Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Friday, October 27, 2006

Bush Administration Files Anti-regulatory Brief

On Tuesday, the Bush administration filed a brief defending the EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, proving once again the administration is stuck in a Stone Age of environmental science.

The EPA is hiding behind a narrow interpretation of language in the Clean Air Act (CAA) to avoid taking meaningful steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agency claims nuances in the legislation describe their role in curbing greenhouse gases as “nonregulatory,” thereby absolving them from responsibility. However, this is at odds with language elsewhere in the CAA:

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe … standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. [Section 202(a)(1)]

The growing presence of greenhouse gases is one of the gravest environmental threats of our time. EPA has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect our health and environment from the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Industry alone cannot be expected to reduce emissions without regulatory intervention.

Posted by Matt Madia, 03:59:05 PM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Latest Watcher
Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Reg policy articles this time:

Opposition to Dudley as Regulatory Czar Mounts

A Senate committee recently announced a hearing for Nov. 13 to consider the nomination of Susan Dudley to be the head of the White House's regulatory office. The Dudley nomination has created a firestorm of protest from organizations representing workers, environmental issues, consumer protections, and other public interest concerns.

Ballot Initiative Threatens Regulatory Protections

November ballot initiatives in six states would force state governments to provide compensation for lost property value as a result of regulation or be forced to waive the regulatory protection.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 10:32:35 PM

Monday, October 23, 2006

Dudley Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 13

The Homeland Security and Goverment Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the White House's nomination of Susan Dudley to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Nov. 13. During her time as head of regulatory policy for the Mercatus Center, Dudley racked up a pretty extensive anti-regulatory record, opposing regulations to get arsenic out of drinking water, reduce smog levels and make cars more fuel efficient.

You can help oppose the nomination of Susan Dudley by contacting your senators! Contact them today and tell them you oppose the nomination of Susan Dudley and they should too.

Find out more about how Susan Dudley could wreak havoc on the public protections you care about by reading our report, The Cost is Too High. You can also stay on top of the latest news on the nomination by visiting the DudleyWatch section of our website.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 10:34:14 PM

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Stop Susan Dudley Now!
The Bush administration is on the attack -- again. This time, it's with the nomination of Susan Dudley as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA is an important regulatory agency that reviews everything from auto safety standards to limits on industrial chemicals and air and water pollutants.

Susan Dudley would cripple OIRA. As director of regulatory studies at the industry-funded Mercatus Center, she opposed countless environmental, health and safety rules, including:

EPA's attempts to keep arsenic out of drinking water and lower levels of disease-causing smog;
NHTSA's life-saving air bag regulations and the Department of Transportation?s hours-of-service rules to keep sleep-deprived truck drivers off the roads; and
energy regulation, the roll-back of which has led to skyrocketing prices.

Write your Representative and stop Susan Dudley now!

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 03:41:09 PM

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Politics in Science: Soot Edition
A New York Times editorial on Saturday explains how--and perhaps why--EPA has once again ignored scientific experts in favor of politically expedient solutions:

At issue were so-called fine particles, tiny specks of soot that are less than one-thirtieth the diameter of a human hair. They penetrate deep into the lungs and circulatory system and have been implicated in tens of thousands of deaths annually from both respiratory and coronary disease. The E.P.A., obliged under the Clean Air Act to set new exposure levels every five years, tightened the daily standard. But it left unchanged the annual standard, which affects chronic exposure and which the medical community regards as more important.
In so doing, the agency rejected the recommendation of its own staff scientists and even that of its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, a 22-member group of outside experts that had recommended a significant tightening of the standards. Stephen Johnson, the agency administrator, claimed there was “insufficient evidence” linking health problems to long-term exposure. He added that “wherever the science gave us a clear picture, we took clear action,” noting also that “there was not complete agreement on the standard.”

Instead of protecting those exposed to dangerous levels of soot, Johnson has chosen instead to protect the bottomline of powerful industries, which would have to spend a pretty penny to get up to standard. If EPA fulfilled its mandate to keep the air clean and the people who breath it healthy, it would choose to implement a protective standard and not wait for absolute consensus before acting. The cost of waiting for perfect information can be far too great.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 12:59:01 PM

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Is FDA Ready for Nanotechnology?
While nanotechnology could provide some exciting innovations, its impact on people is still largely unknown. As we pointed out last year, some scientists believe nanotechnology could pose risks similar to ultrafine particles released through combustion and welding, which are known to cause a range of health problems that include respiratory and cardiac ailments. But while scientists are still investigating the health effects of nanoparticles, industry is already rushing to get new nanotech products on the market.

Now a new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts in partnership and the Wilson Center for International Scholars says FDA may be ill-equipped to regulate this emerging field. With an ever-shrinking budget and ambiguous legal authority, FDA may not be able to properly evaluate new nanotechnology products before they reach consumers.

Gaps exist in FDA’s legal tool kit. FDA implements a venerable old consumer protection law, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FDC) Act, that has stood the test of time in many respects and has retained its resilience through significant amendments since first being enacted in 1938. Nanotechnology does reveal gaps in FDA’s legal tool kit. While there is not a need to start from scratch in providing FDA the legal tools it require to regulate the products of nanotechnology, those gaps do need to be filled if FDA is to provide the oversight people expect. The report analyzes the FDC Act with nanotechnology in mind, identifies gaps, and recommends ways to close them.
FDA lacks necessary resources. The larger issue affecting FDA’s readiness for nanotechnology is resources. For the past decade or more, FDA’s resource base and overall capacity have been eroded by the pressure of increasing demands and costs of doing business coupled with the failure of Congress and successive administrations to adequately fund even base operations. Just to be able to do what it was doing in 1996 and continue the new activities mandated for it since then, FDA’s 2006 budget would have to be 49% greater than it is. Under the President’s proposed 2007 budget for FDA, the funding gap between responsibilities and capacity will grow again, to 56%. This harsh budget reality is a real threat to FDA’s ability to effectively oversee nanotechnology. It means among other things that FDA lacks the resources it needs to build its own expertise, to develop the safety-testing protocols and detection methods needed to evaluate new nanotechnology products, to conduct its own risk research, to gather the necessary premarket data required to get ahead of commercialization and to oversee products after they have entered the market.

FDA held its first major meeting on nanotechnology Tuesday.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 10:42:58 PM

Scientists Resign in Protest of Advisory Panel
Three scientists resigned from an EPA advisory committee panel reviewing the management of chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Richard Dension, senior scientist for Environmental Defense, Joseph Guth, executive director of the California League of Environmental Enforcement Now, and Joel Tickner, assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote a joint resignation letter to the National Pollution Prevention & Toxics Advisory Committee, complaining that the commission was slanted towards industry and failed to address the systemic problems hampering EPA's management of toxic chemicals. According to a report by BNA's Daily Report for Executives (subscription-only), the three environmentalists' efforts to look at larger management issues were stymied by the committee.

"Our main interest in joining the committee, and we believe its essential mandate, was to examine the systematic, structural challenges EPA faces in assessing and managing chemicals under TSCA," the three noted.
In their resignation letter, the three individuals said they had made recommendations that they thought would improve OPPT's management of chemicals.
"However, NPPTAC has been unable or unwilling meaningfully to consider these systemic, structural problems or ideas of the kind we brought forward," they wrote.
"One reason is that OPPT itself has shown considerable reluctance to acknowledge and confront limitations in its approaches to implementing its authorities and carrying out its chemicals assessment and management functions," they continued. "As a result, we have found that EPA discourages, rather than encourages, a full, open exploration of how it could approach these issues differently, even over the long term."
The committee is weighted excessively toward the chemical industry, the advocates wrote.

The story is also reported here.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 10:19:41 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues