The opinion of the court was delivered by: PARKER
This cause came before the Court on August 22, 1973 on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court, having considered plaintiffs' and defendants' memoranda, the affidavits and statements submitted and having heard argument of counsel, makes the following Findings of Fact and enters the following Conclusions of Law:
1. Plaintiffs are service station dealers selling retail gasoline under the brand name of a major gasoline supplier pursuant to agreements with said suppliers. They bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class composed of all other dealers similarly situated.
2. Pursuant to Section 203 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-379, 84 Stat. 799, August 15, 1970; Public Law 92-210, 85 Stat. 743, December 22, 1971; Public Law 93-28, April 30, 1973) (Act), the President, on August 15, 1971, established a freeze on prices, rents, wages and salaries for a limited period and established the Cost of Living Council (Council).
3. Defendants are members of the Council and were appointed by the President pursuant to Executive Order 11695.
4. Among the objectives of the Act and Cost of Living Council Regulations which are pertinent to this case are to moderate the rate of inflation which has existed in the United States during the first six months of 1973; to continue expansion of the United States economy to fulfill its potential with further increases in employment; and to reduce long run inflationary forces.
5. In response to sharply rising domestic crude oil and wholesale and retail gasoline prices in April 1973, the Director of the Council ordered his staff to study the subject and to make policy recommendations designed to alleviate these problems.
6. On July 18, 1973, the President declared that among the general policy considerations to be applied in promulgating the current Phase IV price control regulations are the following: That prices be permitted to rise as much as costs rise, in dollars per unit of output without any profit margin on the additional costs; and that Phase II exemptions for firms with sixty employees or fewer be repeated in Phase IV.
8. Plaintiffs and the class are the only class of retailers employing sixty or fewer individuals who are not exempt from the regulations.
9. There is no factual or statistical information or material justifying the failure to make the small business exemption under the regulations applicable to plaintiffs and the class.
10. There is no rational relationship between the objectives of the regulations and the denial to plaintiffs and the class of ...