In Washington Research Project, Inc., v. Department of Health , 
Education, and Welfare, et al ., the same court had ruled in 1974 that 
research designs submitted in certain NIMH grant applications are not 
"trade secrets" within the meaning of exemption 4. However, in that case 
the court noted". . .the burden of showing the trade or commercial char- 
acter of the research design information was on the agency, and. . .it 
did not introduce a single fact relating to the commercial character of 
any specific research project. . . ." Thus, Washington Research Project 
would not appear to govern situations in which the agency could show 
that patentable information or similar proprietary matter was involved. 
3. While it would be desirable from a scientific standpoint to 
retain the flexibility to modify at least some parts of the Guidelines 
without the delays attendant to the rulemaking process, most regulatory 
legislation must be Implemented by regulations promulgated in accordance 
with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or similar rulemaking 
procedures. One approach which might overcome this problem would be 
to publish regulations which set forth general standards but rely on 
cross references to the Guidelines with respect to specific details. 
However, this could present enforcement problems because any enforcement 
action based on a cross reference could be challenged for noncompliance 
with the APA. For this reason, a regulatory agency would probably insist 
upon specificity in its regulations. 
37 
[ 317 ] 
