h e d a t e on which such r e g u l a t i o n s t a k e e f f e c t . ( 7 ) E d u c a t i o n f o r A l l Handicapped C h i l d r e n Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142; 89 S t a t . 773, 794). T h i s Act amended t h e " E d u c a t i o n S e c t i o n 5 ( a ) p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e Commissioner o f t h e Handicapped Act .I' of E d u c a t i o n p r e s c r i b e w i t h i n one y e a r c e r t a i n r e g u l a t i o n s a f f e c t i n g m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o p a r t i c u l a r l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s and t h a t s u c h proposed r e g u l a t i o n s be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e House Commit t e e on E d u c a t i o n and Labor and t h e S e n a t e Committee on Labor and P u b l i c W e l f a r e , " f o r r e v i e w and comment b y e a c h such c o m m i t t e e , a t l e a s t f i f t e e n d a y s b e f o r e such r e g u l a t i o n i s published i n t h e Federal Register." ( 8 ) Energy P o l i c y and C o n s e r v a t i o n Act (P.L. 94-163; 89 S t a t . 871, 8 9 4 ) . One e x c l u s i v e p r i o r n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s A c t , which i n c o r p o r a t e d numerous l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o r e q u i r e m e n t s . S e c t i o n 251 r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e P r e s i d e n t d e v e l o p r u l e s r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n U.S. o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e n e r g y program b u t t h a t n o s u c h r u l e may t a k e e f f e c t u n l e s s t h e P r e s i d e n t h a s t r a n s m i t t e d such r u l e t o t h e C o n g r e s s ; h a s found t h a t p u t t i n g s u c h r u l e i n t o e f f e c t i s r e q u i r e d t o f u l f i l l U.S. o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e n e r g y program; and h a s t r a n s m i t t e d s u c h f i n d i n g t o t h e Congress, t o g e t h e r with a statement of t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e and manner f o r e x e r c i s e o f such r u l e . Moreover, such a r u l e t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e P r e s i d e n t may n o t b e p u t i n t o e f f e c t o r remain i n e f f e c t a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f 12 months a f t e r t h e d a t e such r u l e was t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e C o n g r e s s . ( 9 ) R a i l r o a d R e v i t a l i z a t i o n and R e g u l a t o r y Reform Act o f 1976 (P.L. 94-210; 9 0 S t a t . 31, 3 9 ) . Among o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s f o r s t a t u t o r y c o n t r o l o f a g e n c y r u l e s , t h i s Act i n c l u d e d a p r o v i s i o n f o r a r e p o r t t o t h e C o n g r e s s b a s e d on s t u d i e s r e q u i r e d o f t h e I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Commission (ICC) and t h e S e c r e t a r y o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Sec 2 0 2 ( g ) p r o v i d e d f o r s e p a r a t e s t u d i e s by b o t h e n t i t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t o f r a i l r o a d r a t e m a k i n g amendments on t h e development o f an e f f i c i e n t and f i n a n c i a l l y s t a b l e r a i l w a y system. Such s t u d i e s would i n c l u d e " p r o p o s a l s f o r f u r t h e r r e g u l a t o r y and l e g i s l a t i v e c h a n g e s , i f necessary," thereby ensuring p r i o r n o t i c e f o r prospective o r p o s s i b l e r e g u l a t o r y c h a n g e s under t h i s t i t l e . . ( 1 0 ) Consumer Product S a f e t y Commission Improvements Act o f 1976 (P.L. 94-284; 90 S t a t . 503, 509). S e c t i o n 14 o f t h e Act r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e Commission t r a n s m i t t o t h e Senate Committee on Commerce, and t o t h e House Committee on I n t e r s t a t e and Foreign Commerce each proposed consumer product s a f e t y r u l e under t h e Consumer Product S a f e t y A c t , and each proposed r e g u l a t i o n under s e c t i o n 2 and 3 of t h e F e d e r a l Hazardous Substances Act, with c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g imminent h a z a r d s , under s e c t i o n 3 of t h e Poison P r e v e n t i o n Packaging Act o f 1970, o r under s e c t i o n 4 of t h e Flammable F a b r i c s Act. Furthermore, no consumer product s a f e t y r u l e and no such r e g u l a t i o n may be adopted by t h e Commission b e f o r e t h e t h i r t i e t h day a f t e r t h e proposed r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n i s t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e committees. (11) S a c c h a r i n Study and Labeling Act (P.L. 95-203; 91 S t a t . 1451, 1452-1453). This Act provided f o r s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e banning of t h e s a l e o f s a c c h a r i n p r o d u c t s by t h e S e c r e t a r y of H e a l t h , Education and Welfare (HEW) and f o r t h e e x p r e s s language t o be used on l a b e l s of p r o d u c t s which i n c l u d e s a c c h a r i n . Any e x c e p t i o n s t o such s t a t u t o r y language must be based on new i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d by t h e S e c r e t a r y of HEW. S e c t i o n 2 ( c ) ( l ) r e q u i r e d t h e S e c r e t a r y , based on mandated s t u d i e s , t o r e p o r t w i t h i n 12 months t o t h e Senate Committee on Human Resources and t h e House Committee on I n t e r s t a t e and Foreign Commerce on "any a c t i o n proposed t o be taken on t h e b a s i s of t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e study." Presumably, such a c t i o n might i n c l u d e a proposal t o ban such p r o d u c t s w i t h i n t h e 18-month p e r i o d based on new i n f o r m a t i o n , a s p e r m i t t e d under s e c . 3. S e c t i o n 4 ( a ) ( l ) , which s p e c i f i e d mandatory l a b e l warning language, p e r m i t t e d t h e S e c r e t a r y , on t h e b a s i s o f label new i n f o r m a t i o n , t o review, r e v i s e , o r remove such wa-in r e q u i r e m e n t s . S e c t i o n 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) , however, r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y r e p o r t any such a c t i o n t o t h e same committees i d e n t i f i e d above. ( 1 2 ) Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978 (P.L. 95-557; 92 S t a t . 2080, 2103). S e p a r a t e from a l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o p r o v i s i o n , s e c . 324 of P.L. 95-557 c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l p r i o r n o t i c e provisions. The S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Department of Housing and Urban Development (HuD) i s i n s t r u c t e d t o t r a n s m i t an agenda o f a l l r u l e s o r r e g u l a t i o n s which a r e under development o r review by HUD t o t h e Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban A f f a i r s and t o t h e House Committee on Banking, F i n a n c e , and Urban A f f a i r s , w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r t h i s enactment and seminannually t h e r e a f t e r . Any such r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n may n o t be published f o r comment p r i o r t o o r d u r i n g a p e r i o d of 15 c a l e n d a r days o f c o n t i n u o u s s e s s i o n of Congress, following t r a n s m i t t a l . I f e i t h e r committee i n t e n d s t o review a p a r t i c u l a r r u l e which a p p e a r s on t h e agenda, t h e Secretary/HUD s h a l l submit t o both committees a copy of any such r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n i n t h e proposed form a t l e a s t 15 c a l e n d a r d a y s of c o n t i n u o u s s e s s i o n p r i o r t o i t s being published F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r f o r comment. Any r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n which had n o t been p u b l i s h e d f o r comment b e f o r e t h e d a t e o f e n a c t m e n t o f t h i s s t a t u t e and which i s n o t i n c l u d e d on a n y s u b s e q u e n t agenda s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o b o t h c o m m i t t e e s a t l e a s t 15 c a l e n d a r d a y s o f c o n t i n u o u s s e s s i o n o f Congress p r i o r t o b e i n g p u b l i s h e d f o r comment. No r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n may become e f f e c t i v e u n t i l a f t e r t h e f i r s t p e r i o d of 20 c a l e n d a r d a y s o f c o n t i n u o u s s e s s i o n a f t e r I f d u r i n g t h a t 20p u b l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n a s f i n a l . d a y p e r i o d , e i t h e r committee h a s r e p o r t e d o u t a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n o f d i s a p p r o v a l o r o t h e r l e g i s l a t i o n which i s i n t e n d e d t o modify o r invalidate the r u l e o r regulation, the r u l e o r regulation s h a l l not become e f f e c t i v e f o r a p e r i o d of 90 c a l e n d a r d a y s from t h e d a t e o f committee a c t i o n , u n l e s s t h e House t o which s u c h committee h a s r e p o r t e d h a s r e j e c t e d such r e s o l u t i o n o r l e g i s l a t i o n . he e f f e c t o f s u c h a p r o v i s i o n f o r committee r e p o r t i n g i s t o d e f e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n , not t o disapprove i t . The l a t t e r c o u l d b e accomplished o n l y b y f u r t h e r c o n g r e s s i o n a l a c t i o n - a j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n o r l e g i s l a t i o n , b o t h o f which r e q u i r e a Presidential signature.) ( 1 3 ) N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r y Commission A u t h o r i z a t i o n Act f o r FY 1979 (P.L. 95-601; 92 S t a t . 2947, 2 9 4 8 ) . The N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r y Commission ( M C ) i s p r o h i b i t e d from s p e n d i n g an amount o f $500,000 o r more i n e x c e s s o f t h e e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d amounts o r r e d u c i n g t h a t amount b y more t h a n $500,000 f o r c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g r e g u l a t o r y and p o s s i b l e r u l e m a k i n g a c t i v i t i e s , u n l e s s t h e NRC g i v e s n o t i c e o f t h e proposed a c t i o n t o t h r e e c o n g r e s s i o n a l committees--the House Committees on I n t e r s t a t e and F o r e i g n Commerce and on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s and t h e S e n a t e Committee on Environment and P u b l i c W o r k s - - t h i r t y d a y s i n advance o r u n l e s s t h e t h r e e c o m m i t t e e s p r o v i d e w r i t t e n n o t i c e t h a t t h e y have no o b j e c t i o n d u r i n g t h a t t h i r t y - d a y period. ( 1 4 ) ~ e h a b i l i t a t i o n , Comprehensive S e r v i c e s and Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Amendments o f 1978 (P.L. 95-602; 92 S t a t . 2955, 2982). S e c t i o n 119 o f t h i s Act p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e head o f any E x e c u t i v e a g e n c y o r t h e U.S. P o s t a l S e r v i c e i s t o p r o m u l g a t e r e g u l a t i o n s t o c a r r y o u t t h e amendments made by t h e Act t o s e c t i o n 504 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973. Such r e g u l a t i o n s may n o t t a k e e f f e c t , however, e a r l i e r t h a n t h e 3 0 t h d a y a f t e r t h e d a t e on which t h e y a r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i z i n g committees o f t h e Congress. ( 1 5 ) Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t y A c t , Amendment ( P . L . 95-631; 92 S t a t . 3742, 3 7 4 9 ) . T h i s amendment c o n t a i n e d a r e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n f o r t h e Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t y Commission (CPSC): t o s t u d y a l l o f i t s e f f e c t i v e r u l e s d u r i n g an 18-month p e r i o d , a f t e r which t h e Chairman/ CPSC s h a l l r e p o r t t o t h e Congress recommending any r u l e d e l e t i o n s o r c h a n g e s . During t h a t 18-month p e r i o d , t h e Commission s h a l l n o t i f y t h e House and S e n a t e o f a n y p r o p o s a l s t o d e l e t e any r u l e o r p o r t i o n t h e r e o f a t t h e time such a proposal i s published i n t h e Federal R e g i s t e r . 111. NONSTATUTOKY TECHNIQUES : COMMITTEE REPORTS As noted in the introduction, nonstatutory techniques of control over agency rules range from committee hearings and investigations to floor statements and direct contact by individual Members. Such devices have generated a substantial volume of directives, recommendations, opinions, and assertions regarding specific agency rules, their application and enforcement. Yet none of them, even authoritative committee reports accompanying legislation, are in themselves legally binding on the rules or on the agencies which promulgate or enforce them. Moreover, as the Senate Study on Federal Regulation discovered, as "hard as it is to precisely measure [nonstatutory] oversight activity, it is even more difficult to gauge the impact of that effort." 1/ Nevertheless, congressional committee reports accompanying proposed legislation are one nonstatutory vehicle that has been cited as an important influence on bureaucratic action: Reports on proposed legislation submitted by authorizing, appropriating and conference committees frequently contain language setting forth the intent, expectations and even the commands of the Congress with respect to the implementation of laws. These range in degree all the way from simple urgings on 1/ Senate Study on Federal Regulation, p. 82. The report further surmised: "Even when an agency changes a policy subsequent to congressional prodding, that change may not always be directly attributed to congressional action. Agency administrators are often reluctant to view their policy changes as a result of congressional pressure." Ibid. See ibid., pp. 81-92, for an examination of the "impact of oversight by legislative committees" in the regulatory arena. the one hand to outright mandates on the other and usually include such phrases as "the committee wishes," "the committee intends," "the committee expects," and "the committee believes." While none of these have any legally binding effect unless they are merely repetitive of the law itself, close attention is paid to them by both the executive and judicial branches when questions arise about the exact meaning or application of a particular statute. 11 - That perception is corroborated by Associate Justice Jackson, whose opinion in Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Corporation emphasized the significance of committee report language and the underlying rationale of employing such reports, vis-a-vis floor statements: [The Court's] resort to legislative history is only justified where the face of the Act is inescapably ambiguous, and then I think we should not go beyond Committee reports, which presumably are well considered and carefully prepared [To] select casual statement from floor debates, not always distinguished for candor or accuracy, as a basis for making up our minds what law Congress intended to enact is to substitute ourselves for the Congress in one of its important functions .... .... -2/ The Senate Study on Federal Regulation elaborated on the substance of reports, identifying language in recent Senate and House Appropriations Committee reports that directed, urged, or recommended regulatory agency action. A/ This section provides other illustrations of similar 1/ U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. ~ u b c o s i t t e eon Oversight Procedures. Congressional Oversight : Methods and Techniques (prepared by the Congressional Research service), Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. p. 62. -2/ 341 U.S. 384, 395-396. -3/ Senate Study on Federal Regulation, p. 38-41. r e p o r t l a n g u a g e , where p a r t i c u l a r r u l e s o r t h e i r e n f o r c e m e n t was q u e s t ioned (1) . H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and Welfare (HEW) A p p r o p r i a t i o n s , FY 1974. The S e n a t e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Committee r e p o r t on HEW a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r FY 1974 c o n t a i n e d a r e s p o n s e t o " d e e p l y d i s t u r b i n g r e p o r t s t h a t F e d e r a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g f u n d s were a l l e g e d l y used t o a r r a n g e f o r i n v o l u n t a r y sterilization." -1/ As a r e s u l t o f such a l l e g a t i o n s , t h e secretary/^^^ promul.gated new r u l e s , r e q u i r i n g w r i t t e n c o n s e n t from a l l c a n d i d a t e s f o r v o l u n t a r y s t e r i l i z a t i o n , and a p p r o v a l by a l o c a l r e v i e w committee and i n c o u r t f o r p e r s o n s l e g a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f g i v i n g c o n s e n t . r e p o r t concluded : The "The Committee u r g e s t h a t t h e new r e g u l a t i o n s b e implemented a s e x p e d i t i o u s l y a s p o s s i b l e , and t h a t t h e Department redouble i t s e f f o r t s t o i n s u r e enforcement s o t h a t i n c i d e n t s o f i n v o l u n t a r y s t e r i l i z a t i o n w i l l n o t be repeated.'' (2) -2 / O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (OSHA) A p p r o p r i a t i o n s , FY 1974. The House Committee on A p p r o p r i a t i o n s r e p o r t on 1974 OSHA a p p r o p r i a t i o n s i n c l u d e d two c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y and h e a l t h programs, The f i r s t was an u r g i n g t h a t t h e Department o f Labor, OSHA's p a r e n t a g e n c y , "should make e v e r y e f f o r t t o approve a s many S t a t e program p l a n s a s p o s s i b l e i n f i s c a l 1 / U.S. Congress. S e n a t e . Committee on A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . ~e~artmeno t sf Labor, and H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e , and R e l a t e d Agencies A p p r o p r i a t i o n B i l l , 1974; Report t o Accompany H.R. 8877. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . , 1973. (93d Congress, 1st s e s s i o n . S e n a t e . Report no. 93-414). p. 7. 2/ - Ibid. CRS-6 8 y e a r 1974. The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e s h o u l d b e t o a l l o w t h e S t a t e s t o assume a s much a s p o s s i b l e o f " t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l s a f e t y and h e a l t h responsibilities . . . so t h a t i t w i l l n o t b e n e c e s s a r y t o b u i l d up a huge f o r c e o f F e d e r a l i n s p e c t o r s . " 1/ I n a d d i t i o n t o e m p h a s i z i n g t h e Committee's p r i o r i t y f o r S t a t e vis-a-vis F e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t where f e a s i b l e , t h e r e p o r t added a c r i t i c i s m o f t h e OSHA r e g u l a t o r y e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t s a c c u s e d o f " h a r r a s s m e n t ... [ b y ] o p e r a t o r s o f s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s and a g r i c u l t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e s . " 2/ Reminding OSHA o f a t t e m p t s t o e x t e n d exemptions from i t s r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y and proposed amendments t h a t "would have t h e e f f e c t o f weakening t h e p r o v i s i o n s " o f t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h A c t , " [ t l h e committee u r g e [ d ] t h e Department t o make e v e r y e f f o r t t o i n s u r e t h a t compliance o f f i c e r s . . . a r e equipped with a s u f f i c i e n t d e g r e e o f e x p e r t i s e and competence i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t s which t h e y a r e u n d e r t a k i n g t o i n s p e c t . " 21 Notwithstanding such c a u t i o n s , OSHA c o n t i n u e d t o r e c e i v e s i m i l a r c r i t i c i s m s ; and Congress found i t a p p r o p r i a t e i n 1976 t o exempt a g r i c u l t u r a l o p e r a t i o n s employing t e n o r fewer employees from OSHA's j u r i s d i c t i o n and t o 4/ p r o h i b i t i t s expenditures f o r t h e assessment o f c e r t a i n c i v i l p e n a l t i e s . - 1/ U.S. C o n g r e s s . House. Committee on A p p r o p r i a t i o n s . ~ e ~ a r t r n e n tosf L a b o r , and H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e , and R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s A p p r o p r i a t i o n B i l l , 1974; Report t o Accompany H.R. 8877. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1973. (93d C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n . House. Report n o . 93-305). p. 7. -2 1 Ibid. -3/ Ibid. 41 - P.L. 94-439; 90 S t a t . 1421. (3) H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e CHEW)A p p r o p r i a t i o n s , FY 1975. The C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t on H.R. 15580 i n t h e 93d C o n g r e s s i n c l u d e d d i r e c t i v e s t o t h e O f f i c e o f Secretary/HEw r e g a r d i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t i t l e X I o f t h e E d u c a t i o n Amendments of 1 9 7 2 , p r o h i b i t i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f s e x i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s receiving Federal assistance: The c o n f e r e e s h a v e r e c e i v e d r e p o r t s t h a t t h e Department o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e i s i n t e r p r e t i n g the provisions of T i t l e I X of t h e E d u c a t i o n Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-3181, which p r o h i b i t s sex d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n , i n such a manner a s t o a p p l y t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s t o s u c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s a s Boy S c o u t s , G i r l S c o u t s , Campfire G i r l s , Boys Club, G i r l s Club, YMCA, YWCA, s o r o r i t i e s , f r a t e r n i t i e s and s i m i l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The c o n f e r e e s a r e a g r e e d t h a t t h i s i s an improper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w and d i r e c t t h a t none o f t h e f u n d s a p p r o p r i a t e d i n t h i s b i l l a r e t o be used t o e n f o r c e t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f T i t l e I X with r e s p e c t t o such o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The c o n f e r e e s a l s o a r e a g r e e d t h a t none o f t h e funds appropriated i n t h i s b i l l a r e t o be used t o e n f o r c e t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s by s e x . 1/ However, HEW a p p l i e d r e g u l a t i o n s under t i t l e I X t o t h e o r g a n i z a i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e committee r e p o r t , c o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n f e r e e s ' d i r e c t i v e and i n e v i d e n t d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h a t would c o n s t i t u t e "an improper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e law." -2/ 1 / U.S. C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . C o n f e r e n c e R e p o r t t o ~ c c o m ~ aH.R. n ~ 15580. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1974. (93d C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 93-1489). p. 17. -2 / Ibid. N o n e t h e l e s s , w i t h i n s i x weeks o f t h e C o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t , i s s u e d on Nov. 21, 1974, C o n g r e s s had approved o t h e r l e g i s l a t i o n n e g a t i n g H E W ' S a c t i o n by a d o p t i n g an amendment t o t h e j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g a White House C o n f e r e n c e on L i b r a r y and I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s , P.L. 93-567, s i g n e d i n t o law on Dec. 31, 1974. 1/ Although t h e HEW a p p r o p r i a t i o n s c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t p e r s e d i d n o t e f f e c t a change i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e HEW r e g u l a t i o n s d i r e c t l y , i t was t h e f i r s t documented c o n g r e s s i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e c o n c e r n and t h e o n l y c o m m i t t e e r e p o r t on t h e i s s u e t h a t e v e n t u a t e d i n s t a t u t o r y e x e m p t i o n s t o HEW r e g u l a t o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n . The c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t d i r e c t i v e a g a i n s t t h e u s e o f f u n d s t o e n f o r c e t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s by s e x had a p p a r e n t l y minimal i m p a c t , s i n c e t h e p e r t i n e n t r e g u l a t i o n s , proposed J u n e 20, 1974, d i d n o t become e f f e c t i v e u n t i l J u l y 21, 1975, a f t e r t h e end o f t h e f i s c a l y e a r ( i . e . , report applied. FY 1975) t o which t h e During c a l e n d a r y e a r 1975, two d i f f e r e n t l e g i s l a t i v e 1/ S e c . 3 of P.L. 93-567 ( 8 8 S t a t . 1862) was added a s a f l o o r amendGent i n t h e S e n a t e on Dec. 1 6 , 1 9 7 4 , t o S.J. Res. 4 0 , a f t e r t h e b i l l had a l r e a d y been p r e v i o u s l y c l e a r e d f o r c o n f e r e n c e . In s p o n s o r i n g t h e amendment, S e n a t o r Bayh n o t e d t h a t S e n a t e R e s o l u t i o n 40 "was t h e o n l y b i l l a v a i l a b l e a t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e s e s s i o n t o which my amendment c o u l d be o f f e r e d . " Bayh, B i r c h . White House C o n f e r e n c e on L i b r a r y and I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e s . Remarks i n S e n a t e . C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , v . 1 2 0 , Dec. 1 6 , 1974: 39994. The HEW A p p r o p r i a i t o n s b i l l t o which t h e above c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t a p p l i e d , H.R. 15580, approved by t h e C o n g r e s s Nov. 2 6 , 1 9 7 4 , became p u b l i c l a w , P.L. 93-517, on Dec. 7, 1974, and was u n a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e amendment. I n a d d i t i o n , a p p r o p r i a t i o n s l i m i t s on HEW r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t y would n o t have had t h e permanent e f f e c t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , P.L. 93-567, h a d . actions--the legislative veto 21--were appropriations - -11 and amendment t o t h e 1976 HEW t a k e n a g a i n s t such r e g u l a t i o n s b u t n e i t h e r succeeded. (4) Energy C o n s e r v a t i o n and P r o d u c t i o n Act o f 1976. The House I n t e r s t a t e and F o r e i g n Commerce Committee i n c l u d e d i n i t s r e p o r t on t h e proposed Energy C o n s e r v a t i o n Act o f 1976 t h e o v e r s i g h t f i n d i n g s and recommendations c u l l e d from a r e p o r t o f i t s Subcommittee on - O v e r s i g h t and I n v e s t i g a t i o n s . 31 That r e p o r t l i s t e d a number o f c r i t i c i s m s o f t h e F e d e r a l Energy O f f i c e (FEO) and t h e Commerce Department rulemaking a c t i v i t y , i n c l u d i n g : There was a s e r i o u s l a c k o f c o o r d i n a t i o n between FEO and Commerce a s t o what p o l i c y s h o u l d be followed and what r e g u l a t i o n s s h o u l d b e d e v i s e d t o c a r r y o u t t h e i n t e n t o f Congress i n e n a c t i n g t h e Emergency P e t r o l e u m A l l o c a t i o n Act [EPAA]. Commerce d i d n o t i n d e p e n d e n t 1 y r e f o r m i t s d e f i c i e n t export control regulations but only a c t e d when prodded by FEO, which may have been r e a c t i n g t o industry complaints. 1 1 Under a u t h o r i t y o f P.L. 93-380, c o n c u r r e n t r e s o l u t i o n s o f d i s a p ~ r o v a l - - S . ~ o n . Res. 46, H.Con. Res. 310, and H.Con. Res. 330-were i n t r o d u c e d b u t none were v o t e d upon i n t h e 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s . 2 1 An amendment t o H.R. 5901 i n t h e 9 4 t h Congress was approved by t h e House, b a r r i n g such r e g u l a t i o n s , among o t h e r s . However, S e n a t e o p p o s i t i o n d e l e t e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s from t h e b i l l a s i t came from c o n f e r e n c e and t h e House, r e c o n s i d e r i n g e a r l i e r a c t i o n , a l s o v o t e d t o d e l e t e t h e amendment. C o n g r e s s i o n a l Record, v . 1 2 1 , J u l y 1 7 , 1975: 23343; and J u l y 18, 1975: 23510. 3 1 U.S. C o n g r e s s . House. Committee on I n t e r s t a t e and F o r e i g n commerce. Energy C o n s e r v a t i o n and P r o d u c t i o n Act ; R e p o r t t o Accompany H.R. 12169. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1976. ( 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report no. 94-1113). p . 17-18. R e g u l a t i o n s r e f l e c t i n g t h e mandate of EPA were n o t i s s u e d u n t i l A p r i l 1 8 , 1974, 4 months a f t e r t h e d a t e r e q u i r e d by t h e Act and a f t e r 4 e x p o r t l i c e n s e s had been granted r e s u l t i n g i n a w i n d f a l l o f a b o u t $8 m i l l i o n t o t h e e x p o r t e r and h i g h e r p r i c e s t o American consumers. A/ (5) C l e a n Water Act o f 1977. The S e n a t e Environment and P u b l i c Works Committee i n i t s r e p o r t on t h e then-proposed 1977, which became P u b l i c Law 95-217, Clean Water Act o f i s s u e d a rebuke t o t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) and i t s r e g u l a t i o n of t h e r m a l e f f l u e n t s , u n d e r t h e F e d e r a l Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). -2 / The Committee found t h a t under EPA's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and r e g u l a t o r y i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s e c . 316 o f P.L. 92-500, "(h)eat h a s t h u s become a n u n r e g u l a t e d p o l l u t a n t , c l e a r l y n o t t h e i n t e n t o f t h e Congress. The C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e r e be a v e r y l i m i t e d waiver f o r [ c e r t a i n ] major s o u r c e s o f thermal e f f l u e n t s ... l i m i t e d exemption h a s been t u r n e d i n t o a g a p i n g loophole." That 3/ EPA's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e c t i o n ; t h e p r o c e s s i t e s t a b l i s h e d t o g r a n t w a i v e r s ; and i t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e 1972 Act was p r e e m p t i v e , p r e c l u d i n g more s t r i n g e n t S t a t e w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s , r e c e i v e d h a r s h c r i t i c i s m i n t h e Committee r e p o r t : -1/ Ibid. 2/ U.S. Congress. S e n a t e . Committee on Environment and P u b l i c C l e a n Water Act of 1 9 7 7 ; R e p o r t t o Accompany S. 1952. works: Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . Off., 1977. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t s e s s i o n . Senate. R e p o r t no. 95-370). p. 7-8. -3/ Ibid., p. 8. The cumbersome p r o c e s s which t h e Agency i n i t i a t e d r e s u l t e d i n p a r t i n a d e c i s i o n t o avoid any a p p l i c a t i o n of 1977 r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r steam e l e c t r i c p o w e r p l a n t s . There i s n o Agency b a s i s f o r t h a t d e c i s i o n i n t h e law....The a l s o concluded t h a t t h e 1972 a c t was p r e e m p t i v e with r e s p e c t t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f S t a t e water q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s and e f f l u e n t l i m i t s f o r h e a t . T h i s i s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r which t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n c e i n l a w and which i s w h o l l y c o n t r a r y t o t h e committee's long held view t h a t t h e S t a t e s a r e f r e e t o e s t a b l i s h any more s t r i c t standards o r effluent limitations, a s s p e c i f i c i a l l y s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 510 o f t h e act. Even w i t h o u t t h e S t a t e w a t e r q u a l i t y standards/ef fluent l i m i t s question the delays i n s e c t i o n 316(A) would be u n f o r t u n a t e and i n d e f e n s i b l e . 1/ - As a consequence o f t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e Committee propounded two e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g f u t u r e EPA r u l e m a k i n g and r u l e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n activity i n t h i s area: The committee d o e s n o t e x p e c t , however, t h a t t h e Agency w i l l now impose any a d d i t i o n a l 1977 r e q u i r e m e n t o t h e r than S t a t e water q u a l i t y standards...The committee e x p e c t s t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r t o e s t a b l i s h an e x p e d i t i o u s p r o c e s s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r e x c e p t i o n s , and t o proceed s w i f t 1y t o e n f o r c e e f f l u e n t l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o p o l l u t a n t s f o r which t h e r e a r e no w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s o r which would c l e a r l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h a t t a i n m e n t and m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h a t w a t e r q u a l i t y which a s s u r e s t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p u b l i c w a t e r s u p p l i e s and t h e p r o t e c t i o n and p r o p a g a t i o n o f a b a l a n c e d , i n d i g e n o u s p o p u l a t i o n o f f i s h , s h e l l f i s h , and w i l d l i f e , and a l l o w s r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , i n and on t h e w a t e r . Only i n t h i s way can t h e s e w a i v e r s be u s e f u l , b o t h t o t h e s o u r c e which n e e d s t o know a s e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e what w i l l be r e q u i r e d and t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t which w i l l b e n e f i t from r e d u c t i o n o f d i s c h a r g e s o f pollutants. 2/ -1/ Ibid. -2 / Ibid. O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r FY 1979. House and S e n a t e c o n f e r e e s , i n t h e i r r e p o r t on O c c u p a t i o n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (OSHA) a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r FY 1 9 7 9 , urged OSHA " t o p l a c e p r i m a r y e m p h a s i s o f e n f o r c e m e n t e f f o r t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o m i g r a n t l a b o r camps on o p e r a t i o n s w i t h 10 o r more employees." The a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c t i t s e l f , P.L. 95-480, L/ exempted farms w i t h 10 o r f e w e r employees from OSHA j u r i s d i c t i o n u n l e s s t h e y m a i n t a i n e d a " t e m p o r a r y l a b o r camp," t h e r e b y p e r m i t t i n g i n s p e c t i o n o f any farm w i t h a m i g r a n t worker camp, r e g a r d l e s s o f s i z e . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e c o n f e r e n c e r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i v e and r e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with such i n s p e c t i o n : The S e c r e t a r y i s d i r e c t e d t o r e p o r t t o b o t h House and S e n a t e A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Commit t e e s on m i g r a n t l a b o r camp i n s p e c t i o n e x p e r i e n c e and r e s u l t s , i n c l u d i n g : number o f employees a f f e c t e d b y i n s p e c t i o n s ; s i z e c a t e g o r i e s o f e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i n s p e c t e d : and t h e a c t u a l number, t y p e and s e v e r i t y o f v i o l a t i o n s found i n l a r g e and s m a l l camps. R e p o r t s s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d w i t h t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1980 b u d g e t and a t t h e 21 end of f i s c a l y e a r 1979. - 1/ U . S . C o n g r e s s . Committee o f C o n f e r e n c e . Making A p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r tKe D e p a r t m e n t s o f L a b o r , and H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n , and W e l f a r e , and R e l a t e d A g e n c i e s ; Report t o Accompany H.R. 12929. Washington, U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . , 1978. ( 9 5 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n . House. Report n o . 95-1746). p. 10. -2 / Ibid. IV. CONCLUSION Congress h a s a v a i l a b l e and h a s adopted a t l e a s t f i v e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e t y p e s o f s t a t u t o r y mechanisms, o t h e r t h a n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o , t o o v e r t u r n o r preempt F e d e r a l agency r u l e s , t o l i m i t t h e i r impact, o r t o prevent o r h i n d e r t h e i r promulgation. These s t a t u t o r y i n s t r u m e n t s - - d i r e c t override o r preemption of r u l e s , m o d i f i c a t i o n of agency j u r i s d i c t i o n , a u t h o r i z a t i o n and a p p r o p r i a t i o n 1i m i t a t i o n s , extra-agenc y p r i o r c o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , and advance n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e Congress--vary i n terms of t h e i r u s e and impact. Provisions t h a t modify agency j u r i s d i c t i o n appear t o be t h e most f r e q u e n t l y used d e v i c e i n t h e r e c e n t p a s t , w h i l e d i r e c t o v e r r i d e s of r u l e s and a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n l i m i t a t i o n s a r e t h e l e a s t used, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y survey. Consultation o r p r i o r review r e q u i r e m e n t s a f f e c t i n g rulemaking a g e n c i e s , e s p e c i a l l y advance n o t i c e t o c o n g r e s s i o n a l committees, have become r e l a t i v e l y p r e v a l e n t i n comparison t o o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s . However, such c o n s u l t a t i o n o r review p r o v i s i o n s have o n l y i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e , whereas t h e o t h e r t y p e s of s t a t u t o r y a c t i o n have a d i r e c t e f f e c t on r u l e s o r t h e i r promulgation. Moreover, t h e scope, s p e c i f i c i t y , and permanency of t h e impact of t h e d i f f e r e n t mechanisms a l s o f l u c t u a t e . For i n s t a n c e , t h e t e c h n i q u e of a l t e r i n g agency j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s o f t e n been used t o a f f e c t a s e r i e s of i n t e r r e l a t e d r u l e s , whereas funding l i m i t a t i o n s have been r e s e r v e d f o r narrow, single-purpose r e s t r i c t i o n s , which, i n c i d e n t a l l y , a r e e f f e c t i v e f o r o n l y t h e t e r m o f t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n , u s u a l l y one f i s c a l y e a r . S t a t u t o r y p r e e m p t i o n and d i r e c t o v e r t u r n o f r u l e s , p e r m a n e n t l y o v e r r i d i n g them, h a v e been a p p l i e d t o s p e c i f i c r u l e s i n c o n t r a s t t o p r i o r c o n s u l t a t i o n o r review provisions, which a r e g e n e r i c : i.e., a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l r u l e s promulgated under a s t a t u t e o r program a u t h o r i t y . Although t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e and v a r i e d n o n s t a t u t o r y mechanisms f o r c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n f l u e n c e o v e r r u l e s and r u l e m a k i n g , t h i s r e p o r t c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t a i l o n l y t h e o n e which i s u s u a l l y most i m p o r t a n t t o t h e f i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e product: i.e., committee r e p o r t s t h a t accompany l e g i s l a t i o n . Such r e p o r t l a n g u a g e h a s o n l y i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e i n t h a t i t c a n m e r e l y u r g e o r recommend F e d e r a l agency a c t i o n o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; i t c a n n o t impose l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s on a n agency o r a b r o g a t e p a r t i c u l a r r u l e s . Nonetheless, those d i r e c t i v e s , which come from a u t h o r i z i n g , a p p r o p r i a t i n g , and c o n f e r e n c e c o m m i t t e e s , g e n e r a l l y e l i c i t e d agency c o m p l i a n c e , based on t h i s a b b r e v i a t e d e x a m i n a t i o n . Where c o m p l i a n c e was n o t f o r t h c o m i n g , t h e committee r e p o r t l a n g u a g e s e r v e d a s a h a r b i n g e r t o f u r t h e r c o n g r e s s i o n a l a c t i o n a g a i n s t an offending r u l e o r r u l e s through a t t e m p t s t o approve l e g i s l a t i v e v e t o e s , i f a v a i l a b l e ; direct statutory overrides; o r appropriation limitations. The purpose of this report has been to survey the statutory instruments, other than the legislative veto, in which Congress is the initiator or the principal vehicle of action that results in the termination or mitigation of an agency rule. There are other statutorily established mechanisms that also affect the promulgation or Longevity of rules but where Congress is not a direct participant, after passage of the legislation. Some of these machanisms include certain changes in the Administrative Procedure Act ( M A ) ( 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) or additions of specific administrative requirements beyond the APA provisions. Specific recommendations have included: lengthened public notice and comment periods; adoption of "hybrid1' rulemaking or formal rulemaking where neither had existed; creation of a regulatory oversight commission to review proposed rules; improved public participation mechanisms, such as public intervenor funding and payment of attorneys' fees; expanded scope of judicial review of the exercise of delegated rulemaking authority; and increased access to Federal courts by empowering public counsels to challenge administrative rules in court and by easing the requirements for standing by permitting any person who will be adversely affected by a rule to petition for judicial review; among others. These statutory techniques would affect agency rules through the initiative of private parties or other Federal units or both, rather than the Congress or its constituent parts.