great financial cost both to the Government and to 
the national economy. 
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 
Section 2 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4301) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(7) The term ‘standards development activity’ 
means any action taken by a standards development 
organization for the purpose of developing, promul-
gating, revising, amending, reissuing, interpreting, 
or otherwise maintaining a voluntary consensus 
standard, or using such standard in conformity as-
sessment activities, including actions relating to the 
intellectual property policies of the standards devel-
opment organization. 
‘‘(8) The term ‘standards development organi-
zation’ means a domestic or international organiza-
tion that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates 
voluntary consensus standards using procedures that 
incorporate the attributes of openness, balance of in-
terests, due process, an appeals process, and con-
sensus in a manner consistent with the Office of 
Management and Budget Circular Number A–119, 
as revised February 10, 1998.
‘‘(9) The term ‘technical standard’ has the 
meaning given such term in section 12(d)(4) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995. 
‘‘(10) The term ‘voluntary consensus standard’ 
has the meaning given such term in Office of Man-
agement and Budget Circular Number A–119, as re-
vised February 10, 1998.’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) The term ‘standards development activity’ ex-
cludes the following activities: 
‘‘(1) Exchanging information among competi-
tors relating to cost, sales, profitability, prices, mar-
keting, or distribution of any product, process, or 
service that is not reasonably required for the pur-
pose of developing or promulgating a voluntary con-
sensus standard, or using such standard in con-
formity assessment activities. 
‘‘(2) Entering into any agreement or engaging 
in any other conduct that would allocate a market 
with a competitor. 
‘‘(3) Entering into any agreement or conspiracy 
that would set or restrain prices of any good or serv-
ice.’’.
SEC. 4. RULE OF REASON STANDARD. 
Section 3 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4302) is amended by 
striking ‘‘of any person in making or performing a con-
tract to carry out a joint venture shall’’ and inserting the 
following: ‘‘of—
‘‘(1) any person in making or performing a con-
tract to carry out a joint venture, or 
‘‘(2)
a
standards
development
organization 
while engaged in a standards development activity, 
shall’’. 
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY. 
Section 4 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4303) is amended—
(1) in subsections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) by 
inserting ‘‘, or for a standards development activity 
engaged in by a standards development organization 
against which such claim is made’’ after ‘‘joint ven-
ture’’, and 
(2) in subsection (e)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘, or of a standards devel-
opment activity engaged in by a standards de-
velopment organization’’ before the period at 
the end, and 
(B) by redesignating such subsection as 
subsection (f), and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not be con-
strued to modify the liability under the antitrust laws of 
any person (other than a standards development organiza-
tion) who—
‘‘(1) directly (or through an employee or agent) 
participates in a standards development activity with 
respect to which a violation of any of the antitrust 
laws is found, 
‘‘(2) is not a fulltime employee of the standards 
development organization that engaged in such ac-
tivity, and 
‘‘(3) is, or is an employee or agent of a person 
who is, engaged in a line of commerce that is likely 
to benefit directly from the operation of the stand-
ards development activity with respect to which such 
violation is found.’’. 
SEC. 6. ATTORNEY FEES. 
Section 5 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4304) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘, or of a 
standards development activity engaged in by a 
standards development organization’’ after ‘‘joint 
venture’’, and
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with re-
spect to any person who—
‘‘(1) directly participates in a standards devel-
opment activity with respect to which a violation of 
any of the antitrust laws is found, 
‘‘(2) is not a fulltime employee of a standards 
development organization that engaged in such ac-
tivity, and 
‘‘(3) is, or is an employee or agent of a person 
who is, engaged in a line of commerce that is likely 
to benefit directly from the operation of the stand-
ards development activity with respect to which such 
violation is found.’’. 
SEC. 7. DISCLOSURE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AC-
TIVITY. 
Section 6 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4305) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), 
and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), re-
spectively, 
(B) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’, and 
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) A standards development organization may, not 
later than 90 days after commencing a standards develop-
ment activity engaged in for the purpose of developing or 
promulgating a voluntary consensus standards or not later 
than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Stand-
ards Development Organization Advancement Act of 
2003, whichever is later, file simultaneously with the At-
torney General and the Commission, a written notification 
disclosing—
‘‘(A) the name and principal place of business 
of the standards development organization, and 
‘‘(B) documents showing the nature and scope 
of such activity. 
Any standards development organization may file addi-
tional disclosure notifications pursuant to this section as 
are appropriate to extend the protections of section 4 to 
standards development activities that are not covered by 
the initial filing or that have changed significantly since 
the initial filing.’’, 
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) in the 1st sentence by inserting ‘‘, or 
a notice with respect to such standards develop-
ment activity that identifies the standards de-
velopment organization engaged in such activity
and that describes such activity in general 
terms’’ before the period at the end, and 
(B) in the last sentence by inserting ‘‘or 
available to such organization, as the case may 
be’’ before the period, 
(3) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ‘‘, or the 
standards development activity,’’ after ‘‘venture’’, 
(4) in subsection (e)—
(A) by striking ‘‘person who’’ and inserting 
‘‘person or standards development organization 
that’’, and 
(B) by inserting ‘‘or any standards devel-
opment organization’’ after ‘‘person’’ the last 
place it appears, and 
(5) in subsection (g)(1) by inserting ‘‘or stand-
ards development organization’’ after ‘‘person’’. 
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter or 
modify the antitrust treatment under existing law of—
(1) parties participating in standards develop-
ment activity of standards development organiza-
tions within the scope of this Act, or 
(2) other organizations and parties engaged in 
standard-setting processes not within the scope of 
this amendment to the Act.
TITLE I—STANDARDS DEVELOP-
MENT 
ORGANIZATION 
AD-
VANCEMENT ACT OF 2003
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Standards Development 
Organization Advancement Act of 2003’’. 
SEC. 102. FINDINGS. 
The Congress finds the following: 
(1) In 1993, the Congress amended and renamed 
the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (now 
known as the National Cooperative Research and Pro-
duction Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.)) by en-
acting the National Cooperative Production Amend-
ments of 1993 (Public Law 103–42) to encourage the 
use of collaborative, procompetitive activity in the 
form of research and production joint ventures that 
provide adequate disclosure to the antitrust enforce-
ment agencies about the nature and scope of the activ-
ity involved. 
(2) Subsequently, in 1995, the Congress in enact-
ing the National Technology Transfer and Advance-
ment Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) recognized the 
importance of technical standards developed by vol-
untary consensus standards bodies to our national 
economy by requiring the use of such standards to the
extent practicable by Federal agencies and by encour-
aging Federal agency representatives to participate in 
ongoing standards development activities. The Office 
of Management and Budget on February 18, 1998, re-
vised Circular A–119 to reflect these changes made in 
law. 
(3) Following enactment of the National Tech-
nology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, tech-
nical standards developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies have replaced thousands of 
unique Government standards and specifications al-
lowing the national economy to operate in a more 
unified fashion. 
(4) Having the same technical standards used by 
Federal agencies and by the private sector permits the 
Government to avoid the cost of developing duplica-
tive Government standards and to more readily use 
products and components designed for the commercial 
marketplace, thereby enhancing quality and safety 
and reducing costs. 
(5) Technical standards are written by hundreds 
of nonprofit voluntary consensus standards bodies in 
a nonexclusionary fashion, using thousands of volun-
teers from the private and public sectors, and are de-
veloped under the standards development principles
set out in Circular Number A–119, as revised Feb-
ruary 18, 1998, of the Office of Management and 
Budget, including principles that require openness, 
balance, transparency, consensus, and due process. 
Such principles provide for—
(A) notice to all parties known to be af-
fected by the particular standards development 
activity, 
(B) the opportunity to participate in stand-
ards development or modification, 
(C) balancing interests so that standards 
development activities are not dominated by any 
single group of interested persons, 
(D) readily available access to essential in-
formation regarding proposed and final stand-
ards, 
(E) the requirement that substantial agree-
ment be reached on all material points after the 
consideration of all views and objections, and 
(F) the right to express a position, to have 
it considered, and to appeal an adverse decision. 
(6) There are tens of thousands of voluntary con-
sensus standards available for government use. Most 
of these standards are kept current through interim 
amendments and interpretations, issuance of ad-
denda, and periodic reaffirmation, revision, or 
reissuance every 3 to 5 years. 
(7) Standards developed by government entities 
generally are not subject to challenge under the anti-
trust laws. 
(8) Private developers of the technical standards 
that are used as Government standards are often not 
similarly protected, leaving such developers vulnerable 
to being named as codefendants in lawsuits even 
though the likelihood of their being held liable is re-
mote in most cases, and they generally have limited 
resources to defend themselves in such lawsuits. 
(9) Standards development organizations do not 
stand to benefit from any antitrust violations that 
might occur in the voluntary consensus standards de-
velopment process. 
(10) As was the case with respect to research and 
production joint ventures before the passage of the Na-
tional Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, if relief from the threat of liability under the 
antitrust laws is not granted to voluntary consensus 
standards bodies, both regarding the development of 
new standards and efforts to keep existing standards 
current, such bodies could be forced to cut back on 
standards development activities at great financial
cost both to the Government and to the national econ-
omy. 
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS. 
Section 2 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4301) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the 
following: 
‘‘(7) The term ‘standards development activity’ 
means any action taken by a standards development 
organization for the purpose of developing, promul-
gating, revising, amending, reissuing, interpreting, or 
otherwise maintaining a voluntary consensus stand-
ard, or using such standard in conformity assessment 
activities, including actions relating to the intellec-
tual property policies of the standards development 
organization. 
‘‘(8) The term ‘standards development organiza-
tion’ means a domestic or international organization 
that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates vol-
untary consensus standards using procedures that in-
corporate the attributes of openness, balance of inter-
ests, due process, an appeals process, and consensus in 
a manner consistent with the Office of Management 
and Budget Circular Number A–119, as revised Feb-
ruary 10, 1998.
‘‘(9) The term ‘technical standard’ has the mean-
ing given such term in section 12(d)(4) of the Na-
tional Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995. 
‘‘(10) The term ‘voluntary consensus standard’ 
has the meaning given such term in Office of Manage-
ment and Budget Circular Number A–119, as revised 
February 10, 1998.’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) The term ‘standards development activity’ ex-
cludes the following activities: 
‘‘(1) Exchanging information among competitors 
relating to cost, sales, profitability, prices, marketing, 
or distribution of any product, process, or service that 
is not reasonably required for the purpose of devel-
oping or promulgating a voluntary consensus stand-
ard, or using such standard in conformity assessment 
activities. 
‘‘(2) Entering into any agreement or engaging 
in any other conduct that would allocate a market 
with a competitor. 
‘‘(3) Entering into any agreement or conspiracy 
that would set or restrain prices of any good or serv-
ice.’’.
SEC. 104. RULE OF REASON STANDARD. 
Section 3 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4302) is amended by 
striking ‘‘of any person in making or performing a contract 
to carry out a joint venture shall’’ and inserting the fol-
lowing: ‘‘of—
‘‘(1) any person in making or performing a con-
tract to carry out a joint venture, or 
‘‘(2) a standards development organization while 
engaged in a standards development activity, 
shall’’. 
SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY. 
Section 4 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4303) is amended—
(1) in subsections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) by 
inserting ‘‘, or for a standards development activity 
engaged in by a standards development organization 
against which such claim is made’’ after ‘‘joint ven-
ture’’, and 
(2) in subsection (e)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘, or of a standards devel-
opment activity engaged in by a standards devel-
opment organization’’ before the period at the 
end, and 
(B) by redesignating such subsection as sub-
section (f), and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) shall not be construed 
to modify the liability under the antitrust laws of any per-
son (other than a standards development organization) 
who—
‘‘(1) directly (or through an employee or agent) 
participates in a standards development activity with 
respect to which a violation of any of the antitrust 
laws is found, 
‘‘(2) is not a fulltime employee of the standards 
development organization that engaged in such activ-
ity, and 
‘‘(3) is, or is an employee or agent of a person 
who is, engaged in a line of commerce that is likely 
to benefit directly from the operation of the standards 
development activity with respect to which such viola-
tion is found.’’. 
SEC. 106. ATTORNEY FEES. 
Section 5 of the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4304) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘, or of a 
standards development activity engaged in by a 
standards development organization’’ after ‘‘joint ven-
ture’’, and
and that describes such activity in general 
terms’’ before the period at the end, and 
(B) in the last sentence by inserting ‘‘or 
available to such organization, as the case may 
be’’ before the period, 
(3) in subsection (d)(2) by inserting ‘‘, or the 
standards development activity,’’ after ‘‘venture’’, 
(4) in subsection (e)—
(A) by striking ‘‘person who’’ and inserting 
‘‘person or standards development organization 
that’’, and 
(B) by inserting ‘‘or any standards develop-
ment organization’’ after ‘‘person’’ the last place 
it appears, and 
(5) in subsection (g)(1) by inserting ‘‘or stand-
ards development organization’’ after ‘‘person’’. 
SEC. 108. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 
Nothing in this title shall be construed to alter or mod-
ify the antitrust treatment under existing law of—
(1) parties participating in standards develop-
ment activity of standards development organizations 
within the scope of this title, or 
(2) other organizations and parties engaged in 
standard-setting processes not within the scope of this 
amendment to the title.
TITLE II—ANTITRUST CRIMINAL 
PENALTY ENHANCEMENT AND 
REFORM ACT OF 2003
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 
This title may be cited as the ‘‘Antitrust Criminal 
Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2003’’. 
Subtitle A—Antitrust Enforcement 
Enhancements and Cooperation 
Incentives 
SEC. 211. SUNSET. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 
(b), the provisions of sections 211 through 214 shall cease 
to have effect 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
Act. 
(b) EXCEPTION.—With respect to an applicant who 
has entered into an antitrust leniency agreement on or be-
fore the date on which the provisions of sections 211 through 
214 of this subtitle shall cease to have effect, the provisions 
of sections 211 through 214 of this subtitle shall continue 
in effect. 
SEC. 212. DEFINITIONS. 
In this subtitle: 
(1) ANTITRUST DIVISION.—The term ‘‘Antitrust 
Division’’ means the United States Department of 
Justice Antitrust Division.
(2) ANTITRUST
LENIENCY
AGREEMENT.—The 
term ‘‘antitrust leniency agreement,’’ or ‘‘agreement,’’ 
means a leniency letter agreement, whether condi-
tional or final, between a person and the Antitrust 
Division pursuant to the Corporate Leniency Policy 
of the Antitrust Division in effect on the date of exe-
cution of the agreement. 
(3) ANTITRUST LENIENCY APPLICANT.—The term 
‘‘antitrust leniency applicant,’’ or ‘‘applicant,’’ 
means, with respect to an antitrust leniency agree-
ment, the person that has entered into the agreement. 
(4) CLAIMANT.—The term ‘‘claimant’’ means a 
person or class, that has brought, or on whose behalf 
has been brought, a civil action alleging a violation 
of section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act or any similar 
State law, except that the term does not include a 
State or a subdivision of a State with respect to a 
civil action brought to recover damages sustained by 
the State or subdivision. 
(5) COOPERATING INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘co-
operating individual’’ means, with respect to an anti-
trust leniency agreement, a current or former direc-
tor, officer, or employee of the antitrust leniency ap-
plicant who is covered by the agreement.
(6) PERSON.—The term ‘‘person’’ has the mean-
ing given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the 
Clayton Act. 
SEC. 213. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (d), in any 
civil action alleging a violation of section 1 or 3 of the Sher-
man Act, or alleging a violation of any similar State law, 
based on conduct covered by a currently effective antitrust 
leniency agreement, the amount of damages recovered by or 
on behalf of a claimant from an antitrust leniency appli-
cant who satisfies the requirements of subsection (b), to-
gether with the amounts so recovered from cooperating indi-
viduals who satisfy such requirements, shall not exceed that 
portion of the actual damages sustained by such claimant 
which is attributable to the commerce done by the applicant 
in the goods or services affected by the violation. 
(b) REQUIREMENTS.—Subject to subsection (c), an 
antitrust leniency applicant or cooperating individual sat-
isfies the requirements of this subsection with respect to a 
civil action described in subsection (a) if the court in which 
the civil action is brought determines, after considering any 
appropriate pleadings from the claimant, that the appli-
cant or cooperating individual, as the case may be, has pro-
vided satisfactory cooperation to the claimant with respect 
to the civil action, which cooperation shall include—
(1) providing a full account to the claimant of 
all facts known to the applicant or cooperating indi-
vidual, as the case may be, that are potentially rel-
evant to the civil action; 
(2) furnishing all documents or other items po-
tentially relevant to the civil action that are in the 
possession, custody, or control of the applicant or co-
operating individual, as the case may be, wherever 
they are located; and 
(3)(A) in the case of a cooperating individual—
(i) making himself or herself available for 
such interviews, depositions, or testimony in con-
nection with the civil action as the claimant 
may reasonably require; and 
(ii) responding completely and truthfully, 
without making any attempt either falsely to 
protect or falsely to implicate any person or en-
tity, and without intentionally withholding any 
potentially relevant information, to all questions 
asked by the claimant in interviews, depositions, 
trials, or any other court proceedings in connec-
tion with the civil action; or 
(B) in the case of an antitrust leniency appli-
cant, using its best efforts to secure and facilitate 
from cooperating individuals covered by the agree-
ment the cooperation described in clauses (i) and (ii) 
and subparagraph (A). 
(c) TIMELINES.—If the initial contact by the antitrust 
leniency applicant with the Antitrust Division regarding 
conduct covered by the antitrust leniency agreement occurs 
after a civil action described in subsection (a) has been 
filed, then the court shall consider, in making the deter-
mination concerning satisfactory cooperation described in 
subsection (b), the timeliness of the applicant’s initial co-
operation with the claimant. 
(d) CONTINUATION.—Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to modify, impair, or supersede the provisions of 
sections 4, 4A, and 4C of the Clayton Act relating to the 
recovery of costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s 
fee, and interest on damages, to the extent that such recov-
ery is authorized by such sections. 
SEC. 214. RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY OF ANTITRUST DIVISION 
NOT AFFECTED. 
Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed to—
(1) affect the rights of the Antitrust Division to 
seek a stay or protective order in a civil action based 
on conduct covered by an antitrust leniency agree-
ment to prevent the cooperation described in section 
213(b) from impairing or impeding the investigation
or prosecution by the Antitrust Division of conduct 
covered by the agreement; or 
(2) create any right to challenge any decision by 
the Antitrust Division with respect to an antitrust le-
niency agreement. 
SEC. 215. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR ANTITRUST VIOLA-
TIONS. 
(a) RESTRAINT OF TRADE AMONG THE STATES.—Sec-
tion 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) is amended by—
(1) 
striking 
‘‘$10,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000’’; 
(2) 
striking 
‘‘$350,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$1,000,000’’; and 
(3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. 
(b) MONOPOLIZING TRADE.—Section 2 of the Sherman 
Act (15 U.S.C. 2) is amended by—
(1) 
striking 
‘‘$10,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000’’; 
(2) 
striking 
‘‘$350,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$1,000,000’’; and 
(3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. 
(c) OTHER RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.—Section 3 of the 
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 3) is amended by—
(1) 
striking 
‘‘$10,000,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$100,000,000’’;
(2) 
striking 
‘‘$350,000’’ 
and 
inserting 
‘‘$1,000,000’’; and 
(3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. 
Subtitle B—Tunney Act Reform 
SEC. 221. PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION. 
Section 5 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 16) is amend-
ed—
(1) in subsection (d), by inserting at the end the 
following: ‘‘Upon application by the United States, 
the district court may, for good cause (based on a 
finding that the expense of publication in the Federal 
Register exceeds the public interest benefits to be 
gained from such publication), authorize an alter-
native method of public dissemination of the public 
comments received and the response to those com-
ments.’’; and 
(2) in subsection (e)—
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1), 
by—
(i) inserting ‘‘independently’’ after 
‘‘shall’’; 
(ii) striking ‘‘court may’’ and insert-
ing ‘‘court shall’’; and 
(iii) inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Before’’; 
and
(B) striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and in-
serting the following: 
‘‘(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, 
including termination of alleged violations, provisions 
for enforcement and modification, duration of relief 
sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies ac-
tually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous 
and any other competitive considerations bearing 
upon the adequacy of such judgment necessary to a 
determination of whether the consent judgment is in 
the public interest; and 
‘‘(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon 
competition in the relevant market or markets, upon 
the public generally and individuals alleging specific 
injury from the violations set forth in the complaint 
including consideration of the public benefit, if any, 
to be derived from a determination of the issues at 
trial. 
‘‘(2) The Court shall not enter any consent judgment 
proposed by the United States under this section unless it 
finds that there is reasonable belief, based on substantial 
evidence and reasoned analysis, to support the United 
States’ conclusion that the consent judgment is in the public 
interest. In making its determination as to whether entry 
of the consent judgment is in the public interest, the Court
shall not be limited to examining only the factors set forth 
in this subsection, but may consider any other factor rel-
evant to the competitive impact of the judgment.’’.
Calendar No. 376
108TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION 
H. R. 1086
AN ACT 
To encourage the development and promulgation of 
voluntary consensus standards by providing relief 
under the antitrust laws to standards develop-
ment organizations with respect to conduct en-
gaged in for the purpose of developing voluntary 
consensus standards, and for other purposes. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2003
Reported with an amendment