sales of AlliecTs sector were good through May, that orders are still strong, and that there are no real signs of inventory buildups. He adds that export demand for chemicals is still high and that fertilizer sales in the U.S. have been good this spring. In elaborating on the revitalization of CMA, Donley says that changes during the past year have been "dramatic." Apart from the name change—made to describe the organization's membership better—these moves include a new staff structure, an 85% boost in membership dues, a much greater commitment of staff time and expertise by member companies, and a new set of committees.
The plan is to turn the old, rather defensive and reactive association into a new, more activist group to take forthright positions advocating the role and posture of the chemical industry. As an example of this more activist role, CMA will try to work out with the Environmental Protection Agency a mechanism by which experts from chemical companies can work directly with EPA personnel in examining hazardous waste disposal sites to determine the actual extent of the hazard, if any, and in making recommendations for cleanup. CMA would like to get this program under way this summer. •
Lead additive makers hit on price fixing The Federal Trade Commission has charged the four U.S. producers of lead-based antiknock additives for gasoline of engaging in practices that unlawfully reduced or eliminated competition, including signaling future price changes to competitors by giving advance notice of such changes to the press. Charged in the administrative complaint are Ethyl Corp., Du Pont, PPG Industries, and Nalco Chemical. The companies, all of which deny the charges, are to appear at hearings on July 23 in Washington, D.C., to show cause why an order should not be entered requiring them to cease and desist from the violations charged in the complaint. The case is the first of its kind. FTC doesn't contend that the companies colluded with each other to fix prices or that they engaged in any artificial practices. Rather, says Alfred F. Dougherty Jr., director of FTC's Bureau of Competition, they engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, amount to a "modern form of price fixing." In addition to advance price signaling, FTC says the four companies sold the lead-based antiknock compounds only on a uniform delivered price basis, meaning that each firm has only one price for all customers all over the country. Freight, which is included in the price, is averaged for all purchasers, although actual delivery costs vary widely. FTC also charges that the companies, particularly Ethyl and Du Pont, have clauses in their sales contracts guaranteeing that each customer will receive the lowest price available, thus creating an incentive to the seller to refuse to make a lower price deal with any one customer. Pricing patterns in the industry in recent years, Dougherty says, indicate the success of these practices. During the 1974-77 period, for example, I
there were 18 price increases, each made effective by the four companies in the same amount at the same time. There was virtually no discounting, and profits appear to have been high. "This tight coordination is highly improbable, particularly in the face of the industry's excess capacity, without practices which discourage price competition and facilitate easy signaling of pricing intentions," he contends. Irving F. Shapiro, chairman of Du Pont, says that he found "particularly disturbing the concept that would prohibit producers of tetraethyllead from releasing price information to the press, which would impose a new form of prior restraint on publication of important commercial information. It is an effort to impose on industry FTC chairman Michael Pertschuk's personal social views, and we await the opportunity to present our position to the federal courts after we have made our way through the administrative processes of the Federal Trade Commission." •
Shapiro: a new form of restraint
2,4,5-T forum falls short of expectations In an attempt to resolve the scientific questions involved in controversial public policy issues, some 60 scientific "participants" and another 50 "observers" gathered for the first Dispute Resolution Conference in Arlington, Va., last week. The topic for the conference, seen by organizers as the first of several conferences aimed at developing a more effective mechanism for resolving scientific disputes on controversial subjects, was the herbicide 2,4,5-T. This compound was banned for many uses by an emergency order from the Environmental Protection Agency this spring and is scheduled to be the topic of lengthy EPA hearings this summer. The conference was sponsored by the American Farm Bureau, an organization of farm families, and received considerable financial and staff support from Dow Chemical, the main U.S. producer of 2,4,5-T. But organizers Fred Tschirley of Michigan State University and T. C. Byerly, formerly of the Department of Agriculture, were given a free hand both in the conference's organization and in the selection of participants. The format they chose focused on six separate workshops with selected scientific experts as participants and whoever wanted to observe. Each workshop tried to reach scientific consensus on some topic, such as the chemistry, carcinogenicity, or ecological effects of 2,4,5-T. Resolving 10 years of controversy in four days would be nearly miraculous under the best of circumstances—and the circumstances of last week's conference fell far short of that. Most of the more prominent scientists who oppose 2,4,5-T use were not at the conference. And EPA scientists, who were intended by the organizers to counterbalance scientists from Dow in the various workshops, also did not attend. The result was a conference heavily weighted by scientists in favor of using 2,'4,5-T. Eighteeen of the participants and observers, for example, were Dow employees. Tschirley says that many prominent scientists who are known to oppose use of 2,4,5-T were invited to participate in the conference, but, for separate reasons, each was unable to attend. Several scientists who support 2,4,5-T use were also unable to come, Tschirley says, but since there are so many more scientists who support 2,4,5-T than oppose it, the losses were more significant among the opponents of the herbicide. "I have no feeling of an attempt to June 11, 1979 C&EN
7
