|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 388
The Role of Nonalcoho!
Agencies in Federal Regulation
of Drinking Behavior
and Consequences
JAMES F. MOSHER and JOSEPH R. MOTTE
INTRODUCTION
This paper outlines and discusses an important finding—that significant
aspects of the federal response to alcohol problems are formulated by
federal agencies not usually associated with alcohol policy. We provide
a survey of federal agencies with various types of jurisdiction over al-
cohol distribution and alcohol-related problems and examine their po-
tential role in the federal effort to address these issues effectively. In
addition to identifying potential new actors, the paper also suggests
potential new prevention strategies. We hope that we have provided a
constructive, preliminary analysis of possible policy initiatives.
Research for this report was completed March 1980, and any changes
in regulations or policies since that time are not included. Preparation
entailed contacting numerous federal employees who, in virtually every
instance, were both extremely courteous and helpful, often in the face
of many competing demands. Their assistance was invaluable.
FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE ALCOHOL MARKET
Since the end of Prohibition, federal responsibility for regulating the
distribution of alcoholic beverages and the prevention of alcohol-related
James F. Mosher and Joseph R. Mottl are at the Social Research Group, School of
Public Health' University of California, Berkeley.
Preparation of this report was partly supported by a National Research Center grant
to the Social Research Group, AA-03524.
388
OCR for page 389
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
389
problems has been generally viewed as limited a secondary, advisory
responsibility that gives deference to the various states' primary role.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) and the Na-
tional Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) are the
primary federal agencies affecting the national alcohol policy. Both of
these agencies defer to state authority in important ways. Although
many BATF regulations are mandatory, they may not contradict any
of the more restrictive state policies. In fact, many BATF provisions
take effect only if particular states have similar or identical provisions.
NIAAA has emphasized treatment and rehabilitation programs that,
although based on a perceived need for national action, are usually
voluntary and require state or private cooperation.
The basis for this limited view of federal jurisdiction rests in large
part on the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933. That
amendment gave alcohol a unique position in interstate commerce by
limiting federal preemptory and interstate commerce powers.) It pro-
vides that alcohol may not be imported into any state contrary to the
laws of that state. Thus? unlike any other legal commodity, the federal
government in most instances cannot regulate alcohol in a state unless
federal regulations are at least as strict as the state's provisions.
However, despite this grant of special power to the states to restrict
the importation of alcohol and its production and distribution within its
boundaries—federal power remains substantial in four ways. First, the
federal government may enforce stricter regulations than those found
in the states. For example, BATF regulations prohibiting moonshining
would stand and federal agents would still have authority to enforce
them, even if particular states chose to legalize moonshine. In effect,
states and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over the
alcohol market, with federal regulations at least as strict as comparable
state provisions.
Second, the states, as a practical matter, have chosen for the most
part not to regulate the alcohol industry other than at the retail level,
a decision that the federal government has encouraged (Mosher 1978c).
~ The 21st Amendment makes alcohol a unique commodity vis-a-vis federal powers over
interstate commerce. See State Board of Equalization of California v. Young's Market,
299 U.S. 59 (1936~. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in more recent cases, has made
clear that the state powers under the 21st Amendment are not absolute. See, e.g., Hostetter
v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corporation, 377 U.S. 324 (1964) (in which the Court
held that the state could not regulate sales by a retailer who sold exclusively to persons
as they entered an airplane to leave the state and travel overseas). For a review of Supreme
Court action regarding the 21st Amendment, see the majority opinion in California v.
LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972~. For a discussion of state and federal powers over the alcohol
market, see Mosher (1979b).
OCR for page 390
390
MOSHER and MOTTL
Only those states with a significant local alcohol industry have taken an
active role with respect to regulating production, usually in a manner
that fosters development of the industry (Bunce 1979~.
Third, a significant portion of the alcohol regulations and alcohol-
related problems are tangential to the constitutional provision. For ex-
ample, the 21st Amendment does not prohibit federal taxation or na-
tional import-export jurisdiction, yet these powers may have a powerful
influence on the structure of the alcohol market. Safety regulations
relating to auto travel or house construction may affect the extent of
alcohol-related problems, despite their being unrelated to state alcohol
jurisdiction.
Finally, there are significant exceptions to the 21st Amendment. Fed-
eral reserves and lands, including Indian reservations, are not necessarily
considered to be within a state's boundary for the purpose of the con-
stitutional amendment.2 A state may not block access to and may not
tax alcohol or regulate alcohol use or distribution on federal property
unless agreed to by the federal government.
SCOPE OF THE PAPER
Much of this federal authority, which rests largely outside BATE and
NIAAA, has been ignored in the formation of federal alcohol policy
and in most alcohol literature. Two areas in particular appear to have
been neglected the regulation of alcohol availability and the regulation
of drinking contexts. As to availability, there has been a recent emphasis
in the literature on studying alcohol beverage control laws and pricing
policies as a means to deter alcohol problems (Bruun et al. 1975, Doug-
lass and Freedman 1977, Medicine in the Public Interest 1976, Mosher
1979a, Room and Mosher, 1979~. This strategy has been viewed as
problematic because of the reluctance of state legislatures, alcohol bev-
erage control (ABC), and the BATE to accept a preventive role (Med-
icine in the Public Interest 1976, Mosher 1978~. Federal agencies and
departments that have broad taxing and availability powers (many of
which are acting at cross purposes to NIAAA priorities) have been
ignored.
Regulation of drinking contexts has been more generally ignored. The
advent of prevention of alcohol problems as a specialized field of study
has created a broad range of literature linking alcohol to a host of social
2 See Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938); Yellow Cab Transit
Co. v. Johnson, 48 F. Supp. 594. affirmed. 137 F. 2d 274. affirmed 321 U.S. 383 (1942).
For discussion of federal authority on native American reservations. see Mosher (1975).
OCR for page 391
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
391
problems- accidents, crimes, and diseases (Aarens et al. 1977~. Alcohol
has been demonstrated to be a causal factor in these problems, and
prevention strategies have emphasized deterring the drinking behavior
rather than addressing other causal factors surrounding the drinking
context. For example, strategies to deter drunk driving stress the ab-
stinence from drinking before and during driving rather than other causal
factors of accidents e.g., unsafe cars and highways. As Gusfield (1976)
points out, such an emphasis unnecessarily narrows the range of poten-
tial prevention strategies. Gusfield's observation is relevant to other
areas of alcohol casualties. Numerous federal agencies that do not deal
with alcohol per se exercise broad jurisdiction over casualties associated
with alcohol abuse. Natural alliances among these agencies and alcohol
prevention strategists are not being exploited.
This study explores these two areas in detail. For convenience, the
agencies studied are divided into four categories of jurisdiction: land-
based, transportation-based, safety-based' and economic-based agen-
cies. Land-based agencies determine the availability of alcohol within
their boundaries; safety agencies may reduce the risk of casualty in
contexts in which alcohol may be a factor; and economic-based agencies
have power to regulate the economic structure of the alcohol market.
Transportation agencies have characteristics of both land-based and
safety-based agencies; however, they are distinctive because of the
unique nature of their powers.
The general characteristics of each category are first outlined and then
followed by a description of the major agencies involved. The agencies'
jurisdiction and powers are discussed in general, as is their authority
over alcohol distribution and alcohol-related problems. Current alcohol-
related procedures and regulations are also outlined.3
For each category (except that of economic-based agencies, which is
only briefly described) at least one agency has been chosen for an in-
depth analysis of its potential role in federal alcohol policy. An assess-
ment of the likelihood of the agencies' responding favorably and chang-
ing their current policies is presented. Assuming that reform is judged
possible, specific reforms are suggested' followed by the effects that can
be expected.
Judging the advisability of any particular change in policy requires an
assessment of the possible benefits and costs (which includes, in addition
to financial expenditures' possible detriments to other positive goals).
Resistance to change may be caused because of potential conflict with
3A list of the regulations covered in the discussion in each section is provided in the
appendix. Exact citations are available on request to the authors.
OCR for page 392
392
MOSHER and MOTTE
other important societal values. However, agencies often resist public-
health-oriented change, even when there are no costs or conflicting
values, merely because it appears to fall outside their immediate mission.
In such cases, reform may be both reasonable and important.
For the prevention strategist, the more persuasive the evidence that
a particular reform will reduce alcohol problems? the more likely that
possible costs of the reform can be outweighed. However, other types
of reforms may provide benefits, short of proven problem reduction,
that may be pursued because of the minimal costs involved. Symbolic
reform includes policy initiatives that provide a uniform federal ap-
proach to alcohol, even though the reform will have little actual impact.
These can have an important though unmeasurable significance in terms
of heightening awareness of particular problems and legitimating other
policy initiatives. Experimental programs to determine the advisability
of a particular reform may be justified even if results are uncertain and
provided costs can be accurately judged and are acceptable.
Statistical analyses and compilations of the role of alcohol in various
casualties, which usually involve only minimal costs, are also important
as a means to further understanding the scope and role of alcohol in
societal problems. As a recent, extensive study has documented (Aarens
et al. 1977), there is a vital need to compile accurate data in this area.
Most agencies that are attempting to cope with alcohol-related societal
problems currently do not consider alcohol as part of their jurisdiction
or concern. Encouraging statistical compilations, then, could provide
valuable information and contacts. Finally, in some cases, advocating
policy changes or addressing particular issues in agencies not specifically
involved with alcohol may be necessary, even when the evidence indi-
cates that no policy change in the near future is likely. They may highlight
previously ignored issues and problems and create debate and further
study.
As this discussion indicates, determining what reforms are appropriate
depends on a given agency's view of its own mission as well as its
receptiveness to new directions. Key factors are the agency's statutory
mandate and responsibility. For example, if an agency is mandated to
collect statistics to determine the causal factors of particular accidents,
there may be a strong basis for urging the agency to include alcohol as
a potential variable. We have outlined the scope of statutory respon-
sibility (and have also talked with staff to determine each agency's own
view of this responsibility) in an attempt to determine the importance
of a given set of alcohol-related problems to agency goals and respon-
sibilities. This provides a sound basis for determining what potential
strategies would be most appropriate.
OCR for page 393
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
393
As with any proposal for governmental change, the actual imple-
mentation of a given reform may involve complex negotiations and
unforeseen obstacles. Practical guides may prove to be useful, in par-
ticular suggesting whom to approach inside and outside the agency to
promote new directions in alcohol policy. We outline the realistic bound-
aries of potential new prevention strategies among these agencies. Pro-
viding tactical guides for implementation falls beyond the scope of this
paper.
It must be stressed that the areas covered in this paper are at an
experimental stage generally. The relationship of the structure of the
alcohol market and alcohol-related problems is a recent subject of in-
quiry. Very few studies have been conducted, primarily because of a
lack of interest on the part of the industry and the state regulators. Even
less is known about the role of safety agencies in reducing alcohol-
related problems. Our effort here is to describe the various agencies'
potential role, providing both potential new strategies and potential new
allies in the government's effort to reduce alcohol's role in societal
problems.
FEDERAL LAND-BASED JURISDICTION OF
ALCOHOL DISTRIBUTION
INTRODUCTION
Although state regulations dominate the retail market of alcoholic bev-
erages, there is a vast expanse of land controlled by the federal gov-
ernment. Alcoholic beverage control within the boundaries of federal
lands is placed with the federal agency in charge, and those agencies
may choose to exercise their authority either exclusively or concurrently
with the states (unless the federal legislation provides otherwise). Court
decisions have explicitly held that the 21st Amendment does not nec-
essarily give states jurisdiction over the distribution of alcoholic bev-
erages on federal land.4
The major federal agencies with authority to regulate alcohol distri-
bution are: the Department of Defense; the National Forest Service;
the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service; the Army
Corps of Engineers; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Taken together
these agencies control an alcohol distribution network that exceeds,
both in land area and in population affected, the jurisdiction of any
single state ABC. Problems associated with alcohol constitute at least
See note 2 above.
OCR for page 394
394
MOSHER and MOTTU
a minor concern of the agencies and all have adopted at least some
regulatory provisions in an attempt to cope with them. By far the most
important of these agencies and departments is the Department of De-
fense, which has, through the various armed services, adopted extensive
regulations and experimental programs.
These agencies may have concerns with alcohol problems ancillary to
their distribution jurisdiction, such as treatment or rehabilitation pro-
grams for employees or safety regulations to protect citizens, some of
whom may be in danger because of drinking (e.g., regulatory access to
fire danger areas to limit the danger of accidental forest fires). However,
one of their primary duties is to administer jurisdiction over the everyday
activities of a particular area, and this study examines their decisions
concerning alcohol use and distribution as one aspect of this primary
duty.
As discussed in the introduction to this section, the alcohol distribution
network has been put under scrutiny as a possible tool for preventing
alcohol-related problems. Federal policy has not previously been ex-
amined in a systematic way. The activities of the Defense Department,
because of its scope and importance, are discussed last and in some
detail. Following an analysis of the scope and exercise of each agency's
authority is a discussion that focuses on the Navy and potential areas
of reform that could benefit from a uniform federal policy to prevent
alcohol-related problems.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Jurisdiction over most National Park Service areas (as is jurisdiction
over all areas managed by the Forest Service, the Army Corps of En-
gineers, and the Bureau of Land Management) is shared by the federal
and state governments. Older, larger parks are under exclusive federal
jurisdiction, although state law may apply in specific circumstances.
Because of its flexibility, concurrent jurisdiction is generally favored by
National Park Service officials.
The National Park Service maintains 320 areas, and in 1978 283 million
people visited park lands. There are 400 park concessions, of which 151
sell alcoholic beverages, and sales from these reached $5.8 million in
1978, which was 3 percent of total concession sales. These figures do
not include alcohol carried in by visitors the National Park Service has
no estimates concerning the extent of this practice.
The National Park Service regulates the sale and use of alcohol in all
of its park areas through several regulations: (1) a prohibition on op-
OCR for page 395
The Role-of Nonalcohol Agencies
395
crating a vehicle or vessel while intoxicated or under the influence of
alcohol; (2) a prohibition on being so intoxicated as to endanger oneself,
others, property, or others' enjoyment of the park; (3) a prohibition on
the sale of alcohol to or possession of alcohol by a person under 21 years
of age, unless state law permits otherwise; (4) a requirement that a
permit from the regional director be obtained before the sale of alcohol
can be made from privately owned land within large parks; (5) a re-
quirement that licensees conform to local and state law as if the land
on which they operate were located outside the park area. The pricing
of alcohol is subject to National Park Service approval and is judged
primarily by comparison with similar facilities under similar conditions
(e.g., length of season, accessibility, cost of labor, and type of pa-
tronage).
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management manages nearly 600 million acres of
federal land, which includes much desert and Alaskan wilderness as well
as forest and water areas. Concessions operate in some areas and a fair
percentage of these sell malt liquor. Exact figures are unavailable. The
bureau exercises no control over these beverage sales. It issues no li-
censes and levies no franchise fees.
The bureau relies heavily on local law and law enforcement, and there
are no provisions relating to alcoholic beverages in its regulations. How-
ever, it does regulate numerous other activities on bureau lands. These
include prohibitions against the use of audio devices (any machine that
makes noise), restrictions on vehicle operation, prohibitions against pets
in certain areas, and other prohibitions deemed necessary to protect the
interest of public health, safety, and comfort. Thus, it clearly has juris-
diction to regulate alcohol-related problems on these lands if it chooses
to do so. However, its enforcement staff is very small in relation to its
area of jurisdiction.
Few data are collected; thus, the level of alcoholic beverage con-
sumption within its lands, the volume sold from its concessions, and the
connection of alcohol use to accidents or vandalism are unknown.
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Army Corps of Engineers maintains concurrent jurisdiction over
457 water projects and 4,200 recreational areas. It leases about one-half
of the recreational areas to state and local governments.
OCR for page 396
396
MOSHER and MOTTE
Prior to 1971, by departmental directive, the corps prohibited the sale
and storage of all alcoholic beverages within its areas. Changes were
made, however, in response to local, state, and congressional pressure.
The corps now has a more flexible policy regarding alcoholic beverages.
The present directives, which are in the process of revision, prohibit
the sale or storage of alcoholic beverages except in areas where it is a
custom and where it is permitted by state law. The express purpose of
this restriction is to preserve a family atmosphere on recreational lands.
Where sales are permitted, concessions may sell beer and wine for off-
premise consumption. On-premise sale of distilled liquor is permitted
when it accompanies dinner at lodges and hotels. Corps officials stated
that information concerning the number of areas that have chosen this
option was not readily available.
The corps maintains statistics on fatalities and accidents in their areas,
but irregularities in reporting methods and recordkeeping among the
states and counties make the accurate maintenance of alcoholic beverage
variables impossible. Federal law provides funding for enforcement in
these localities, without which many areas would be unable to carry out
such activities independently. However, cooperation in enforcement
between the corps and local officals is strictly informal and loosely co-
ordinated.
NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE
In 1978, 218 million "visitor days" were spent in the 104 national forests,
where alcoholic beverages are served in approximately two-thirds of the
625 resort areas. No official figures are available on the number of
outlets or on sales volume. The National Forest Service exercises some
control over alcoholic beverages by issuing lease-permits to concession
operators, which are subject to special conditions.
Forest service policies prohibit the off-premise sale of distilled liquor.
On-premise sale of all liquor is permitted in facilities, provided they are
part of a legitimate resort activity or service. Sale of malt beverages is
left to prevailing local laws and customs. According to one official, the
arrangements are intended to be as flexible as possible' and local and
state governments carry out most law enforcement under the concurrent
. . .. .
JunsUlctlon.
Despite the numerous research projects the National Forest Service
maintains, we found no research being conducted to determine the level
of alcohol use in forest areas and its connection with forest fires, unex-
tinguished camp fires, or damage within forest areas.
OCR for page 397
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
397
The federal government, by constitutional provision, has exclusive ju-
risdiction over all native American reservations. This authority may be
delegated to tribal councils, and often is. Because of the federal trust
obligation to the tribes, the government may not delegate any of its
powers to the states without tribal consent. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), a part of the Department of the Interior, was established to
administer federal responsibilities to the tribes.
The federal government and the BIA, pursuant to this general grant
of power, established exclusive jurisdiction over the sale and possession
of alcohol on reservations as early as 1802.5 In that year, the president
was given the authority to ban sales of alcohol on reservations. From
1802 to 1953, alcohol regulations became increasingly restrictive, ban-
ning all possession and distribution and making violations of alcohol
laws grounds for extended prison terms and denials of treaty annuities.
As has been documented elswhere (Mosher 1975), the history of
increasingly stringent BIA alcohol control laws has been a history of
symbolic measures that had little relationship to genuine concern with
native American alcohol-related problems. During the 19th and much
of the 20th century, violations of alcohol laws were extensive, fueling
a vigorous bootlegging trade. The BIA did little to deter this illegal but
profitable trafficking, although selective enforcement against tribal
members who purchased from bootleggers could lead to serious con-
sequences for the tribe and the individual.
In 1953, the BIA voluntarily lifted its ban on possession and distri-
bution on those reservations on which tribal councils decided to assert
their own authority. In effect, the new regulation turned over authority
to regulate alcohol to the tribes. This move was not a signal of increased
tribal autonomy, however. Rather, it was part of a move to detribalize
the reservations, to promote integration of native Americans into the
American mainstream, and to delegate authority to the states. Detri-
balization did in fact occur in several states, and the BIA's change of
alcohol policy there signaled the beginning of state authority. Detri-
balization was fiercely opposed, however, and was eventually largely
abandoned, although authority to control alcohol distribution has re-
mained with the tribes.
5 The statute provided (act of March 30, 1902, ch. 13 ~ 21, 2 Stat. 139~:
The President of the United States (is) authorized to take such measures from time to time. as to him
may appear expedient to prevent or restrain the vending or distributing of spirituous liquors among
all or any of the . . . Indian tribes.
OCR for page 398
398
MOSHER and MOTTE
Tribal regulation of alcohol is extremely varied, depending on tribal
norms concerning alcohol (May 1977~. The variations are too extensive
to be summarized here. It can be assumed that any attempt by the BIA
to reassert its authority in this area will be violently opposed by the
tribes as signaling unwarranted federal intervention into tribal affairs.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The armed forces have an extensive network of alcohol beverage sales;
it is sufficiently large to make them one of the most important retailers
in the country. They also act as regulators and, because of the size of
the sales network, can be compared to ABC boards in the various states.
The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over all alcohol sales
within military reservations. Thus, state law does not apply. All three
service branches have regulations to encourage local commanders to
cooperate with local officials in matters pertaining to alcohol beverage
sales, but the regulations state specifically that the armed services are
not subject to local control.6 Alcohol sales at military outlets are there-
fore exempt from state and local taxation.
The Department of Defense alcohol outlets serve some 8 million
people- 2 million active members, 3 million dependents, 1 million ci-
vilians, and 2 million national guard and reserve members (Killeen
1979~. Over one-half of active members are under 25 and 40 percent
are single which means that the major customers of military sales are
precisely those within one of the current NIAAA target groups (Killeen
1979~. In sum, the armed forces' policies on alcohol sales have a major
impact on the country, and they must be included when discussing policy
issues concerning the regulation of alcohol availability.
All three services (the Army, Navy, and Air Force the Marines are
not included in this paper) operate both on-premise and off-premise
outlets. The club (or open mess) system, a major component of the
military's recreational services, provides the primary on-premise outlets.
It sells all types of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises
and sells beer for off-premise consumption. The Air Force has 320 open
messes worldwide, which had a total volume of alcohol sales of $61.9
million in fiscal 1977; the Navy operates 311 clubs, which had a total
volume of $49.5 million; and the Army has 654 on-premise outlets world-
wide (304 within the United States), which had a volume totaling $68
6 Because federal agencies (except the BlA) could voluntarily relinquish authority over
alcohol distribution to the states, this qualification may have been deemed necessary to
ensure that federal control over disputes is retained.
OCR for page 448
448
MOSHER and MOTTL
These business drinking policies can condone serious abuses. For
example, potential sellers of goods may try to ply buyers with alcohol
in order to loosen their judgment and increase sales. This practice,
although unethical and perhaps illegal, appears to be a tax deductible
expense. In fact, it appears that alcohol consumption at business con-
ventions or other business meetings or trips can generally be claimed
as deductions provided that a business associate is included in the drink-
. · ,
sing episode.
The IRS does not compile the amounts claimed by taxpayers for
particular types of tax deductions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(U.S. Department of Commerce) estimates that U.S. corporations and
federal, state, and local governments spent an aggregate of $10 billion
on alcohol in 1979 (Mosher 1980~. The alcohol industry estimates that
at least two-thirds of this amount ($6.7 billion in 1979) can be attributed
to corporate purchases (Spirits Magazine 1960~. Virtually all of this
expense can be assumed to have been taken as a business tax deduction,
saving corporations approximately $2.7 billion on their tax returns. This
amount must be supplemented by alcohol deductions taken by individual
taxpayers, for which there are no available estimates. Tax savings for
business use of alcohol probably total between $4 and $7 billion annually
(Mosher 1980~.
Most corporate purchases result in drinking without cost, since the
corporation, a fictitious entity, pays the expense and provides the alcohol
to employees, associates, guests, and customers, usually without reim-
bursement. This is particularly important in light of current policy pro-
posals to raise the price of alcohol as a means to reduce alcohol-related
problems (e.g., Bruun et al. 1975; Popham et al. 1975, 1976~.
Business lunch deductions became a political issue early in the Carter
Administration as a symbol of unfair "tax loopholes." Mistermed the
"three-martini lunch" (an inaccurate characterization because any num-
ber of drinks may be deducted), the issue was presented as a tax loophole
rather than a public health issue and the proposal was eventually
dropped for lack of support. The administration failed to separate the
issue of alcohol deductions from meal deductions generally.
Tax policies reflect conscious decisions concerning governmental
priorities, and changes are often made in tax deductions in order to
encourage or discourage particular business and consumer practices.
Tax deductions are considered "indirect government subsidization of
activities" by tax analysts (Mosher 1980, p. 3) and provide an important
means for establishing government priorities. For example, consumers
can no longer deduct gasoline taxes on their returns, reflecting the
government's increasing concern for reducing, or at least not encour-
OCR for page 449
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
449
aging, gas consumption. Child care expenses, once not deductible, are
now deductible, but only if both parents are gainfully employed or
seeking employment. A parent's decision to engage in volunteer work
will not qualify for obtaining the deduction. This could be viewed as a
partial accommodation to the women's movement.
Public health policies are also reflected in Tax Code provisions and
IRS regulatory decisions. For example, part but not all of a family's
medical budget is deductible. Certain types of treatment, deemed un-
scientific, are excluded. Donations to certain public health organizations
may be deducted. Businesses that provide various health benefits or
services to employees may deduct these expenses.
Thus, there is a strong precedent for translating governmental objec-
tives, including public health priorities, into tax deduction policy. A
public health perspective provides a strong rationale for examining the
alcohol deductions. Present policies act to encourage providing drinks
to business associates in a variety of settings, place no limit on the
amount of drinking that is appropriate, are an indirect discount on the
price of alcohol, and promote extensive advertising of alcohol products.
They establish as a government policy, in conflict with policies advanced
by NIAAA, that the service of alcohol is an "ordinary and necessary"
part of various business dealings. Perhaps most ironically, a tax deduc-
tion can be claimed for providing a gift of alcohol to an employee in
recognition of his or her safety achievements.
A number of possible reforms could be considered in an attempt to
realign tax policy with NIAAA priorities. For example, limits could be
placed on the number of drinks permitted on one business occasion or
the places that may be frequented. More sweeping reforms are also
available, such as declaring that the use of alcohol is not an ordinary
and necessary business expense in any circumstance.
Such proposals are highly political and may generate strong opposition
from restaurant and business groups. Although the IRS could, through
regulation, implement at least minimal reforms, congressional direction
would probably be needed. However, if one views alcohol deductions
as a public health issue and analyzes their implications for NIAAA
initiatives (at least on a symbolic level), airing the issue might provide
a valuable educational tool.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is fundamentally concerned
with aiding, counseling, and assisting small businesses. It does so pri-
OCR for page 450
450
MOSHER and MOTTL
marily by offering loans and by ensuring that small businesses receive
a fair proportion of government purchases and contracts.
SBA loans are divided into two categories direct loans to small busi-
nesses (Article 7a of the SBA Act) and loans to small business invest-
ment corporations (SBIC), which, in turn, provide loans to small busi-
ness concerns. The direct loans are usually in the form of bank
guarantees the borrower obtains the loan from a private bank, and the
SBA acts as guarantor. Until approximately 1968, SBA regulations pro-
hibited the granting of any loan (including SBIC loans) to any business
that received more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from alcoholic
beverages. The regulation was repealed by order of the SBA adminis-
trator by publication in the Federal Register. SBA personnel today state
that the change was due to the administrator's decision that alcoholic
beverage outlets were no longer considered suspect businesses and were
entitled to the benefits received by other small businesses. Lobbying
efforts were not a factor in the decision, according to current personnel.
. The regulatory revision took place during the ghetto riots of the late
1960s. Many ghetto businesses were burned and looted, and the SBA
received many applications for assistance. Coincidentally, liquor stores
and bars made up a large part of the businesses affected by the civil
disturbances. Liquor establishments are one of the few small businesses
that have proven to be successful with minority proprietorship. Cer-
tainly, civil rights concerns in the late 1960s had at least some influence
in the decision to make loans available to liquor stores and bars. In
addition, the timing coincided with nationwide policies that dramatically
increased the availability of alcoholic beverages.
Current figures on direct loans granted by SBA indicate that alcoholic
beverage businesses obtain a significant portion of SBA financing, par-
ticularly among minority applicants. For fiscal 1978, 636 loans amounting
to $48 million were granted to bars and liquor stores, and 40 loans ($7.5
million) were granted to alcoholic beverage wholesalers. Of these, 262
loans (162 of which were liquor stores) were granted to minority ap-
plicants. This means that 2.1 percent of all SBA loans and 4.3 percent
of all minority loans involved alcoholic beverage distribution. The per-
centage of alcoholic beverage concerns that have minority ownership
is particularly striking: 38.8 percent of alcoholic beverage loans (and
50.9 percent of liquor store loans) went to minority applicants, compared
with 18.9 percent of nonalcoholic beverage loans. At the end of fiscal
1978, SBA had outstanding direct loans to 1,764 alcoholic beverage
businesses, 1,060 of which were liquor stores.
SBA officials state that there are no longer any special considerations
for or restrictions on bars and liquor store applications except for those
OCR for page 451
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
451
that might affect their potential for financial success. Applications are
considered on an individual merit basis, and there are no records kept
to determine the default rate of loans by the type of business.
As these statistics show, SBA has a significant involvement in the
establishment of new alcoholic beverage outlets throughout the country.
Yet its staff has no concern with alcohol-related problems and no contact
with the policies of NIAAA. SBA policies provide a case study of
conflicting federal policies (in this case, alcohol beverage control versus
promotion of minority business) in which alcohol policy makers have
had no input.
SBA could provide a source of information for evaluating the retail
trade in alcoholic beverages through the study of loan repayment sta-
tistics. Many proposals for reform in the retail trade could be made
conditions for SBA financing. For example, mandatory training of on-
premise sales personnel or requirements that establishments maintain
certain hours, be located off main highways, or provide for alternative
modes of transportation could be required for a loan to be granted.
These restrictions could be made on an experimental basis to determine
whether they have a beneficial effect on alcohol-related problems. Such
reforms could provide important new research data at minimal costs.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps the most important finding of this study is that significant por-
tions of federal authority to regulate the availability of alcohol and to
respond to alcohol-related problems rest with federal agencies not usu-
ally associated with alcohol policy. This has resulted in little or no
coordination in the development of the federal response to alcohol,
particularly in the area of prevention. In some cases, contradictory pol-
icies are being made and enforced; in others, promising new prevention
strategies (and potential new allies) are not being pursued. This paper
has outlined the scope of federal authority, the important actors, and
the potential impact of new strategies of prevention policy.
Determining which actors should be approached and what strategies
are appropriate is dependent on several factors. First, the current pol-
icies of particular agencies can be examined to determine whether al-
cohol is already considered within an agency's realm of responsibility.
The Department of Defense, for example, is already operating an ex-
tensive alcoholic beverage market as well as large prevention and treat-
ment programs. Alcohol is perceived both within and outside the services
as a source of serious problems that the military must contend with in
order to fulfill its military responsibilities effectively.
OCR for page 452
452
MOSHER and MOTTE
In other cases, the relevance of alcohol to the agency's mission may
exist, but the agency does not yet acknowledge the relationship of al-
cohol issues to its decisions. For example, the IRS does not consider
itself involved with alcohol policy, yet its actions have an impact on the
perception of alcohol in the population, at least on a symbolic level.
If a particular agency is already addressing alcohol issues, political
support and recommendations for improvement or further study can be
offered. For example, the military may provide an excellent opportunity
to learn more about the relationship of alcohol availability and alcohol-
related problems, and experimental programs may be appropriate. In
some cases, however, a first step may be necessary—convincing an
agency that its actions do in fact have an impact on federal alcohol
. .
pa lcles.
In many cases described in this paper, agencies with the capacity to
address alcohol-related issues do not view alcohol as part of their man-
date. This may be justified. For example, alcohol issues are insignificant
to the main goals of the Bureau of Land Management and. the National
Park Service. Despite their supervision of a modest alcohol retail trade
and their concern for at least some alcohol-related problems (e.g., drunk
driving), they have only minimal enforcement and supervisory capacity
and have important, unrelated responsibilities.
A particular agency's view of its own responsibilities may conflict,
however, with a significant part of its statutory duties. For example, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission is mandated to provide useful
and extensive statistical data on the cases of accidents involving con-
sumer products. Its accident forms and collection procedures virtually
ensure that this responsibility cannot be met, particularly as to alcohol
involvement. In fact, the commission in the past has considered alcohol
as outside its scope of responsibility altogether, despite this statutory
directive. The Federal Railroad Administration's duty to ensure safe
rail transportation appears to be significantly hampered by its failure to
determine the extent of alcohol involvement in accidents, particularly
given the recent study of drinking among railroad employees. Agencies
with overlapping responsibilities may fail to act, relying on others to do
so: for example, the National Transportation Safety Board and the
Department of Transportation, in regard to the general study of alcohol
involvement in transportation accidents.
When a particular agency is not meeting statutory responsibilities,
strategies that attempt to initiate policy changes and new programs may
be appropriate. The tactics relied on depend on a given agency's current
financial and political situation and its likely response. Alcohol policy
makers in some instances may have to take as a first step simply opening
OCR for page 453
The Role of Nonalcoho! Agencies
453
an issue for debate, hoping that alliances can be formed and attitudes
changed. More concrete actions may be appropriate if an agency is likely
to be responsive.
Coordinating federal alcohol policy may in some cases require direct
contacts with particular agencies or interested third parties. In others,
however, there may be issues common to more than one agency. For
example, a common thread through most of this paper concerns the
need for better statistical analysis from a variety of federal agencies.
Here, an interagency approach may prove to be useful. NIAAA is
currently mandated by law to coordinate the Interagency Committee on
Federal Activities for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, which includes
a prevention subcommittee. However, the full committee as presently
constituted does not include many of the agencies discussed in this paper.
Its emphasis has been on coordinating treatment efforts rather than on
prevention; and it has not attracted attendance by high-level officials.
This committee may have potential usefulness. However, if it is relied
on as a means to address some of the strategies discussed in this report,
NIAAA will need to place renewed emphasis on improving its effec-
tiveness.
Agency responsibilities, according to the agency's own perception and
according to its statutory mandate, will be important factors in evaluating
new strategies associated with nonalcohol-specific agencies. If NIAAA
decides that coordinating alcohol prevention policies among agencies
with significant alcohol-related responsibilities is part of its mission, it
will need to devote long-term staff and financial support to the effort.
Important new contacts will be necessary, either directly with particular
agencies, or through a committee approach. The process of implemen-
tation requires both negotiation and careful analysis of costs and possible
opposition. We hope that our preliminary contacts and analysis provide
a sound basis for further research and study.
REFERENCES
Aarens, M., Cameron, T., Roizen, J., Roizen, R., Room, R., Schnebeck D., Wingard,
D. (1977) Alcohol, Casualties and Crime. Berkeley, Calif.: Social Research Group.
Berl, W., and Halpin, B. (1978) Human Fatalities from Unwanted Fires. Laurel, Md.:
John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
BNun, K., Edwards, G., Lumio, M., Makela, K., Pan, L., Popham, R., Room, R.,
Schmidt, W., Skog, O., Sulkunen, P., Osterberg, E. (1975) Alcohol Control Policies
in Public Health Perspective. Helsinki, Finland: The Finnish Foundation for Alcohol
Studies.
Bunce, R. (1979) The Political Economy of California's Wine Industry. Berkeley, Calif.:
Social Research Group.
Cahalan, D. Cisin, I., and Crossley, H. (1969) American Drinking Practices: A National
OCR for page 454
454
MOSHER and MOTT'
Survey of Drinking Behavior and Attitudes. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Center of
Alcohol Studies.
Cahalan, D., Cisin, I., Gardner, G., Smith, G. (~1972) Drinking Practices and Problems
in the U.S. Army, 1972. Information Concepts, Inc., Report No. 73-6. Washington,
D.C.: Information Concepts, Inc.
Cahalan, D., and Cisin, I. (1975) Final Report on a Service Survey of Attitudes and
Behavior of Naval Personnel Concerning Alcohol and Problem Drinking. Washington,
I).C.: Bureau of Social Science Research.
CSB Radio (1979) Special: Up in Smoke Cigarettes and Safety. May 26, 1979, 8:30-8:54
p.m., E.D.T. New York City, N.Y. CBS News.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1976a) Report to Congress: Alcohol Abuse Is More
Prevalent in the Military Than Drug Abuse. MWD-76-99, April 8, 1976. Washington,
D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1976b) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product
Safety Commission Should Act More Promptly to Protect the Public from Hazardous
Products. HRI)-78-122, June 1, 1976. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1977) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product Safety
Commission Needs to insure Safety Standards Faster. HRD-78-3, December 12, 1977.
Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1978a) Report to Congress: Stronger Federal Aviation
Administration Requirements Needed to Identify and Reduce Alcohol Use Among Ci-
vilian Pilots. CED-78-58, March 20, 1978. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting
Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1978b) Report to Congress: The Consumer Product
Safety Commission Has No Assurance That Product Defects Are Being Reported and
Corrected. HRD-78-48. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1979a) Report to Congress: Changes Needed in Operating
Military Clubs and Alcohol Package Stores, Volume I and II. FPCD-79-7, January 15,
1979 and April 23, 1979. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Comptroller General of the U.S. (1979b) GAO Staff Report: The Tax Status of Federal
Resale Activities: Issues and Alternatives. FPCD-79-19, April 19, 1979. Washington,
D.C.: General Accounting Office.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (1978) HIA Hazard Analysis Report, Upholstered
Furniture Flammability 1978. Washington, D.C.: Consumer Product Safety Commis-
sion.
Dooley, D., and Masher, J. (1978) Alcohol and legal negligence. Contemporary Drug
Problems 7~2~:145-179.
Douglass R.' and Freedman, J. (1977) Alcohol Related Casualties and Beverage Market
Response to Beverage Alcohol Availability Policies in Michigan: Final Report Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan.
Federal Aviation Administration (1976) Alcoholism and Airline Flight Crewmembers.
Office of Aviation Medicine, Memorandum, November 10, 1976. Washington, D.C.:
Federal Aviation Administration.
Federal Railroad Administration (1976) AccidentlIncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976
No. 144. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Railroad Administration (1977) Accidentllncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976
No. 145. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Railroad Administration (1978) AccidentlIncident Bulletin, Calendar Year 1976
No. 146. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
OCR for page 455
The Role of Nonalcoho! Agencies
455
Feinburg, J. (1978) Consumer product safety: The current record of administrative inter-
pretation. Federal Bar Journal 37~2~:344-356.
Fowler, F. (1979) A toast to NASAP. Driver: The Traffic Safety Magazine for the Military
Driver 11~1~:1-13.
Frank, G. (1979) Passengers 75, Flight Attendants 0. San Francisco Chronicle, September
28, p. 29.
Green, M., and Moulton, D. (1978) The case of the battered agency. The Nation June
10:698-700.
Gusfield, J. (1976) The prevention of drinking problems. Pp. 267-293 in Filstead, Rossi,
Keller, eds., The Prevention of Drinking Problems: New Thinking and New Directions.
Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Haddon, W. (1973a) Energy damage and the ten countermeasure strategies. Journal of
Trauma 13~4~:321-331.
Haddon, W. (1973b) Exploring the Options in Research Directions: Toward the Reduction
of injury. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication 73-124.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Health.
Hall, A. H. (1975) Remarks: The FRA position and proposal. Pp. 3-7 in New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Proceedings of 1975 Conference on the De-
tection, Prevention and Rehabilitation of the Problem Drinking Employee in the Railroad
Industry. No. PB-248906. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service.
Kenefick, J. C. (1977) The great train robbery. Pp. 4-6 in Federal Railroad Administration,
Proceedings of the 1976 Conference: Employee Assistance Programs—An Alternative to
Tragedy. Report No. FRA-OPPD-77-1. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Admin-
istration.
Killeen, J. (1979) U.S. military alcohol abuse prevention and rehabilitation programs. Pp.
355-381 in H. Blane and M. Chafetz, eds., Youth, Alcohol and Social Policy. New
York: Plenum Press.
Long, J., Hewitt, L., and Blane, H. (1976) Alcohol abuse in the armed services: A review.
I. Policies and programs. Military Medicine 141:844-850.
Lowrance, W. (1976) Of Acceptable Risk. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufmann, Inc.
Manley, T., McNichols, C., and Stahl, M. (1979) Alcoholism and Alcohol Related Prob-
lems Among USAF Civilian Employees. U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology Tech-
nical Report 79-4, August, 1979. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: U.S. Air
Force.
Mannello, T. A., and Seaman, F. J. (1979) Prevalence, Costs, and Handling of Drinking
Problems on Seven Railroads: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: University Research
Corporation.
May, P. (1977) Alcohol beverage control: A survey of tribal alcohol statutes. American
Indian Law Review 5:217-288.
Medicine in the Public Interest, Inc. (1976) The Effects of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Laws. Washington, D.C.: Medicine in the Public Interest, Inc.
Morgan, P. (1980) The evolution of California alcohol policy: Alcohol problem manage-
ment in the post-war period. Contemporary Drug Problems 9~1~:107-140.
Mosher, J. (1975) Liquor Legislation and Native Americans: History and Perspective.
Unpublished paper. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif.
Masher, J. (1978) Alcoholic Beverage Controls in the Prevention of Alcohol Problems:
A Concept Paper on Demonstration Programs. Prepared for the Division of Prevention,
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Social Research Group, Berkeley,
Calif.
OCR for page 456
456
MOSHER and MOTTL
Mosher, J. (1979a) Dram shop liability and the prevention of alcohol-related problems.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol 40~9~:773-798.
Mosher, J. (1979b) Alcohol Beverage Control System in California. Unpublished paper.
Social Research Group, Berlceley, Calif.
Mosher, J. (1979c) Retail Distribution of Alcoholic Beverages in California. Unpublished
paper. Social Research Group, Berkeley, Calif.
Mosher, J., and Wallack, L. (1979) The DUI Project: A Description of an Experimental
Program to Address Drinking-Driving Problems. Sacramento, Calif.: California De-
partment of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Mosher, J. (1980) Alcoholic Beverages on Tax Deductible Business Expenses: An Issue
of Public Health Policy and Prevention Strategy. Unpublished paper. Social Research
Group, Berkeley, Calif.
National Transportation Safety Board (1974) Railroad Accident Report: Rear-End Col-
lision of Two Southern Pacific Transportation Company Freight Trains, lndio, Califor-
nia, June 25, 1973. Technical Report No. NTSB-RAR-74-1, adopted March 20, 1974.
Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board (1978) Annual Report to Congress 1977. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board (1979a) Annual Report to Congress 1978. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board (1979b) Marine Accident Report: Ferry MIV George
Prince Collision with the Tanker S.S. Frosta (Norwegian) on the Mississippi River Lulingl
Destrehan, Louisiana October 20, 1976. Technical Report No. NTSB-MAR-79-4,
adopted March 22, 1979. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board (1980) Railroad Accident Report: Rear-End Col-
lision of Two Southern Pacific Transportation Company Freight Trains, 02-Holat-21 and
01-BSM FK-20, Thousand Palms, California, July 24, 1979. Technical Report No.
NTSB-RAR-74-1, adopted March 20, 1974. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation
Safety Board.
O'Hanlon, T. (1979) August Busch brews up a new spirit in St. Louis. Fortune Magazine,
January 15:98.
O'Malley, B. (1979) Cigarettes and sofas: How the tobacco lobby keeps the home fires
burning. Mother Jones, July:56-62.
O~rerbey, J. W. (1979) Letter of the Director, Analysis and Management Studies, United
States Fire Administration to A. Jarvis, Legislative Assistant to Representative Moak-
ley, September 5, 1979.
Polich, J., and Orvis, B. (1979) Alcohol Problems: Patterns and Prevalence in the U.S.
Air Force. R2308-AF, June 1979. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation.
Popham, R., Schmidt, W., and deLint, J. (1975) The prevention of alcoholism: Epide-
miological studies of the effect of government control measures. British Journal of
Addiction 70:125-144.
Popham, R., Schmidt, W., and deLint, J. (1976) The effects of legal restraint on drinking.
Pp. 597-625 in D. Kissin and H. Begleiter, eds., The Biology of Alcoholism, Volume
4: Social Aspects of Alcoholism. New York: Plenum Press.
Room, R., and Mosher, J. (1979) A role for regulatory agencies in the prevention of
alcohol problems. Alcohol and Health Research World 4~2~:11-18.
Schuckit, M. (1977) Alcohol problems in the United States armed forces. Military Chap-
lains Review (Winter):9-19.
Spirits Magazine (1960) Is liquor's billion dollar business being recognized? Spirits, Oc-
tober.
OCR for page 457
The Role of Nonalcohol Agencies
457
Stiehl, C. (1975) Alcohol and Pleasure Boat Operators: Final Report. No. CG-D-143-75.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
U.S. Coast Guard (1979a) Boating Statistics, 1978. COMDTINST M16754.1. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
U.S. Coast Guard (1979b) Statistics of Casualties, 1978. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast
Guard.
U.S. Congress (1976) Media Images of Alcohol: The Effects of Advertising and Other
Media on Alcohol Abuse. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Nar-
cotics of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate 94th
Congress, March 8 and 11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress (1978) Consumer Product Safety Commission. Hearing before the Sub-
committee on Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, March
9. House Document 95-68. 95th Congress, Second Session. Washington, D.C.. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1972) Fourth Annual Report to the
President and the Congress on the Studies of Death, Injuries, and Economic Losses
Resulting from Accidental Burning of Products, Fabrics, or Related Materials. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Waas, M. (1980) Life savers: Self-extinguishing cigarettes.Washington Post Sunday Out-
look, June 1:2.
APPENDIX
RELEVANT REGULATIONS AND LAWS BY AGENCY
National Park Service
36 Code of Federal Regulation ("CER") §§2.16, 5.2
Public Law 89-249, October 9, 1965; 79 Stat. 969-971
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR §8363
Army Corps of Engineers
Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 1130-2-400, May 28, 1971
Forest Service
36 CFR §§3.14, 4.6
Bureau of Indian Affiars
Act of August 15, 1953, ch. 505 §2; 67 Stat. 586; 25 CFR §~11.1, 11.55
Department of Defense
DOD Directive 1330.15, April 11, 1972
DOD Directive 1010.2, March 1, 1972 (as amended)
DOD Instruction 1010.3, May 22, 1974
OCR for page 458
458
Army Regulation A210-65, December 1, 1978
Air Force Regulation 215-1, July 31, 1974 (as amended)
Navy Manual for Messes Ashore NAVPERS 15951
U.S. Navy Regulations 1973, art. 1150
SECNAV Instruction 1700.11B, March 29, 1973
MOSHER and MOTTE
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Consumer Product Safety Act, Public Law 92-S73, October 27, 1972;
86 Stat. 1207
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
10 CFR §§55.11, 55.33
National Transportation Safety Board
49 U.S.C.A. §§1901 et seq.
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR §§67.1-67.31, 91.11, 121, 575
Federal Railroad Administration
Rail Safety Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-458, May 10, 1970)
Coast Guard
Public Law 92-75, August 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 214-226
46CFR §§10.1 et seq.
Internal Revenue Service
26 U.S.C.A. §§162, 274
26 CFR §1.274.2
Small Business Administration
none
Representative terms from entire chapter:
product safety
