Federal departments and agencies are constantly intruding on business activities, frequently through requests for information on a widening area of business concern. To help association executives advise their members of the Council's services and benefits, the committee has prepared the following article which can be reprinted in their own association publications:

"Your association is repeatedly asked for guidance on answering government questionnaires, particularly whether or not an employer must complete and return a particular form. Federal demands for information are delving into everwidening areas of business life.

"Fortunately, there is a business-run organization in Washington, D.C. established for the purpose of helping businessmen by providing available guidance and especially by advising the powerful Bureau of the Budget on ways to cut down on the reporting burdens of business. It is the Advisory Council on Federal Reports, 1001 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, which is officially connected with the Bureau of the Budget. For 25 years this Council has been attacking the paperwork problems of business through panels of businessmen selected by their qualifications to find the faults in government forms and recommend ways to correct them. The Council is wholly business-oriented, being sponsored and financed by associations through the American Society of Association Executives and other respected business organizations. "The Council gives this advice to businessmen :

"1. Requests for information from the federal government regardless of how made, are subject to the Federal Reports Act and Bureau of the Budget approval if issued to more than 9 persons. Such governmental gathering of information may be by letter, telegram, questionnaire, reporting form, application or personal interview, and may be on any subject. Excluded by the Act are the income tax forms and a few others. Copies of the Act are available from the Advisory Council on Federal Reports.

"2. If Budget Bureau approval is not evident (approval is usually indicated in the upper right-hand corner of the fact sheet accompanied by an expiration date), response should be delayed long enough to make inquiry regarding the legal status of the request. This may be done, in confidence, through the Advisory Council on Federal Reports.

"3. Do not discard unapproved requests for information. Such unauthorized questionnaires or requests should be sent or reported to the Advisory Council for investigation in order that they may be killed by the Budget Bureau, or having merit, may be reviewed and formally approved.

"4. Response to federal questionnaires and other kinds of requests for information can be voluntary or compulsory. If a request is compulsory, the form or instructions should clearly cite statutory authority. If response is voluntary, this fact will not be indicated, in accordance with Budget Bureau policy.

"5. Businessmen having problems with government questionnaires may ask the Council for clarification which will be obtained as soon as possible and in confidence.

"6. Address your questions to the Council through your association headquarters office and we will immediately contact its staff."

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET. Washington, D.C., January 23, 1970.

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 3067, a bill "To amend title 44, United States Code, to provide for consumer, labor, and small business representation on advisory committees under the coordination of Federal Recording Services, and for other purposes."

The bill would require that no advisory committee that includes representatives of business or commercial enterprises may be used by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to advise him in administering the Federal Reports Act of 1942, unless that advisory committee includes individuals chosen from private life to represent the economic interests of consumers, labor, and small business.

It would also require that not less than one-third of the membership of any such advisory committee composed of three or more members be chosen to represent

consumers.

Other provisions of the bill would require that minutes and other records of advisory committees be made public, and that timely conspicuous public notice be given of the meetings of such advisory committees.

The Bureau of the Budget is sympathetic with the objectives of S. 3067. Some of those objectives are already provided for under current practices. We have recently instituted procedures to carry out some of the other objectives, and we are actively seeking the most effective means of achieving the remaining ones. We believe, however, that we will be better able to accommodate to changing needs through administrative actions like those described below, rather than through less flexible statutory requirements such as those proposed in the bill. A brief review of the purposes of the Federal Reports Act may be helpful. Section 2 of that Act declares it to be "the policy of the Congress that information which may be needed by the various Federal agencies should be obtained with a minimum burden upon business enterprises (especially small business enterprises) and other persons required to furnish such information, and at a minimum cost to the Government," that unnecessary duplication should be eliminated, and that information should be tabulated in a manner to maximize its usefulness to other Federal agencies and the public. Subsections 3(a) and 3(d) of the Act set out as a key purpose and responsibility under the Act the investigation and determination by the Director of the need for the information being sought by Federal agencies.

In 1942, the Advisory Council on Federal Reports (ACFR) was established by five sponsoring business organizations at the request of the Director of the Bureau of the budget, to assist him in his review of forms and reporting requirements under the Federal Reports Act. As you know, many of the responses sought are voluntary and rely on the understanding and cooperation of the respondents. The Advisory Council conducts most of its work through 17 standing committees and ad hoc panels composed of potential respondents or their representatives who are familiar with business records and reporting problems. Over the years, the advice of the Council has resulted in substantial savings to both the Federal Government and business respondents.

Minutes of the meetings of Council committees and panels have for some time been available to anyone requesting a copy. Thus, the objective of section 1(c) of the bill has already been accomplished.

We recognize the need for broadening our consultation with user groups beyond the agency proposing the report, as well as with respondent groups, in our review of forms and reporting requirements. This is the apparent purpose of section 1(b) of the bill. To this end, the Budget Bureau's Office of Statistical Policy, which administers the Federal Reports Act for the Director, has recently introduced some changes in the forms clearance procedure.

For example, we have made arrangements with Mrs. Virginia Knauer, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, for members of her staff to participate in committee and panel meetings where consumer interests are involved. We are in the process of making similar arrangements with the Small Business Administration, which will also aid us in placing suitable small business representatives on the ACFR committees and panel. We are revising our Standard Form 83, which is used by Government agencies to request Budget Bureau approval of report forms, to put greater emhasis on the need for agency consultations with user and other interested groups prior to submittal of their requests to the Bureau.

We are still considering the most effective method of affording public notice of Advisory Council business, the objective of section 1(d) of the bill. As an interim measure, we have recently made publicly available, through regular mailings on request and through general distribution to the media, the daily list of forms and reporting plans received for Budget Bureau review. In addition, we have opened the meetings of Advisory Council committees and panels to any who find the subjects of concern to them. Announcements of meetings on any topic are avalable upon request.

We think that these arrangements should be tried for a period of perhaps six months, before they are made a permanent fixture of our advisory program. We see some important advantages in our new arrangements for open meetings. On the other hand, we want to guard against the possibility that meetings held to consider principally the availability of data and the technique of collec

43-861-70-10

tion could become a forum for discussion of policy and program issues on which relevant data are being sought. Moreover, if all of the large number of organizations interested in such areas as consumer affairs and environmental protection should wish to participate, the meetings could become so large as to diminish substantially their advisory value.

There are at least two alternatives to our current arrangements for meetings that we shall also consider. One is to set up a separate committee broadly representative of data users and consumer, labor, small business, and other interests. Another is to place upon the agencies submitting forms and reporting requirements for approval more responsibility for consultations with interested organizations. These agencies have the primary responsibility for determining the policies and programs and the related need for information to be gathered by the forms and reporting requirements that we review.

In view of the administrative actions already being taken, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that S. 3067 not be favorably considered at this time. Although we agree with the purposes of the bill, we believe that, through continued experimentation, we can carry out those purposes in fairness to all interested groups, in consonance with our obligations under the Federal Reports Act as it presently is written.

Sincerely,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

MINUTES

Meeting: Panel on proposed U.S. Public Health Service Survey of Industrial Waste Water Disposal.

Date and time: Tuesday, June 9, 1964, 9:30 a.m.

Place: Room 444, Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Presiding officer: Alexander Gall, Bureau of the Budget.

Present from industry: George Apfel, Pfaudler-Permutit Inc. (MAP); A. R. Balden, AMA-Chrysler; George E. Best, Manufacturing Chemists Association; C. A. Bishop, United States Steel Corp.; W. A. Burhouse, American Petroleum Institute; L. C. Burroughs, American Petroleum Institute, N.Y.; Daniel W. Cannon, National Association of Manufacturers; William J. Conner, Manufacturing Chemists Association; A. Edward Dembitz, Consulting Engineer; Nelson J. Ehlers, M.C.A. (Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.); G. H. Gayner, United States Steel Corp.; Frederic L. Grayson, American Paper & Pulp Association; H. V. Hadley, Automobile Manufacturers Association; Ernst P. Hall, Consolidation Coal Co. (NCA); William J. Harnisch, Youngstown Sheet and Tube; Philip H. Hershey, P. H. Glatfelter Co. (paper); Charles E. Humphry, Institute of Industrial Launderers; Lloyd T. Jensen, U.S. Beet Sugar Association; John E. Kinney, consultant for Republic Steel Corp.; Donald S. MacKenzie, American Meat Institute; G. H. McDaniel, EEI & Advertising Council on Public Utilities (from Am. Elec./Pr. Serv. Corp.); Frank J. McKee, Dairy Industry Committee; Austin T. Rhoads, National Canners Association; Douglas Trussell, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.; A. B. van der Voort, MAPI; D. H. Williams, Dairy Industry Committee, Washington, D.C. Government, Public Health Service: John T. Barnhill, R. S. Green, Robert W. Haywood, Jr., Norman A. Hilmar, Peter G. Kule, Tom Pomers, Paul W. Reed, Richard C. Simonson, Murray Stein.

U.S. House of Representatives: Phineas Indritz.

Bureau of the Census: William R. Gray.

Bureau of Mines: William H. Kerns.

Bureau of the Budget: David E. Cohn, Alexander Gall, Benjamin T. Teeter. Advisory Council Staff: Russell Schneider.

General statements on the scope and purpose of the survey were made by the Public Health Service staff. These statements indicate that information on municipal waste disposal has been available for years, but that the information on industrial waste disposal is poor. The purpose of this survey is to make available information on industrial waste disposal, which together with other related information would be useful in several ways. The information can be used to answer congressional and other inquiries. The information will be used in planning for future water use by the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and others. The information will be useful when more intensive

studies are made within areas where there are specific problems of pollution and enforcement. Certain advantages were pointed out to industry. Industry has become the whipping-boy in water pollution. Industry users of water will benefit directly by having available cleaner water for industrial use. Industry will be less burdened by surveys generated by special programs if basic data are available from this survey. The industry users of water will be able to show progress in control of water pollution.

The PHS staff indicated that this survey proposal has been generated after much discussion with the State agencies and representatives of industry. Three areas are excluded from the survey coverage. Plants connected with municipal systems need not report. Acid mine drainage points and brines from oil fields are excluded from the survey. The Public Service will operate through State water pollution control agencies. The State agencies will either fill in the information where available or mail the form to industrial plants discharging wastes to surface waters. The plant would be requested to complete the form and mail it back to the State agency. The State agency would forward the forms to the Public Health Service for processing. Some State mail surveys will be supplemented by contact with plants. The Public Health Service will help some of the States where feasible.

At this point three specific questions were raised. Is there a clear-cut distinction where Federal authority ends and State authority begins? Is the form mandatory or voluntary? Can States make the form mandatory?

The PHS staff indicated that when States move into the area of water pollution control the Federal Government turns the activity over to the State agency. Primary responsibility rests with the States although Public Law 660 is directive legislation. The PHS is directed to develop comprehensive water pollution programs, to provide technical assistance, and to initiate regulatory action under certain conditions. The form isn't mandatory. It was indicated that some six to 12 States have mandatory authority. It didn't appear clear whether States with authority would use that authority for compliance.

General industry comments on the survey requirements are grouped and summarized by the general areas covered.

1. The information to be collected is incomplete and will be misused. Objection was made to telling only a part of the story on stream pollution. Data are needed on waste discharge but also data on the waste load. This information can be misused for political purposes. Effects on aquatic life and odor are missing. By the time the data are used they will be inaccurate because improvements would have been made since the data were collected. A company may be in full compliance with State requirements and yet newspaper stories would indicate abuse. The PHS staff indicated that streamflow data are available and that comprehensive studies after the data are collected will require water quality information. The PHS staff believe that the data will remain useful because stream conditions do not change rapidly.

2. States have primary responsibility for doing the job as well as the confidence of industry. States are working on this problem from day to day and have the information that they are concerned about. States have developed the confidence of the business concerned, and are concerned that this confidence will be compromised. The PHS staff indicated that many States know absolutely nothing about what is going into streams. Some States are understaffed and won't have one person to put on this project. This project has been discussed with State agencies and changes made to conform with State agency suggestions. 3. A proper approach is by river basins. The data being developed by the PHS staff does not represent the condition on any stream. The approach should determine the extent of pollution of the stream. When there is a pollution problem, a complicated program can't be worked out through the use of a form. To work out a solution there must be constant programing all of the time. PHS staff indicated that before going to the river basin approach they want comprehensive information on the situation they are dealing with. It is better to have the individual plant data before going into an area than to start bothering the plants during the study.

4. The State agencies believe that the PHS form is inadequate. While many States want to cooperate they express their private feelings that the survey is inadequate. Some State people feel that the form was issued by the Jones Committee. The PHS staff noted that 41 State agencies have offered to cooperate in the survey. In addition to a large number of comments on changes in the form States have wanted to be able to say whether plants are in compliance with State law.

5. The industry has been working 3 to 4 years in developing data through the NTTCIW industry survey. The survey covers 36 industries. The National Association of Manufacturers is preparing a summary of this data. Point-by-point data are not shown but summarized by geographic chunks. The individual names of respondents will not be shown. Even under these conditions there was nonresponse to the industry survey. It was suggested that the PHS survey would have even higher nonresponse. Some industry representatives suggested reluctance to participating in a second survey. The PHS staff said that two of the inadequacies of the industry survey from the PHS viewpoint were the nonresponse and the absence of point-by-point information.

6. Some misgiving on the part of industry representatives was expressed concerning the possibility of excessive mail-out and excessive burden on industry. PHS staff said that if the States can fill out the forms the industrial plant will not be bothered. An industry member of the panel indicated that if a State filled out information on a plant, that plant should be given an opportunity to review the report. There was a question raised as to whether a cutoff would be used. Indications were that a cutoff would not be used since a small plant could have a significant effect on a stream. Only the wastewater discharge industries will be covered.

7. There is a real problem relating to the disclosure of confidential data. Some information will involve trade secrets. It was pointed out that analysis of waste water discharge could reveal information on types of processes, yields, and new products or processes. In some cases State agencies may be reluctant to turn over information to the Public Health Service since the companies might feel that a confidence had been compromised. It was noted that Federal agencies are interested in capital expenditure information.

The PHS staff said that they could see no point in publishing an inventory of point-by-point information. It was also noted that Congress is interested in specifics.

Representatives of the electric utility industry and the dairy industry questioned whether they should be covered in the survey. The electric industry uses water for cooling and much information has already been reported on this. The Public Health Service wants information on thermal pollution but it wasn't clear whether the electric utility industry will be covered by this survey. The dairy industry also has developed information on water pollution and reported that the information is still useful. The PHS staff noted that it may not be necessary for each individual plant to repeat the tests but that the quantities of water will vary with plants.

Industry representatives reported that it was their understanding that the questionnaire under review is currently being tried in two States. The State of Alabama is using the form with the State being identified in the form title. The PHS staff indicated that they are not aware of the current use of the form. The discussion was directed by the chairman to the specific items on the form. It was made clear that discussion of individual items did not mean general agreement with the objectives of the survey. Comments are summarized by items.

ITEMS

1-4. There is some question as to whether the company or the plant should receive the questionnaire. The industry representatives pointed out that even if it were mailed to the plant, it would in many cases be cleared at the company level. 5. It was noted that the industry survey provides information on the amount of waste discharge going into municipal sewers.

6. PHS staff indicated that this question will be changed. Some help will be given to the States on SIC codes.

7. Industry representatives commented that 1963 may not be a "normal" year. There may not be a seasonal pattern in which the plant ceases to operate but it may operate at less than full capacity.

11. and 13. The recommendation was made that items 11 and 13 be dropped since they may not give meaningful information. In some cases the water may not require treatment and will be reported as zero treatment. In other cases the water may be only partially treated as skimming the oil and it would be reported as treated. Water may be reported as 100 percent treated and item IV may be blank. The PHS staff indicated that they will have the States add information to make the replies meaningful. Industry representatives point out that the survey will be getting only a part of the effort being made to reduce waste disposal. A plant may recycle the water and reduce waste. This would show up as a negative report.