[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39250-39254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19232]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Order No. 2096-97]


Office of the Attorney General; Memorandum of Guidance on 
Implementation of the Litigation Reforms of Executive Order No. 12988

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice with request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This memorandum implements those provisions of Executive Order 
No. 12988 (the ``Order'') that govern the conduct of civil litigation 
with the United States Government, including the methods by which 
attorneys for the government conduct discovery, seek sanctions, and 
attempt to settle cases. The Order authorizes the Attorney General to 
issue guidelines carrying out the Order's provisions on civil and 
administrative litigation. The Order revoked Executive Order No. 12778 
(October 23, 1991) and became effective May 6, 1996. These interim 
guidelines supersede guidelines issued under Executive Order No. 12778 
(58 FR 6015, January 25, 1993). The Attorney General requests comments 
from federal agencies so that final guidelines may be drafted in light 
of the

[[Page 39251]]

agencies' experience in implementing Executive Order No. 12988.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These interim guidelines are effective on July 22, 
1997. Comments are requested from federal agencies on or before October 
20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Colonel Richard D. Rosen, Civil 
Division, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colonel Richard D. Rosen, Civil Division, Department of Justice, 950 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 616-0929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order No. 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), which President Clinton signed on February 5, 1996, 
is intended to ``facilitate the just and efficient resolution of civil 
claims involving the United States Government.'' 61 FR 4729. The Order 
mandates, inter alia, reforms in the methods by which attorneys for the 
government conduct discovery, seek sanctions, and attempt to settle 
cases. Revoking Executive Order No. 12778 (56 FR 55195, October 25, 
1991), these reforms apply to litigation begun on or after May 6, 1996.
    The Order requires agencies to implement civil justice reforms 
applicable to each agency's civil litigation. Sections 5(a), 5(b), and 
8(c) authorize the Attorney General to coordinate efforts by federal 
agencies to implement the litigation process reforms, to promulgate 
guidelines to promote just and efficient civil litigation and 
administrative adjudications, and to issue further guidance as to the 
scope of the Order. Final guidelines will be most useful, however, if 
they incorporate comments from federal agencies and their litigation 
counsel after they have had experience in applying Executive Order No. 
12988. That experience will offer a valuable basis for deciding how the 
final guidelines can best refine implementation of the Order.
    These guidelines provide interim direction for implementing the 
Order. They supersede the guidelines issued under Executive Order No. 
12778. See 58 FR 6015 (January 25, 1993). Executive Order No. 12988 
differs from Executive Order 12778 in a number of important respects, 
each of which is reflected in the new guidelines. For example, in 
contrast to Executive Order No. 12778, Executive Order No. 12988 does 
not include sections on ``core'' discovery, expert witnesses, and fee 
shifting. In addition, Executive Order No. 12988 enhances the section 
dealing with alternative dispute resolution, including lifting the 
prohibition against binding arbitration.
    Agencies and their litigation counsel are requested to provide 
comments concerning their experience in carrying out the new Order and 
their recommendations for revising this interim guidance. Moreover, 
since this interim guidance incorporates, where applicable, the civil 
litigation guidelines implemented under Executive Order No. 12778, 
agencies and their litigation counsel should also consider their 
experience under those portions of Executive Order No. 12778 and its 
guidelines when developing their comments.
    Agencies should note in particular the requirements imposed by both 
Executive Order No. 12988 and Executive Order No. 12778 concerning the 
designation of persons within each agency to act on litigation 
documents and sanctions motions. First, each agency must establish ``a 
coordinated procedure''--including review by a ``senior lawyer''--for 
the conduct of document discovery undertaken by that agency in 
litigation to determine that it meets the substantive criteria of the 
Order. Executive Order No. 12988, Sec. 1(d)(1); see also Executive 
Order No. 12778, Sec. 1(d)(2). Second, to implement the Order, each 
agency must designate a ``sanctions officer'' to review sanctions 
motions filed either by or against the government. Executive Order No. 
12988, Sec. 1(e)(2); see also Executive Order No. 12778, Sec. 1(f)(2); 
see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 37(a)(4). The Attorney General 
recommends that each agency designate a specific individual to serve as 
the agency coordinator for implementation of Executive Order. No. 
12988. Details regarding this designation and other guidelines are 
contained in this memorandum.
    Although the Department is authorized to issue guidelines on 
administrative adjudications under sections 4 (b)-(d) of the Order, it 
is not presently planning to do so. If such guidelines become necessary 
or appropriate in the future, the Department may issue them at that 
time.
    By virtue of the authority vested in me by law, including Executive 
Order No. 12988, I hereby issue the following memorandum:

Department of Justice Memorandum of Guidance on Implementation of the 
Litigation Reforms of Executive Order No. 12988

Introduction

    Executive Order No. 12988 (the ``Order''), which President Clinton 
signed on February 5, 1996, is intended to ``facilitate the just and 
efficient resolution of civil claims involving the United States 
Government.'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996). The Order mandates inter 
alia, reforms in the methods by which attorneys for the government 
conduct discovery, seek sanctions, and attempt to settle cases. The 
Order applies to litigation begun on or after May 6, 1996, and 
supersedes guidelines (58 FR 6015, January 25, 1993) promulgated under 
Executive Order No. 12778 (56 FR 55195, October 25, 1991).
    The Order authorizes the Attorney General to issue guidelines 
carrying out the Order's provisions on civil and administrative 
litigation. Final guidelines can most usefully be issued, however, if 
they incorporate comments from agencies after they have had experience 
in applying the Order. That experience will offer valuable insight into 
how the final guidelines can best implement the Order.
    Therefore, this memorandum provides interim guidelines for 
implementing the Order's provisions governing the conduct of civil 
litigation by the United States Government. Agencies are requested to 
provide comments on or before October 20, 1997 concerning their 
experience in carrying out the Order and their recommendations for 
revising this interim guidance. In developing comments, agencies should 
also consider, where appropriate, their experience under Executive 
Order No. 12778 and its implementing civil litigation guidelines. 
Comments should be sent to Colonel Richard D. Rosen, who has been 
designated the Justice Department's coordinator for implementing the 
Order. Each agency should designate its own coordinator for 
implementing the Order.

Pre-filing Notice of a Complaint

[Section 1(a)]
    The objective of section 1(a) of the Order is to ensure that a 
reasonable effort is made to notify prospective disputants of the 
government's intent to sue, and to provide disputants with an 
opportunity to settle the dispute without litigation. ``Disputants'' 
means persons from whom relief is to be sought by the government in a 
contemplated civil action.
    Section 1(a) requires that either the agency or litigation counsel 
notify each disputant of the government's contemplated action, unless 
an exception to the notice requirement (set forth in section 8(b) of 
the Order) applies.
    Under section 1(a), a reasonable effort to notify disputants and to 
attempt to

[[Page 39252]]

achieve a settlement may be made either by the referring agency in 
administrative or conciliation processes or by litigation counsel. For 
example, many debt collection cases, tax cases, and non-monetary 
disputes are the subject of extensive agency efforts to notify the 
other party or parties and to resolve the dispute before litigation. If 
the referring agency has provided notice, it should supply 
documentation of the notice to litigation counsel. Such efforts by the 
agency may satisfy the requirements of section 1(a). In those cases, 
litigation counsel need not repeat the notice, although litigation 
counsel should consider whether additional notice may be productive 
(for example, if a substantial period has elapsed since the prior 
notice).
    The section requires a ``reasonable'' effort to provide 
notification and to attempt to achieve a settlement. The timing, 
content, and means of a ``reasonable'' effort depend upon the 
particular circumstances. Litigation counsel normally has the 
discretion to determine which is reasonable under the circumstances of 
each case. Unless notice is not required because one of the exceptions 
set forth in section 8(b) of the order applies, however, complete 
failure to make an effort is not ``reasonable.''
    If pre-complaint settlement efforts by government counsel require 
information in the possession of disputants, litigation counsel or 
client agency counsel may request such information from such disputants 
before or during settlement efforts. If disputants refuse, or fail, to 
provide such information upon request within a reasonable time, 
government counsel shall have no further obligation to attempt to 
settle the case before filing suit.
    Executive Order No. 12988 expressly exempts from the notice 
provision: (1) Actions to seize or forfeit assets subject to forfeiture 
or actions to seize property; (2) bankruptcy, insolvency, 
conservatorship, receivership, or liquidation proceedings; (3) cases in 
which assets that are the subject of the action or that would satisfy 
the judgment are subject to flight, dissipation, or destruction; (4) 
cases in which the disputant is subject to flight; (5) cases in which 
litigation counsel determines that ``exigent circumstances'' make 
providing notice impractical or that such notice would otherwise defeat 
the purpose of the litigation, such as actions seeking temporary 
restraining orders or preliminary injunctions; and (6) those limited 
classes of cases where the Attorney General determines that providing 
notice would defeat the purposes of the litigation.
    ``Exigent circumstances'' include, but are not limited to, statute 
of limitations or laches concerns, prior dealings with the same party 
suggesting that notice would be futile, attempts by the disputant to 
avoid service or to hide or dissipate assets, and cases where immediate 
action--such as injunctive relief--is required to prevent imminent and 
irreparable harm so as to preclude notice and discussion before filing.
    The Attorney General delegates to the Assistant Attorneys General 
her authority under section 8(b) to exclude classes or types of cases 
from the notice provision.
    The Department of Justice retains authority to approve or 
disapprove settlements proposed by the client agency or litigation 
counsel consistent with existing law, guidelines, and delegations. The 
Order confers no litigating or settlement authority on agencies beyond 
any authority existing under law or provided for by an explicit 
agreement with the Department.

Settlement Conferences

[Section 1(b)]
    Section 1(b) of the Order requires litigation counsel to evaluate 
the possibilities of settlement as soon as adequate information is 
available to permit an accurate evaluation of the government's 
litigation position. Thereafter, litigation counsel has a continuous 
obligation to evaluate settlement possibilities and to initiate a 
settlement conference when settlement discussions are appropriate.
    Under section 1(b), litigation counsel shall evaluate settlement 
possibilities at the outset of the litigation. Litigation counsel shall 
thereafter, and throughout the course of the litigation, make 
reasonable efforts to settle the litigation, including by offering to 
participate in, or moving the court for, a settlement conference. 
Litigation counsel should determine, however, the most appropriate 
timing for a settlement conference consistent with the goal of 
promoting just and efficient resolution of civil claims by avoiding 
unnecessary delay and cost. To that end, and in keeping with section 
1(f) of the Order (``Improved Use of Litigation Resources''), early 
filing of motions that may resolve the litigation is encouraged. In 
those cases, litigation counsel may initiate settlement conference 
efforts after resolution of dispositive motions, thereby avoiding the 
cost and delay associated with an unnecessary settlement conference.
    Before any settlement conference, litigation counsel should consult 
both with the client agency and with his or her supervisor regarding 
appropriate terms of settlement. At the conference, litigation counsel 
should clearly state the terms upon which litigation counsel is 
prepared to recommend that the government conclude the litigation, but 
normally should not be expected to have the authority to bind the 
government finally. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(c) advisory committee's 
note (``[p]articularly in litigation in which government agencies * * * 
are involved, there may be no one with on-the-spot settlement 
authority, and the most that should be expected is access to a person 
who would have a major role in submitting a recommendation to the body 
or board with ultimate decision-making responsibility''). Some courts, 
however, by local rule or by order, may require that persons with full 
settlement authority be present at settlement conferences. Nothing in 
the Order should be construed to relieve litigation counsel or agencies 
of their obligation to comply with such a requirement. See Executive 
Order No. 12988, Sec. 9.
    Final settlement authority is governed by regulations and may be 
exercised only by the officials designated in those regulations. The 
Order does not change regulations governing final settlement authority.
    The Order does not constrain the government's discretion to 
determine which government counsel will represent the government at a 
settlement conference. Normally, a trial attorney assigned to the case 
will attend on behalf of the United States. Section 1(b) does not 
permit settlement of litigation on terms that are not in the interest 
of the government; while ``reasonable efforts'' to settle are required, 
no unreasonable concession or offer should be extended. The section 
also does not countenance evasion of established agency procedures for 
development of litigation positions.

Alternative Methods of Resolving the Dispute in Litigation

[Section 1(c)]
    Section 1(c) of the Order encourages prompt and fair settlement of 
disputes. Section 1(c)(1) states: ``Whenever feasible, claims should be 
resolved through informal discussions, negotiations, and settlements 
rather than through utilization of any formal court proceeding. Where 
the benefits of alternative dispute resolution (``ADR'') may be 
derived, and after consultation with the agency referring the matter,

[[Page 39253]]

litigation counsel should suggest the use of an appropriate ADR 
technique to the parties.''
    The Order recognizes that ADR is another tool to resolve disputes, 
subject to any applicable approval process. Specifically, ADR can be 
used to: expedite negotiations and hence settlement, obtain better 
settlements for the government, and obtain settlements in cases that 
would otherwise not settle. Moreover, ADR can be employed to resolve 
the issues underlying the dispute in the litigation and thus resolve 
future cases. ADR can also serve as an effective case management tool. 
ADR can help streamline discovery or be used to obtain discovery. It 
can also eliminate or narrow issues. Above all, however, ADR allows the 
parties and the government to fashion their own procedures for 
resolving disputes and their own resolutions of these disputes--
creative resolutions beyond what courts can offer. In some cases, 
courts may even be able to dictate the use of alternative procedures in 
an attempt to resolve disputes without trial. See generally Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 16(c)(9) and note.
    When considering ADR, litigation counsel should confer with his or 
her supervisor and with the referring agency; litigation counsel may 
also wish to confer with Senior Counsel for ADR at the Department of 
Justice. As with settlement conferences, litigation counsel should 
consider ADR as soon as adequate information is available to evaluate 
the litigation and settlement, as well as throughout the course of the 
litigation. Counsel may consider the full panoply of alternative 
procedures, including binding arbitration, when contemplating ADR. When 
considering binding arbitration, litigation counsel should consult 
their supervisors, the affected agency or agencies, and any applicable 
guidance on binding arbitration as may hereafter be promulgated. The 
Order's encouragement of the use of ADR does not, of course, authorize 
litigation counsel to agree to resolve a dispute in any manner or on 
any terms not in the interest of the United States.
    Section 9 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, 
Pub. L. No. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3879, 3872 (the ``Act''), permanently 
reauthorized the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990. Section 
8(c) of the Act requires agencies to promulgate, ``in consultation with 
the Attorney General,'' guidelines on the appropriate use of binding 
arbitration to resolve administrative disputes. Nothing in these Civil 
Litigation guidelines are intended to affect or modify agency 
responsibilities under the Act or the agency's implementing guidelines.
    The costs associated with ADR, such as the neutral arbitrator's fee 
and related expenses, may be payable as ordinary costs of litigation 
out of general litigation funds, out of funds designated for ADR, or 
out of funds provided by the agency, as appropriate.

Review of Proposed Document Requests

[Section 1(d)(1)]
    Under section 1(d)(1) of the order, litigation counsel shall pursue 
document discovery only after complying with review procedures designed 
to ensure that the proposed document discovery is reasonable under the 
circumstances of the litigation.
    When an agency's attorneys act as litigation counsel, the agency 
must establish a coordinated procedure for the conduct and review of 
document discovery, including review by a senior lawyer, before service 
or filing of any request for document discovery. The senior lawyer is 
to determine whether the proposed discovery meets the substantive 
criteria of section 1(d)(1). Each agency must designate senior lawyers 
to perform this review function. While the Order does not mandate a 
particular title, level, or grade of senior lawyer, the persons 
designated should have both substantial experience in document 
discovery and supervisory authority. If not already designated, such 
designations should be made forthwith. If a designated senior lawyer is 
personally preparing the document discovery, further oversight is not 
necessary.
    The designated senior lawyer reviewing document discovery proposals 
is to determine whether the requests are cumulative or duplicative, 
unreasonable, oppressive, or unduly burdensome or expensive, taking 
into account the requirements of the litigation, the amount in 
controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, 
and whether the documents can be obtained in a manner that is more 
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive to the government or 
opposing parties than pursuit of the documentary discovery as proposed.
    In conducting this review of document requests, the senior lawyer 
is entitled to rely in good faith upon factual representations of 
agency counsel and the trial attorney. Review by a senior lawyer should 
not deter the pursuit of reasonable document discovery in accord with 
the procedures established in the Order.

Discovery Motions

[Section 1(d)(2)]
    Pursuant to section 1(d)(2) of the order, litigation counsel shall 
not ask the court to resolve a discovery dispute or impose sanctions 
for discovery abuses unless he or she first attempts to resolve the 
dispute with opposing counsel or pro se parties. If litigation counsel 
files a discovery motion, he or she must represent in the motion that 
pre-motion efforts at resolution were unsuccessful or impractical. See 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c), 37(a)(2)(A). Litigation counsel, however, 
should not compromise a discovery dispute unless the terms of the 
compromise are reasonable.

Sanctions Motions

[Section 1(e)]
    Where appropriate, litigation counsel shall take steps to seen 
sanctions against opposing counsel and opposing parties for improper or 
abusive litigation practices, subject to the procedures set forth in 
section 1(e) of the Order regarding agency review of proposed motions 
for sanctions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c), 37(a)(4). Before 
filing a motion for sanctions, litigation counsel should normally 
attempt to resolve disputes with opposing counsel. Sanctions motions 
should not be used as vehicles to intimidate or coerce counsel when the 
dispute can be resolved on a reasonable basis.
    To implement section 1(e)(2) of the Order, each agency with 
attorneys acting as litigation counsel must designate a ``sanctions 
officer'' to review motions for sanctions that litigation counsel 
prepare for filing, as well as motions for sanctions filed against 
litigation counsel, the United States, its agencies, or its officers. 
The section requires that the sanctions officer or his or her designee 
``shall be a senior supervisory attorney within the agency, and shall 
be licensed to practice law before a State court, courts of the 
District of Columbia, or courts of any territory or Commonwealth of the 
United States.'' The sanctions officer or his or her designee should be 
a senior lawyer with substantial litigation experience and supervisory 
authority. By way of illustration, rather than limitation, a Senior 
Executive Service level attorney with substantial litigation experience 
should satisfy these criteria.
    Persons acting as sanctions officers within each agency should be 
designated specifically by title or name. If not already designated, 
agencies with attorneys acting as litigation counsel shall designate 
sanctions officers

[[Page 39254]]

forthwith. Cabinet or subcabinet officers, such as Assistant Attorneys 
General or Assistant Secretaries, officials or equivalent rank, the 
United States Attorneys are authorized to designate sanctions officers 
meeting the criteria of this Memorandum.

Improved Use of Litigation Resources

[Section 1(f)]
    Litigation counsel must use efficient case management techniques 
and make reasonable efforts to expedite civil litigation, as set forth 
in section 1(f) of the Order. Litigation counsel must move for summary 
judgment where appropriate to resolve litigation or narrow the issues 
to be tried. This rule is not intended to suggest, however, that 
summary judgment should be sought prematurely in a manner that will 
permit opposing counsel to defeat summary judgment.
    Litigation counsel are also to make reasonable efforts to stipulate 
to facts that are not in dispute, and must move for early trial dates 
where practicable. Referring agencies should identify facts not in 
dispute and inform litigation counsel of the lack of dispute and the 
basis for concluding that there is no factual dispute, as soon as it is 
feasible to do so. Litigation counsel should seek agreement to fact 
stipulations as early as practicable, taking into account the progress 
of discovery and their sound judgment as to the most appropriate and 
efficient timing for such stipulations.
    At reasonable intervals, litigation counsel shall review and revise 
submissions to the court to ensure that they are accurate and that they 
reflect any narrowing of issues resulting from discovery or otherwise, 
and shall apprise the court and all counsel accordingly. Litigation 
counsel also should make an effort, where appropriate, to involve the 
court early in case management and issue-focusing. This effort may 
include apprising the court, during conferences under Federal Rule of 
Civil Procedure 16, of core issues and contemplated methods of 
resolution, such as settlement, ADR, stipulation, dispositive motion, 
or trial. Counsel must consistently review and revise pleadings and 
other filings to ensure that unmeritorious threshold defenses and 
jurisdictional arguments that result in unnecessary delay are not 
raised, bearing in mind counsels obligation to bring defects in 
jurisdiction to the court's attention.
    These requirements are not intended to suggest that litigation 
counsel should concede facts or issues as to which there is reasonable 
dispute or uncertainty, or which cannot be corroborated.

Principles to Promote Just and Efficient Administrative Adjudications

[Section 4]
    Section 4 of the Order requires agencies to implement the 
recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 
entitled ``Case Management as a Tool for Improving Agency 
Adjudication'' (1 CFR Sec. 305.86-7 (1991)), to the extent reasonable 
and practicable and not in conflict with any other provision of the 
Order. Proceedings within the ambit of section 4 are adjudications 
before a presiding officer or official, including, but not limited to, 
an administrative law judge.
    The Order does not impose the requirements of section 1 on such 
agency proceedings; however, applying the relevant provisions of 
section 1 would have a salutary effect and would be in concert with the 
reforms required by the Order. Agencies are encouraged to extend the 
application of section 1 to administrative adjudications where 
appropriate (for example, where an evidentiary hearing is required by 
law and where, in litigation counsel's best judgment, such extension is 
reasonable and practicable).
    In addition, agencies are to review their administrative 
adjudicatory processes and develop specific procedures to reduce delay 
in decision-making, facilitate self-representation where appropriate, 
expand non-lawyer counseling and representation where appropriate, and 
invest maximum discretion in fact-finding officers to encourage 
appropriate settlement of claims as early as possible. Agencies also 
shall review their administrative adjudicatory processes to identify 
any bias on the part of decision-makers that results in injustice to 
persons who appear before agency administrative adjudicatory tribunals; 
regularly train fact-finders, administrative law judges, and other 
decision-makers to eliminate bias; and establish appropriate mechanisms 
to receive and resolve complaints of bias.
    Agencies should develop effective and simple methods--including 
through use of electronic technology-to educate the public about agency 
benefits and claims policies and procedures.
    Although no specific guidelines are being issued at this time for 
section 4, they may be issued in the future if they become necessary or 
appropriate.

Exceptions to the Executive Order

    The Order does not apply either to criminal matters or to 
proceedings in foreign courts, and shall not be construed to require or 
authorize litigation counsel or any agency to act contrary to 
applicable law. Sections 8(a) and 9. Attorneys for the federal 
government are directed to follow the requirements of the Order unless 
compliance would be contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, federal or state law, other 
applicable rules of practice or procedure, or court order. Section 9.
    The Order defines the term ``agency'' as the term ``executive 
agency'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 105. Section 6(a). Thus, agencies 
and litigation counsel, including private attorneys representing the 
government, are subject to the provisions of the Order, even where the 
agency is considered ``independent'' for other purposes. The President 
has the authority to supervise and guide the exercise of core executive 
functions such as litigation by government agencies.
    The Order does not compel or authorize disclosure of privileged 
information or any other information the disclosure of which is 
prohibited by law. Section 10. The Order and these guidelines are 
solely intended to improve the internal management of the executive 
branch. Neither the Order nor these guidelines should be construed to 
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable 
against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other 
person. Further, neither the order nor these guidelines shall be 
construed to create any right to judicial review of the compliance or 
noncompliance of the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any 
other person with either the Order or these guidelines. Finally, 
nothing in the Order or these guidelines shall be construed to obligate 
the United States to accept a particular settlement or resolution of a 
dispute, to alter its standards for accepting settlements, to forego 
seeking a consent decree or other relief, or to alter any existing 
delegation of settlement or litigating authority. Section 7.

    Dated: July 16, 1997.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 97-19232 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-12-M