This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
E. ISSA. CHAIRMAN
ONE HUNDRED 1WELFTH CONGRESS
E. CUMMINGS. MINORITY
DAN BURTON. INDIANA JOHN L. MICA. FLORIDA TODD RUSSELL PLAns. PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL R. TURNER, OHIO PATRICK McHENRY. NORTH CAROLINA JIM JORDAN. OHIO .JASON CHAFfETZ. UTAH CONNIE MACK. FLORIDA TIM WALBERG, MICHIGAN JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA JUSTIN AMASH, MICHIGAN ANN MARIE BUERKLE, NEW YORK PAUL A. GOSAR, O,O,S" ARIZONA RAUL R. LABRADOR, IDAHO PATRICK MEEHAN. PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT DesJARLAIS. M.D .. TENNESSEE JOE WALSH, ILLINOIS TREY GOWDY, SOUTH CAROLINA DENNiS A. ROSS, FLORIDA FRANK C, GUINTA. NEW HAMPSHIRE BLAKE FARENTHOLD. TEXAS MIKE KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA LAWRENCE
~ongre£i£i of tbe Wniteb ~tate£i
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NEW YORK CAROL YN S. MALONEY. NEW YORK ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. OISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OENNIS J. KUCINICH, OHIO JOHN F. TIERNEY, MASSACHUSETTS WM. LACY CLAY. MISSOURI STEPHEN F. LYNCH, MASSACHUSEns JIM COOPER. TENNESSEE GERALD E. CONNOLLY. VIRGINIA MiKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS DANNY K. DAVIS. ILLINOIS BRUCE L. BRALEY, IOWA PETER WELCH, VERMONT JOHN A. YARMUTK, KENTUCKY CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, CONNECTICUT JACKIE. SPEIER, CALIFORNIA
MAJOAlri FACSIMIL.E M>NOA''''
225-5074 (202) .22s-..39711 1202)225-5051
November 28, 2011
Mr. Alan Mulally President and CEO Ford Motor Company One American Road Dearborn, MI 48126-2798 Dear Mr. Mulally: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the process by which the Obama Administration set fuel economy standards for Model Years (MY) 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty trucks. As a part ofthis investigation, the Committee has requested information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2 the California Air Resources Board (CARB),3 and the White House." The Committee requests your voluntary participation with this inquiry. I respectfuJly ask that you answer the following questions and provide the requested documents for the period June I, 2008, through present: 1. Please provide a detailed explanation of the negotiations that culminated in agreement on MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle, MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle, and heavy-duty truck standards. Provide documents sufficient to support your response. In addition, for each rulemaking please answer the following questions to the extent practicable: a. Who participated in the negotiations on behalf of the Administration? Please provide a list of all participants from NHTSA, EPA, the White House, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and any other federal government entity. For each individual, please include a name, title, and agency/company affiliation.
I Letter from. Darrell issa, Chairman, H. of Transportation (Sept. 30, 20 II). 2 Letter from Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Envtl. Prot. Agency (Sept. 30, 20 II). J Letter from Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. Air Resources Bd. (Nov. 9, 2011). 4 Letter from Darrell Issa, Chairman, H. the President (Aug. 11,2011).
Cornrn. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to Ray LaHood, Secretary, Dep't Cornm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Cornm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform, to Mary Nichols, Chairman, Cal. Comm. on Oversight and Gcv't Reform, to Kathryn Ruemmier, Counsel to
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 2011 Page 2 of 11 b. Who participated in the negotiations on behalf of CARB? Please provide a detailed list of all participants from CARB. For each individual, please include a name and title. c. Who participated in the negotiations on behalf of your company? Please provide a detailed list of all participants and indicate who the lead negotiator was for the company. For each individual, please include a name and title. d. Please list the individuals who participated in the negotiations on behalf of other automakers and trade associations. Please provide a detailed list of all participants. For each individual, please include a name, title, and affiliation. e. On what dates and in what locations were meetings or discussions related to the standards held? Please provide a detailed chronology of the negotiations, including the dates, participants to, and locations of all meetings. f. Please describe in detail the role of each party in the negotiations that culminated in each of the three standards. In your response, be sure to identify the roles of EPA, NHTSA, CARB, CEQ, the White House, the auto manufacturers, trade groups, environmental advocates, and any other entities that participated in the discussions.
g. Please describe the role that non-EPA and non-NHTSA officials or employees played in these negotiations. In your response, be sure to describe in detail the roles of officials from the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry ("Auto Task Force"), including Ron Bloom, the White House, CEQ, CARB, the American Federation of Labor and Congress ofIndustrial Organizations (AFLCIO), the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, and describe how their participation influenced the scope, shape, or direction of the negotiations. h. The New York Times has reported that participants to the 2012-2016 standards engaged in a deliberate vow of silence and took great pains to "put nothing in writing, ever,,?5
Was anyone in your company ever instructed to avoid written correspondence or note-taking? If so, by whom? Please describe the manner in which information was transmitted between your company and the Administration during negotiations for each set of standards your company participated in.
Vow of Silence Key to White House- California Fuel Economy Talks, N.Y.
May 20, 2009.
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Your response should include any practices to use code words, to exchange information in person or speak on the phone, to prefer oral communications over written forms, and any other practice employed to manage communications during negotiations. 2. Please describe in detail the impact that the threat of the California waiver, and the state's corresponding ability to independently set fuel economy standards, had on the negotiations that culminated in agreement on MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle, MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle, and heavy-duty truck standards. a. What is your understanding of the legal authority supporting the California waiver under the Clean Air Act?6 What is your understanding of the legal authority supporting the California waiver under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act?7 b. Is the state of California currently engaged in the regulation of fuel economy or something "related to" fuel economy, as defined by statute: When an average fuel economy standard prescribed under this chapter [49 U.S.C. § 32901 et seq.] is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average fuel economy standard under this chapter?" c. For each rulernaking, pJease describe the role CARB played in the negotiations.
How many meetings did CARB attend? Did CARB have a "vote" in the discussions or otherwise exert influence over the outcome? Did CARB ever threaten to "walk away" from the negotiations? describe these circumstances. Please
How did EPA, NHTSA, or the White House respond to CARB's threat to walk away from negotiations?
d. The Los Angeles Times has reported that after reaching an agreement on MY 2012-2016 standards "the car companies asked in 2009 for a second round of standards starting after 2016, again to stop California from adopting stiffer rules. ,,9 .
Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392 (1963). Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (1975). 849 U.S.C. § 32919(a) (1975). 9 Neela Banerjee, The Road to New Fuel Economy Standards Was Not Smooth, L.A.
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28,2011 Page 4 of 11
Is this statement accurate? Please answer yes or no, and explain fully. If the statement is not accurate, please clarify how discussions on the second round of standards were initiated. Was the automakers' written request for a second round of standards preceded by any discussions with EPA, NHTSA, CARB, or the White House? Please answer yes or no, and explain fully. If yes, please detail the contents of those discussions.
e. To your knowledge, has EPA indicated to CARB or any other party, that it will grant a new waiver for MY 2017-2025 standards? f. To your knowledge, are the MY 2017-2025 standards based on the assumption that EP A will grant California a second waiver?
g. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, a former Obama transition team member said that "California had a gun to their heads" when describing the negotiations between automakers and the Administration. 10
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Was the California waiver, and the state's corresponding ability to impose a patchwork of fuel economy regulations, a significant driver behind the MY 2012-2016 standards and the MY 2017-2025 standards?
h. Do you agree with the statement made by NHTSA's Chief Counsel that the California waiver would create "confusion," and would encourage "renewed litigation" and drive "up the cost of compliance to automobile manufacturers and consumers alike"? II
How does the threat of a separate California regulatory scheme affect your company's ability to plan for future products?
3. Please describe the impact of the MY 2017-2025 fuel economy standards on your company. a. How much will the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking cost your company? Provide sufficient documentation to support your response.
10 Jd. See also "Running on Empty: How the Obama Administration's Green Energy Gamble WiII impact Small Business and Consumers ": Hearing before the Subcomm. on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Gov 't Spending of the H. Comm. 011 Oversight and Gov't Reform, I 12th Congo (2011) (question and answer with Jeremy Anwyl, Chief Executive Officer of Edmunds.com). II Letter from O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., to Matthew B. Nelson (Feb. 19,2010).
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 2011 Page 5 of 11 b. Is the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking the most expensive single rule ever imposed on your company? c. How will the MY 2017-2025 rulernaking affect your sales? Please indicate how many more or how many fewer automobiles you anticipate selling as a result of the rule. d. If consumers do not purchase the newly mandated fuel-efficient vehicles at a sustainable rate, how much loss do you anticipate absorbing before petitioning to revise the regulations? e. How will the MY 2017 -2025 rulemaking affect your research and development budget? Will you be forced to reduce your research and development of safety technologies to accommodate the increased fuel economy mandates? Please explain. 4. Based on your market research and analyses, please describe the market for automobiles from 2017 to 2025. a. Do you have reliable projections for the automobile market in 2022 to 2025? If yes, please describe the market for products manufactured by your company during this period. If no, please explain why the market is not ascertainable. b. How much more, on average, will automobiles cost in every year from 2012 to 2025 as a result of combined impact of the MY 2012-2016 and MY 2017-2025 fuel economy standards? Provide documentation sufficient to support your response. c. According to EPA's own estimates, the average per vehicle price increase by 2025 attributable to the suite of fuel economy standards is $2,985.12 How will this additional cost impact consumer behavior? Provide documentation sufficient to support your response. d. As you are aware, most consumers finance the purchase of their vehicle. To your knowledge, do lenders account for savings attributable to increased fuel efficiency when extending financing for new automobiles? Please describe how your company expects the MY 2017 -2025 standards will impact the ability of
12 The average veh icle price will increase by $91 as a result of the MY 20 II fuel economy standards, see Average Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 20 I I, 74 Fed. Reg. 14,196, 14,413 (Mar. 30, 2009); by $948 as a result of the MY 2012-2016 standards, see Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324, 25,515 (May 7, 2010); and by $1,946 as a result of the MY 2017-2025 standards, see 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, RlN 2060-AQ54. RlN 2127-AK79, at 351 (Nov. 17, 2011) (pubJ ication in Federal Register forthcoming). The sum of these three figures - $91, $948, and $1,946 - yields $2,985.
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28,2011 Page 6 of 11 consumers to finance the purchase a new automobile? sufficient to support your response. Provide documentation
e. According to a chart produced by the Energy Information Administration, the new fuel economy rules will eliminate from the market automobiles costing less than $20,000 by 2025.13 Is this projection accurate? Please explain why or why not and provide sufficient documentation to support your response.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the MY 2017-2025 standards indicates that EPA and NHTSA will develop off-cycle credits for certain technologies, such as solar roof panels." Based on your market research and analyses, is there consumer demand for solar roof panels? If so, please describe this market. What is the average cost to consumers to purchase this option?
g. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Administration predicts that Americans will shift to buying more cars. It predicts that Americans will buy 16.1 million vehicles in 2016, including 62.6 percent cars. By 2025, it predicts 17.1 million vehicles will be sold, including 67 percent cars. 15 Are these predictions consistent with your company's market analyses? Please explain and provide documents sufficient to support your response. 5. What is your understanding of the so-called "mid-term evaluation" provision for MY 2022-2025 included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?16 a. Excluding electric vehicles, does your company have the technical ability to manufacture profitable vehicles that can achieve average gas mileage above 55 mpg? b. Was your company involved in negotiations over a "mid-term evaluation" provision? If so, what was your company's position? c. How will this "mid-term evaluation" occur? d. Will EPA orNHTSA be the lead agency? e. What will be the role of CARB?
See U. S. Energy Information Adrnin., Annual Energy Outlook 20 I I, at 27 fig. 18 (Apr. 20 II). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, RJN 2060-AQ54. RIN 2127-AK79, at 49 (Nov. 17,201 I) (publication in Federal Register forthcoming). 15 David Shepardson, Price Tag of 2025 's Fuel Efficiency Standards: $ / 57 Billion, THE DETROIT NEWS, Nov. 16, 20 II. 162017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, RIN 2060-AQ54. RlN 2127-AK79, at 240 (Nov. 17,20 II) (publication in Federal Register forthcoming).
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 2011 Page 7 of 11 f. What will be the role of automobile manufacturers?
g. What is the legal basis for this "mid-term evaluation" provision? 6. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes minimal-to-no fuel economy increases for the largest light-duty trucks for MY 2017-2021.17 Specifically, the fuel economy targets for light trucks during MY 2017-2021 converge around the 68 square foot mark. IS Thus, the NPRM indicates that trucks larger than 68 square feet - e.g. large light-duty trucks - will not be required to increase fuel economy in each of those five model years. No other type of vehicle was similarly exempted from fuel economy increases. What is your understanding of this so-called "SUV loophole," under which certain light-duty trucks would not be subject to increases in fuel economy between MY 2017 and 2021 ? a. In your opinion, does this loophole affect auto manufacturers uniformly? Please explain. b. As the two best-selling vehicles in the United States are both light-duty trucks, both of which stand to benefit from this loophole, 19 does this provision give certain auto manufacturers a competitive advantage over other auto manufacturers? Please explain. c. According to an article in Automotive News, Ron Bloom proposed this provision to give "autornakers a break for light trucks. ,,20 Is this characterization accurate? If not, explain your understanding as to why the loophole was included in the rule. 7. EPA's Director of Transportation and Air Quality, Margo Oge, once stated "Diesel engines, especially for the light-duty sector, in my mind, provide a near-term strategy for the country to address greenhouse gas emissions, because of the improvement in fuel efficiency .... You have a tremendous opportunity, by introducing clean diesel cars, to address greenhouse gas emissions.?" a. Do the MY 2017-2025 fuel economy regulations for light-duty vehicles encourage the use of diesel technology? b. To the best of your ability, please explain your understanding as to why the standards either do or do not encourage the "tremendous opportunity" of diesel technology.
See id. at 637-38. See id. at 638 fig. IV -2. 19 Auto Sales _ Markets Data Center, Top 20 Vehicles, WALL ST. 1., Nov. 1,20 II, available at http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesC (last visited Nov. 9, 2011). 20 Neil Roland, How Obama's Compromises Make a New CAFE a Smaller Leap, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, Aug. 8, 2010. 21 Mike Osenga, JO Questions with Margo Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, DIESEL PROGRESS NORTH AMERICA (Feb. 2007).
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 2011 Page 8 of 11 8. According to a recent analysis by Edmunds.com, fuel economy standards may cause 240 more automotive fatalities each year due to an overall reduced weight of vehicles.Y NHTSA also estimates that the cost of crashes over the life of the rule will be between $12.4 billion and 15.5 billion.23 a. Do you agree with the general findings of the Edmunds.com analysis? Please provide all documents referring or relating to the impact the MY 2017-2025 standards will have on the safety of future vehicles. b. Historically, has there been a trade-off between improvements in safety and improvements in fuel economy? c. Are you concerned that increased fuel economy standards may impede advancements in safety? Please provide documents sufficient to support your response. d. Have you addressed these concerns (if any) to EPA or NHTSA? If yes, what have been their responses? Please provide documentation sufficient to support your response. 9. As you know, auto manufacturers and trade associations executed commitment letters on May 17,2009, and July 29, 2011, to DOT and EPA attesting to their support of the rulemakings and agreeing to specific terms.i" Please describe in detail your understanding of the legal and practical implications of the commitment letters, In addition, please answer the following questions for both the MY 2012-2016 rule and the MY 2017-2025 agreement: a, Did your company execute a commitment letter addressed to DOT and EPA for the rulemakings? b. For each rulemaking, please specify who requested that you sign this letter. Please identify the entity, including all officers or employees, who initiated the request that you execute the letter. c. To the best of your knowledge, what would have been the consequences of a refusal to agree to this commitment letter for each ruJemaking?
Jeremy Anwyl, Safety Over Fuel Economyr, AUTOOSSERVER,Sept. 30,2011. Shepardson, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined .. 24 See, e.g., Letter from Daniel F. Akerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Gen. Motors, to Ray Lal-Iood, Secretary, Dep't of Transportation, and Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Envtl. Prot. Agency (July 29, 2011); Letter from Frederick A. Henderson, Chief Executive Officer, Gen. Motors Corp., to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Envtl. Prot. Agency, and Raymond LaHood, Secretary, Dep't of Transportation (May 17,2009).
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28,2011 Page 9 of 11 d. What did your company receive in return for its agreement to not challenge final standards? What did your company receive in return for agreeing not to challenge the California waiver? e. How was the decision to waive your company's right to challenge the joint rulemakings in the best interest of your company and/or your shareholders? f. How is the Administration bound by this agreement? What form of consideration did the Administration provide in exchange for your concession?
g. How was CARB bound by this agreement? What form of consideration did CARB provide in exchange for your concession? h. How much time were you given to consider and respond to the request for a commitment letter for each rulemaking?
Were there any restrictions placed on your ability to modify, edit, or delete the terms or language of either commitment letter? In addition to the commitment letter, did you execute any other formal agreements with DOT, NHTSA, EPA, or any other entity regarding fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions standards for MY 2012-20 16 light-duty vehicles, MY 20 17-2025 light-duty vehicles, or heavy-duty trucks? If yes, please provide the Committee with copies of those agreements, along with any documents or communications referring or relating to them.
10. The Administration has touted the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking as providing much-needed "regulatory certainty" for automakers.t'' However, the proposed rule includes a "midterm evaluation" provision in which EPA will review the rule in 2018,26 as well as NHTSA "conditional" standards from MY 2022 to MY 2025.27 Given that the standards could change during EPA's "mid-term evaluation" and that NHTSA will need to promulgate formal standards for MY 2022-2025, please explain if this rulemaking improves regulatory certainty for your company. 11. In your opinion, would one federal fuel economy standard, established by one federal agency with authority given by Congress, offer more regulatory certainty than the current tripartite regulatory structure?
See, e.g., Press Release, Dep't of Transportation & Envtl, Prot. Agency, We Can't Wait: Obama Administration Proposes Historic Fuel Economy Standards to Reduce Dependence on Oil, Save Consumers Money at the Pump (Nov. 16,2011). 262017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Veh icle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, RIN 2060-AQ54. RIN 2127-AK 79, at 240 (Nov. J 7, 20 II) (publication in Federal Register forthcoming). 27 fd at 242-43.
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28, 20 II Page 10 of 11 12. The Administration's Fuel Economy Guide for Model Year 2011 lists over 160 models with fuel economy greater than 30 miles per gallon." For the vehicles in your fleet, please explain the consumer demand for these vehicles. Please provide documentation sufficient to support your response. 13. Please list all loans or grants your company has received from the federal government since January I, 2009. Provide a sum total of government aid that your company has received since January I) 2009. 14. To achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, auto makers will have to produce vehicles using high-strength, low-weight stee1.29 Please describe the domestic market for this product. In addition, I respectfully ask that you provide the requested documents for the period June 1, 2008, through present: 15. Please provide all documents and communications referring or relating to the California waiver, including but not limited to the following: a. All documents and communications referring or relating to the legal authority of the California waiver (see Question 2.a); b. All documents and communications referring or relating to CARB' s role in negotiations (see Question2.c); c. All documents and communications referring or relating to the initial discussions of a second round of fuel economy standards (see Question 2.d); d. All documents and communications referring or relating to the impact of the California waiver on automakers (see Questions 2.g and 2.h); e. All documents and communications referring or relating to the impact of the California waiver on your company (see Question 2.i); and f. All documents and communications referring or relating to California's ability to influence federal fuel economy standards.
16. Please provide all documents referring or relating to the development of the "mid-term evaluation" provision. 17. Please provide all documents and communications referring or relating to the "SUV loophole," as described in Question 6.
See U.S. Dept of Energy, Envtl. Prot. Agency, Fuel Economy Guide for Model Year 20 I J, available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2011.pdf. 29 See Deepa.Seethararn, A uta Companies Eye New "Cures" to Cut Vehicle Weight, REUTERS, Aug. I, 20 I I.
Mr. Alan Mulally November 28,2011 Page 11 of 11 18. Please provide all documents and communications referring or relating to the commitment letters, as described in Question 9. If your company executed any other formal agreements in addition to the commitment letters, please provide copies of those agreements, along with any docwnents or communications referring or relating to them. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and may at "any time" investigate "any matter" as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information about responding to the Committee's request. We request that you provide the requested documents and information as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m, on December 12,2011. Please directly respond to each question and request as numbered herein. When producing documents to the Committee, please deliver production sets to the Maj ority Staff in Room 2157 of the Rayburn House Office Building and the Minori ty Staff in Room 2471 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The Commi ttee prefers, if possible, to receive all documents in electronic format. In addition, to assist the Committee in understanding how the proposed standards will affect your company, the Committee respectfully requests a technical briefing with your staff. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Kristina Moore, David Brewer, or Sharon Utz of the Committee Staff at 202-225-5074. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Enclosure' cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Minority Member
E. ISSA, CALIFORNIA
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, RANKING MINORITY
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON,
Malority (202) 225-5074 Minority (202) .225-5051
Responding to Committee Document Requests 1. In complying with this request, you should produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees, and representatives acting on your behalf. You should also produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control of any third party. Requested records, documents, data or information should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee. 2. In the event that any entity, organization or individual denoted in this request has been, or is also known by any other name than that herein denoted, the request shall be read also to include that alternative identification. 3. The Committee's preference is to receive documents in electronic form (i.e., CD, memory stick, or thumb drive) in lieu of paper productions. 4. Documents produced in electronic format should also be organized, identified, and indexed electronically. 5. Electronic document productions should be prepared according to the following standards: (a) The production should consist of single page Tagged Image File ("TIF"), files accompanied by a Concordance-format load file, an Opticon reference file, and a file defining the fields and character lengths of the load file.
(b) Document numbers in the load file should match document Bates numbers and
TIF file names. (c) If the production is completed through a series of multiple partial productions, field names and file order in all load files should match.
Documents produced to the Committee should include an index describing the contents of the production. To the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb drive, box or folder is produced, each CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb drive, box or folder should contain an index describing its contents. Documents produced in response to this request shall be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers or identifying markers with which they were associated when they were requested. When you produce documents, you should identify the paragraph in the Committee's request to which the documents respond. It shall not be a basis for refusal to produce documents that any other person or entity also possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same documents.
10. If any of the requested information is only reasonably availabJe in machine-readable form (such as on a computer server, hard drive, or computer backup tape), you should consult with the Committee staff to determine the appropriate format in which to produce the information. 11. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full, compliance shall be made to the extent possible and shall include an explanation of why full compliance is not possible. 12. In the event that a document is withheld on the basis of privilege, provide a privilege log containing the following information concerning any such document: (a) the privilege asserted; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the date, author and addressee; and (e) the relationship of the author and addressee to each other. 13. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, identify the document (stating its date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control. 14. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a document is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the request, you should produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct. 15. The time period covered by this request is included in the attached request. To the extent a time period is not specified, produce relevant documents from January 1, 2009 to the present. 16. This request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly-discovered information. Any record, document, compilation of data or information, not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date, shall be produced immediately upon subsequent location or discovery.
17. All documents shall be Bates-stamped
and produced sequentially.
18. Two sets of documents shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the Minority Staff. When documents are produced to the Committee, production sets shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 21570f the Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 24710fthe Rayburn House Office Building. 19. Upon completion of the document production, you should submit a written certification, signed by you or your counsel, stating that: (I) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; and (2) all documents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee.
I. The term "document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets, magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, inter-office and intra-office communications, electronic mail (e-mail), contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases, circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices. thereto), and graphic or oral records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and electronic, mechanical, and electric records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other written, printed, typed, or other graphic or recorded matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, and whether preserved in writing, film, tape, disk, videotape or otherwise. A document bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.
2. The term "communication" means each manner or means of disclosure or exchange ofinforrnation, regardless of means utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, email, regular mail, telexes, releases, or otherwise. 3. The terms "and" and "or" shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of this request any information which might
otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. 4. The terrns "person" or "persons" mean natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal, business or government entities, and all subsidiaries, affil iates, di visions, departments, branches, or other units thereof.
5. The term "identify," when used in a question about individuals, means to provide the following information: (a) the individual's complete name and title; and (b) the individual's business address and phone number. 6. The term "referring or relating," with respect to any given subject, means anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with or is pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.