Showing 1811–1820 of 2202

• 2/13/1974

  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Aquaculture Project Permit

  In this memo, the OLC concluded that the EPA could not delegate to the states its authority to grant permits in connection with aquaculture projects, per section 318 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Although the statute aimed to place pollution-reduction in the hands of the states and lacked an explicit prohibition on delegation, the OLC considered the statute as a whole and its purpose––to prohibit the overall discharge of pollutants––as understood through legislative history. In light of that purpose, and other provisions delineating federal and state authorities, the OLC concluded that the EPA’s authority to permit aquaculture projects constitutes a limited exception to the overall rule that must be carefully controlled. As such, it advised that the EPA’s authority may not be delegated to the states.

  4/28/2020

• 2/6/1974

  FCC enforcement relating to citizen band radios

  In this brief memo for the Attorney General, the OLC explained that FCC regulations on citizens band radios (so-called CB radios) were “virtually unenforceable.” Although the Communications Act provided for injunctions against violations of these regulations, the radios were very easy to obtain, and regulatory violations were commonplace. However, violations were not only difficult to detect, but unlikely to be penalized. Prosecutors and courts alike viewed as such violations as “harmless” and were therefore relucent to prosecute or convict. The OLC then suggested that alternative recourse might be possible, such as through general conspiracy provisions, which could apply to certain violations.

  4/28/2020

• 2/5/1974

  Actions which may be taken in connection with truckers

  The OLC issued this brief memo to explain what actions could be taken by the Attorney General against independent truckers during an 11-day strike in 1974. Frustrated with increased oil prices following the 1973 embargo by oil-exporters, truckers blockaded roads in protest, an action that culminated in two deaths and the addition of a fuel surcharge in the truckers’ pricing. The OLC concluded that, with the information provided, little action could be taken under several enumerated statutes, but that there might be recourse in general injunctive authority or in a civil rights action.

  4/28/2020

• 2/4/1974

  Expenses for Purchase of Tape Recorder in United States v. Sacco.

  In this brief memo, the OLC concluded that the expense of purchasing a tape recorder, ordered by a federal judge at government expense for a defendant to use in a pending criminal matter, would be payable from Criminal Justice Act appropriations. Relying on United States v. Brown and the Act’s purpose of ensuring a defendant is provided with the means of securing evidence, the OLC concluded that a tape recorder would fall into the covered category of “other services.” The OLC additionally suggested that loaning a tape recorder from the Department might be more prudent.

  4/28/2020

• 2/4/1974

  Research Authority of Drug Enforcement Administration

  In this brief memo, the OLC reconsidered a previous conclusion that the DEA should seek legislation to clarify its ability to contract for research into drug abuse liability methodologies (i.e. research to create assessments of how likely it is that a drug could be abused after its release). Considering a then-contemporary shift in DEA focus towards research methodologies, the OLC agreed that these new projects more certainly fell within the scope of the Attorney General’s authority under the Controlled Substances Act to institute research programs to carry out his function of scheduling controlled substances.

  4/28/2020

• 1/31/1974

  Contemplated release by the Selective Service System of names and addresses of registrants and next of kin to the Special Action Office for Drug Prevention for use in two major drug abuse research projects

  In this memo, the OLC responded to an inquiry regarding the Selective Service System’s ability to release registrants’ information––names, addresses and next of kin––to another government agency that was conducting drug abuse research. Two provisions of the Federal Reports Act were potentially relevant: a general prohibition on federal agencies from releasing confidential information to other federal agencies, 44 U.S.C. §3508(b), and a clause that permitted agencies to release non-confidential information to other agencies, §3508(b)(2). Because a Selective Service regulation reserved discretion for the director to release any information contained in a registrant’s file to any person, the OLC concluded that the scope of confidentiality turned on the Director’s discretion, and that the release of information would not violate §3508(b).

  4/28/2020

• 1/31/1974

  Further Research on the Subpoena of the President by the California State Court

  In this brief memo, the OLC assessed the novel question of the ability of a state court to subpoena the president. The OLC stated that the outcome was unclear because no state court had yet subpoenaed a president. In Nixon v. Sirica the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit foreclosed the theory that a president would be totally immune from federal grand jury subpoenas. Because the Sirica decision recognized the existence of executive privilege with regard to other matters, the OLC suggested that the executive branch could argue that the president would not be forced to comply, asserting federal supremacy alongside the general argument––unsuccessful in Sirica––that the presidency should not be disturbed by lawsuits.

  4/28/2020

• 1/29/1974

  View that Mr. Fairbanks may name the recipient (or another full-time federal employee) to carry out, with respect to particular meetings of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Puerto Rico, the functions specified in subsections 10(e)-(f) of the Federal Advisory

  In this brief memo, the OLC confirmed to the executive director of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Puerto Rico that a representative of the president may designate the director (or any full-time federal employee), to be the designated officer who would call to order and attend the group’s meetings, as specified by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

  4/28/2020

• 1/22/1974

  Qualification of Members of Congress for Certain Appointments Under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973

  In this memo, the OLC examined the applicability of Article I, section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution––the Ineligibility Clause––to potential appointments of members of Congress to various positions in the United States Railway Association and the Consolidated Railway Corporation, each created under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973. The OLC concluded that Ineligibility Clause prohibitions on members of Congress holding “offices” of the United States precluded appointments to the association’s chairman and president positions, but not board member positions. The OLC determined that although the association is an agency or instrumentality of the United States, only the chairman or president positions would constitute “offices.” The corporation, in contrast, was not an agency or instrumentality, and the Ineligibility Clause would not apply.

  4/28/2020

• 1/11/1974

  Eligibility for Appointment to the President's Cancer Panel

  In this brief memo, the OLC explained that the National Cancer Act of 1971 does not require that members of the president’s cancer panel hold United States citizenship. In response to a second inquiry, the OLC noted in addition that although not required, a private bill granting the proposed member in question dual Canadian-American citizenship would remedy any lingering doubts pertaining to eligibility.

  4/28/2020